The Topps Finest Will Middlebrooks saga continues... [Archive]

rob11nats

01-24-2014, 04:55 PM

My little brother was thrilled when the mail came today and there was a white envelope from Topps. He knew instantly what it was - "I've been waiting more than a year for this!!" (which is true, he sold a nice pull on eBay last Christmas, bought the Middlebrooks redemption with some of the proceeds, and redeemed it immediately).

Luckily he was already prepared for Ryan Sweeney being on the card, since I showed him the other thread. But somehow who are responsible for Topps' redemptions managed to disappoint him even further:

http://i948.photobucket.com/albums/ad325/rob11nats/IMG_1076_zpse98fb33c.jpg (http://s948.photobucket.com/user/rob11nats/media/IMG_1076_zpse98fb33c.jpg.html)

(In case you can't tell from the first picture, they didn't even send him a refractor, they sent him a base card):

http://i948.photobucket.com/albums/ad325/rob11nats/IMG_1077_zps46828b2c.jpg (http://s948.photobucket.com/user/rob11nats/media/IMG_1077_zps46828b2c.jpg.html)

So just to recap:
1) After over a year of waiting, Topps puts Middlebrooks' auto on a card picturing Ryan Sweeney
2) Topps adds a plain white jersey swatch to the card
3) Topps sends my brother a base card when he was owed a refractor

This is the last straw for me. I won't be buying another Topps product - pack or single - until they make this right for my little brother AND fulfill every single outstanding redemption I have. Good riddance.

tjenkins

01-24-2014, 05:01 PM

Man,that is extemely sad. You know that commercial when all the monkeys run around throwing stuff and hollering. That is what I think about Topps, when I here this crap.

death2redemptions

01-24-2014, 05:05 PM

Natitude

01-24-2014, 05:10 PM

Xfractor is the first numbered card. I believe Topps got it right.

rob11nats

01-24-2014, 05:11 PM

Xfractor is the first numbered card. I believe Topps got it right.

It's not about the numbering - take a look at the card in the first picture, it's clearly not a refractor. Any refracting you see is only from the auto sticker, not the card, which doesn't shine like a refractor is supposed to.

Clarkandlewis

01-24-2014, 05:43 PM

With 2012 finest I believe with these auto/relics "refractor" generally refers to the unnumbered base version unless it is a color - green /199 orange /99 gold /50 red /25 - refractor. I could be wrong.

This is correct. "Refractor" refers to the base version. Topps actually got this right.

death2redemptions

01-24-2014, 05:45 PM

It's not about the numbering - take a look at the card in the first picture, it's clearly not a refractor. Any refracting you see is only from the auto sticker, not the card, which doesn't shine like a refractor is supposed to.

Yeah, it is misleading listing it as refractor when it clearly isn't. I could understand being upset with that after waiting for the card over a year.

chrisxacosta

01-24-2014, 06:08 PM

It's not about the numbering - take a look at the card in the first picture, it's clearly not a refractor. Any refracting you see is only from the auto sticker, not the card, which doesn't shine like a refractor is supposed to.

send me ur address ill send him a 2013 TRIPLE THREADS AUTO RELIC to make up for this mess.

chris

Cubs

01-24-2014, 06:12 PM

Disappointment created by topps again, what do ya know

Natitude

01-24-2014, 07:40 PM

jmscoggin

01-24-2014, 07:41 PM

Xfractor is the first numbered card. I believe Topps got it right.

If by putting a Will Middlebrooks auto on a Ryan Sweeny card is getting "it right" than yep, nailed it. :rolleyes:

Madrid1028

01-24-2014, 07:47 PM

If by putting a Will Middlebrooks auto on a Ryan Sweeny card is getting "it right" than yep, nailed it. :rolleyes:

Yeah i know I dont know how many people above dont get it

death2redemptions

01-24-2014, 07:55 PM

Yeah i know I dont know how many people above dont get it

While I supercollect Freddie Freeman, if Topps made an autographed card of his and had Dan Uggla on the picture I sure as heck would not buy it.

jmscoggin

01-24-2014, 07:59 PM

While I supercollect Freddie Freeman, if Topps made an autographed card of his and had Dan Uggla on the picture I sure as heck would not buy it.

Man I so want to agree with you on this and do in theory BUT my ocd would force me to buy one anyways just for the sake of the pc. I wouldn' pay much but I would buy one. I would hate the card but would still pick one up. None of this excuses the fact that it happened.

death2redemptions

01-24-2014, 08:12 PM

Man I so want to agree with you on this and do in theory BUT my ocd would force me to buy one anyways just for the sake of the pc. I wouldn' pay much but I would buy one. I would hate the card but would still pick one up. None of this excuses the fact that it happened.

I know what you are saying but I'm pretty picky when it comes to those little things. For instance, when Justin Upton was traded to the Braves I wanted to pick up an autograph of his soooo bad but I wouldn't until they made a card of his with a Braves uniform.

jmscoggin

01-24-2014, 08:30 PM

I know what you are saying but I'm pretty picky when it comes to those little things. For instance, when Justin Upton was traded to the Braves I wanted to pick up an autograph of his soooo bad but I wouldn't until they made a card of his with a Braves uniform.

I'm picky too. I guess what helps me is that I'm an Angels fan. That helps with Stanton as it doesn't matter where he goes I'll still buy. Would obviously be a perfect scenario if he was traded to the Angels but it isn't going to happen. Texas would be my next choice as I'm 15 minutes from the ballpark and he would hit 100 hr's a year in that thing.

Op, sorry to hijack the thread. Tough luck on that thing, Topps sucks.

Thommy

01-24-2014, 08:30 PM

send me ur address ill send him a 2013 TRIPLE THREADS AUTO RELIC to make up for this mess.

chris

^^^ Nice guy

enyouartist

01-24-2014, 11:19 PM

If by putting a Will Middlebrooks auto on a Ryan Sweeny card is getting "it right" than yep, nailed it. :rolleyes:

Haha nailed it.

chrisxacosta

01-25-2014, 02:20 AM

card already in the mail bud

rob11nats

01-25-2014, 08:19 AM

card already in the mail bud

This is an awesome member right here, guys. My bro is gonna be thrilled when he gets it. Thanks again times a million.

Thanks to everyone else for the comments - I'm a little calmer today, hoping if I can get someone from Topps on the phone next week they'll explain it to me and maybe send my brother something else to make up for his year-long wait.

Also, I tried an eBay search and couldn't really come up with an answer to the question we were discussing earlier in the thread: does anyone know for sure if the 2012 Finest "refractor" auto jumbo jersey cards are supposed to be real refractors?

lazygambler

01-25-2014, 08:26 AM

card already in the mail bud

I know your not looking for praise, but that is a really cool thing you did. Kudos sir

briscogun

01-25-2014, 08:32 AM

You could try hitting Topps up on Twitter, too. I hear they are actually responsive that way (since everyone following them can see). Good luck!

And a big BO shoutout to chrisxacosta! You are Da Man! :)!

jlzinck

01-25-2014, 10:07 AM

This is an awesome member right here, guys. My bro is gonna be thrilled when he gets it. Thanks again times a million.

Thanks to everyone else for the comments - I'm a little calmer today, hoping if I can get someone from Topps on the phone next week they'll explain it to me and maybe send my brother something else to make up for his year-long wait.
Also, I tried an eBay search and couldn't really come up with an answer to the question we were discussing earlier in the thread: does anyone know for sure if the 2012 Finest "refractor" auto jumbo jersey cards are supposed to be real refractors?

So wait...you get the card you want. A great member sends you something for free and now you are going to try to get something else for free because of a wait time.

What a fine upstanding person you are:)!

rob11nats

01-25-2014, 10:46 AM

So wait...you get the card you want. A great member sends you something for free and now you are going to try to get something else for free because of a wait time.

What a fine upstanding person you are:)!

First of all, he's not sending something to me for free, he's sending it to my 11 year old brother. If it was my own card that Topps up (twice), I wouldn't be half as upset, I'd just chalk it up to Topps sucking yet again, and maybe pester them with a halfhearted complaint email.

Second of all, you're just wrong - my brother didn't get the card he wanted or, more importantly, the card that he was owed. Look at the picture I posted above. His redemption card quite clearly states it's for a refractor, and the card Topps sent him is absolutely not a refractor.

Finally, the fact that Chris is a total boss and wants to send my brother an awesome card (that he's going to love, by the way) has nothing to do with the fact that Topps didn't send my brother the card they promised him.

ChicagoCubsWS

01-25-2014, 10:54 AM

First of all, he's not sending something to me for free, he's sending it to my 11 year old brother. If it was my own card that Topps up (twice), I wouldn't be half as upset, I'd just chalk it up to Topps sucking yet again, and maybe pester them with a halfhearted complaint email.

Second of all, you're just wrong - my brother didn't get the card he wanted or, more importantly, the card that he was owed. Look at the picture I posted above. His redemption card quite clearly states it's for a refractor, and the card Topps sent him is absolutely not a refractor.

Finally, the fact that Chris is a total boss and wants to send my brother an awesome card (that he's going to love, by the way) has nothing to do with the fact that Topps didn't send my brother the card they promised him.

You are dense.

Topps Finest DOESNT HAVE BASE AUTO/RELIC CARDS. THE REFRACTOR IS THE BASE VERSION OF THEM.

When you see Refractor on your redemption, it means base essentially. And yes, theres no numbering on refractors. It starts with XFractors.

http://www.comc.com/Cards/Baseball/2012/Finest_Rookie_Jumbo_Relic_Autographs_Refractors

All of these backs looks exactly the same as yours. You got the right card.

rob11nats

01-25-2014, 10:58 AM

You are dense.

Topps Finest DOESNT HAVE BASE AUTO/RELIC CARDS. THE REFRACTOR IS THE BASE VERSION OF THEM.

When you see Refractor on your redemption, it means base essentially. And yes, theres no numbering on refractors. It starts with XFractors.

You're clearly misunderstanding me. I am aware that "refractor" = "base" and that his card was not supposed to be serial numbered. This has NOTHING to do with serial numbering. What I'm telling you is that the card they sent him is not a refractor. To put it in words you may understand, his card no shine.

Just to make sure I wasn't wrong about this, I did a quick ebay search:
Jesus Montero 2012 Topps Finest Refractor Rookie RC Auto Autograph Jersey SP | eBay (http://www.ebay.com/itm/JESUS-MONTERO-2012-TOPPS-FINEST-REFRACTOR-ROOKIE-RC-AUTO-AUTOGRAPH-JERSEY-SP-/200830808223?pt=US_Baseball&hash=item2ec272f09f&nma=true&si=yzlkUEdx%252Br7FCRr3tkWaUGXXd9A%253D&orig_cvip=true&rt=nc&_trksid=p2047675.l2557)

2012 Topps Finest Brett Lawrie Jumbo Jersey Auto Refractor | eBay (http://www.ebay.com/itm/2012-Topps-Finest-Brett-Lawrie-Jumbo-Jersey-Auto-Refractor-/321284213837?pt=US_Baseball&hash=item4ace080c4d)

Jordany Valdespin 2012 Topps Finest Refractor Rookie Auto Jumbo Jersey Y7261 | eBay (http://www.ebay.com/itm/JORDANY-VALDESPIN-2012-TOPPS-FINEST-REFRACTOR-ROOKIE-AUTO-JUMBO-JERSEY-Y7261-/360843104977?pt=US_Baseball&hash=item5403ecd2d1)

All three of these are base refractors. BUT THEY ARE REFRACTORS. I feel like a broken record here. Look at the picture I posted above. The card they sent him is NOT a refractor.

ChicagoCubsWS

01-25-2014, 10:59 AM

You're clearly misunderstanding me. I am aware that "refractor" = "base" and that his card was not supposed to be serial numbered. This has NOTHING to do with serial numbering. What I'm telling you is that the card they sent him is not a refractor. To put it in words you may understand, his card no shine.

Just to make sure I wasn't wrong about this, I did a quick ebay search:
Jesus Montero 2012 Topps Finest Refractor Rookie RC Auto Autograph Jersey SP | eBay (http://www.ebay.com/itm/JESUS-MONTERO-2012-TOPPS-FINEST-REFRACTOR-ROOKIE-RC-AUTO-AUTOGRAPH-JERSEY-SP-/200830808223?pt=US_Baseball&hash=item2ec272f09f&nma=true&si=yzlkUEdx%252Br7FCRr3tkWaUGXXd9A%253D&orig_cvip=true&rt=nc&_trksid=p2047675.l2557)

2012 Topps Finest Brett Lawrie Jumbo Jersey Auto Refractor | eBay (http://www.ebay.com/itm/2012-Topps-Finest-Brett-Lawrie-Jumbo-Jersey-Auto-Refractor-/321284213837?pt=US_Baseball&hash=item4ace080c4d)

Jordany Valdespin 2012 Topps Finest Refractor Rookie Auto Jumbo Jersey Y7261 | eBay (http://www.ebay.com/itm/JORDANY-VALDESPIN-2012-TOPPS-FINEST-REFRACTOR-ROOKIE-AUTO-JUMBO-JERSEY-Y7261-/360843104977?pt=US_Baseball&hash=item5403ecd2d1)

All three of these are base refractors. BUT THEY ARE REFRACTORS. I feel like a broken record here. Look at the picture I posted above. The card they sent him is NOT a refractor.

2012 Finest Rookie Jumbo Relic Autographs Refractors Baseball Cards - COMC (http://www.comc.com/Cards/Baseball/2012/Finest_Rookie_Jumbo_Relic_Autographs_Refractors)

Its the correct card.

rob11nats

01-25-2014, 11:04 AM

2012 Finest Rookie Jumbo Relic Autographs Refractors Baseball Cards - COMC (http://www.comc.com/Cards/Baseball/2012/Finest_Rookie_Jumbo_Relic_Autographs_Refractors)

Its the correct card.

OKAY, once more:
-His redemption was for an "autographed rookie jumbo relic refractor"
-I am aware, as is everyone in the world thanks to your repeated posts, that the base version of the 2012 Topps Finest cards are "refractors" and that he was, in fact, entitled to what is effectively a base card.
-However, the card they sent him is NOT a refractor. I simply called it a "base" card in my OP for lack of a better term to differentiate it as a card that doesn't shine like a refractor is supposed to.
-I can see that all the other COMC cards you linked to don't say "refractor" on the back. Again, I'm sure you're not wrong that they intended to send him the right card. But you're missing the point - whether or not the card he got is supposed to be a refractor, it isn't one.

ChicagoCubsWS

01-25-2014, 11:06 AM

OKAY, once more:
-His redemption was for an "autographed rookie jumbo relic refractor"
-I am aware, as is everyone in the world thanks to your repeated posts, that the base version of the 2012 Topps Finest cards are "refractors" and that he was, in fact, entitled to what is effectively a base card.
-However, the card they sent him is NOT a refractor. I simply called it a "base" card in my OP for lack of a better term to differentiate it as a card that doesn't shine like a refractor is supposed to.
-I can see that all the other COMC cards you linked to don't say "refractor" on the back. Again, I'm sure you're not wrong that they intended to send him the right card. But you're missing the point - whether or not the card he got is supposed to be a refractor, it isn't one.

They sent him the right card. End of story. Like I said in your PM you decided was necessary to send me, perhaps they used a different surface to make his card but there is no reason to try and get more freebies out of Topps.

rob11nats

01-25-2014, 11:10 AM

Then its a manufacturing problem. There is no need to try to get another out of Topps. Perhaps they made the cards different for refractor on Middlebrooks then others.

People like you are sometimes whats wrong with the hobby. And theres no need to PM me.

Okay, since you don't feel like getting PM's, I'll reply here.

Frankly, I can't believe that you're defending Topps in this case. You're almost certainly correct that it's a manufacturing problem, but let me get this straight: Topps takes over 1 year to make a redemption card. Then they put the WRONG PLAYER'S picture on the card. Then to top it off, they also make a manufacturing problem so that the card isn't as visually appealing as it ought to be, and all of this is okay with you?!?!

People like YOU are what's wrong with the hobby. I collect because it's something fun to share with my little brother and for us to do together. I'm sure all you're concerned with is whether you can buy a card and flip it at a profit, but there are still people who collect cards and rip packs more for the fun than as a business.

ChicagoCubsWS

01-25-2014, 11:12 AM

Okay, since you don't feel like getting PM's, I'll reply here.

Frankly, I can't believe that you're defending Topps in this case. You're almost certainly correct that it's a manufacturing problem, but let me get this straight: Topps takes over 1 year to make a redemption card. Then they put the WRONG PLAYER'S picture on the card. Then to top it off, they also make a manufacturing problem so that the card isn't as visually appealing as it ought to be, and all of this is okay with you?!?!

People like YOU are what's wrong with the hobby. I collect because it's something fun to share with my little brother and for us to do together. I'm sure all you're concerned with is whether you can buy a card and flip it at a profit, but there are still people who collect cards and rip packs more for the fun than as a business.

Not true at all. I have multiples of these card at home and I am not calling Topps demanding them to be remade or replaced.

jlzinck

01-25-2014, 11:46 AM

Okay, since you don't feel like getting PM's, I'll reply here.

Frankly, I can't believe that you're defending Topps in this case. You're almost certainly correct that it's a manufacturing problem, but let me get this straight: Topps takes over 1 year to make a redemption card. Then they put the WRONG PLAYER'S picture on the card. Then to top it off, they also make a manufacturing problem so that the card isn't as visually appealing as it ought to be, and all of this is okay with you?!?!

People like YOU are what's wrong with the hobby. I collect because it's something fun to share with my little brother and for us to do together. I'm sure all you're concerned with is whether you can buy a card and flip it at a profit, but there are still people who collect cards and rip packs more for the fun than as a business.

Says the guy who is going to try to extort something out of Topps even though he got the card that was on the redemption ALONG with a free card from a member.

rob11nats

01-25-2014, 02:00 PM

Says the guy who is going to try to extort something out of Topps even though he got the card that was on the redemption ALONG with a free card from a member.

No, for about the tenth time, my brother didn't get the card that was on the redemption. It says "refractor." His card is not a refractor.

jlzinck

01-25-2014, 02:55 PM

Man I can't imagine the hissy fit you would have thrown had you received this....

2012 Topps Finest Bryce Harper Jumbo Relic Auto Autograph Refractor Rookie Card | eBay (http://www.ebay.com/itm/2012-Topps-Finest-Bryce-Harper-Jumbo-Relic-Auto-Autograph-Refractor-Rookie-Card-/251416524098?pt=US_Baseball&hash=item3a8997b542&nma=true&si=DGA274zbKcIDWqP6J7Vys8hjaOM%253D&orig_cvip=true&rt=nc&_trksid=p2047675.l2557)

Same as the Middlebrooks...word for word on the back....

But please keep calling yours a "base" as there was never a base one produced.

jmscoggin

01-25-2014, 02:59 PM

death2redemptions

01-25-2014, 03:03 PM

Okay, since you don't feel like getting PM's, I'll reply here.

Frankly, I can't believe that you're defending Topps in this case. You're almost certainly correct that it's a manufacturing problem, but let me get this straight: Topps takes over 1 year to make a redemption card. Then they put the WRONG PLAYER'S picture on the card. Then to top it off, they also make a manufacturing problem so that the card isn't as visually appealing as it ought to be, and all of this is okay with you?!?!

People like YOU are what's wrong with the hobby. I collect because it's something fun to share with my little brother and for us to do together. I'm sure all you're concerned with is whether you can buy a card and flip it at a profit, but there are still people who collect cards and rip packs more for the fun than as a business.

I'm wondering what it is exactly that makes ChicagoCubsWS bad for this hobby? All it seems he is trying to do is explain to you that they sent you the correct card, while not actually shiny like a "refractor", still the equivalent as one in this particular product. The card wouldn't be anymore valuable had it been shiny like refractor. I understand that the value isn't of your brothers concern (refractor would be more appeasing to the eyes) but I don't see what it is that makes ChicagoCubs WS "bad for the hobby".

imnotded

01-25-2014, 03:03 PM

So if the redemption said "superfractor" but they didn't actually make one for finest you would be okay with not getting a superfractor? The OP have a very valid complaint IMO.

Andrew Jones

01-25-2014, 03:05 PM

Is that you Dave Peters?

Metsfan1121

01-25-2014, 03:08 PM

So if the redemption said "superfractor" but they didn't actually make one for finest you would be okay with not getting a superfractor? The OP have a very valid complaint IMO.

+1
If you received a blue refractor redemption and they decided to make red refractors instead with the same serial number would you care?

jlzinck

01-25-2014, 03:08 PM

I'm gonna buy one of these and sue Topps so I can show my little brother the correct way to do things.

XL5

01-25-2014, 03:09 PM

No, for about the tenth time, my brother didn't get the card that was on the redemption. It says "refractor." His card is not a refractor.

It also says "from 2012 Topps Finest Baseball." That is a 2012 Topps Finest Refractor.

If your argument is that the entire set is mislabled, sure. One could also make the case that the "jumbo relics" are half the size of "jumbo relics" from other releases. But that doesn't mean your brother got the wrong card. He was expecting the wrong card.

death2redemptions

01-25-2014, 03:11 PM

So if the redemption said "superfractor" but they didn't actually make one for finest you would be okay with not getting a superfractor? The OP have a very valid complaint IMO.

Well the difference is a superfractor is a 1/1. As long as they sent me a card that was 1/1 I wouldn't get too bent out of shape over it. Of course I would be a little angered over it simply because superfractors are the most popular cards out there these days. Whether the redemption said "base" or "refractor" they would still both have same production run. Once again, I'd rather have it shiny like a refractor but I wouldn't feel the need to contact Topps to get something from them.

XL5

01-25-2014, 03:13 PM

People like YOU are what's wrong with the hobby. I collect because it's something fun to share with my little brother and for us to do together. I'm sure all you're concerned with is whether you can buy a card and flip it at a profit, but there are still people who collect cards and rip packs more for the fun than as a business.
Well, except when flipping is part of the fun?
(which is true, he sold a nice pull on eBay last Christmas, bought the Middlebrooks redemption with some of the proceeds, and redeemed it immediately).

The bottom line is that redemptions suck. You are gambling everytime you enter a code. As someone who apparently breaks and flips, he should know that. If you really want to collect, buy singles of cards that exist. It's the only way to be sure.

rob11nats

01-25-2014, 03:16 PM

It also says "from 2012 Topps Finest Baseball." That is a 2012 Topps Finest Refractor.

If your argument is that the entire set is mislabled, sure. One could also make the case that the "jumbo relics" are half the size of "jumbo relics" from other releases. But that doesn't mean your brother got the wrong card. He was expecting the wrong card.

No, this still isn't correct. I'm not sure how some of you are still misunderstanding what happened.

Someone posted a link to a Harper Finest on eBay above. It's quite clear in that eBay picture that the Harper is a refractor. As in, the light hits the card, and it refracts the light. Also, as in every other refractor card you've ever seen made by Topps, ever.

I also understand that the "base" 2012 Topps Finest auto jumbo patch RC cards are actually refractors. What I'm saying is that his card is not a refractor. It does NOT look like the Harper that was posted above. The card stock on the Middlebrooks is that of a base card; in other words, not a refractor.

For about the 100th time: my brother expected to receive a REFRACTOR card, and he did not get one.

37Jetson

01-25-2014, 03:18 PM

Is that you Dave Peters?

Crap, you beat me to it :devil:

imnotded

01-25-2014, 03:27 PM

If they didn't make refractors, why is there a link to a Harper refractor above?

jlzinck

01-25-2014, 03:32 PM

If they didn't make refractors, why is there a link to a Harper refractor above?

The Harper is the same level as the Middlebrooks. His is not as shiny and he's pissy because the picture is not Middlebrooks (gee THAT's never happened before) and it took a year to get to him.

His is using this as extortion because he is not happy.

No More no less

rob11nats

01-25-2014, 03:33 PM

If they didn't make refractors, why is there a link to a Harper refractor above?

Haha, exactly!!! That's what I've been saying all along! At least someone understands what I'm talking about. There's also another link some idiot posted to COMC that showed there were more refractors of a ton of other players.

centereacan06

01-25-2014, 03:39 PM

Put some glue and glitter on the card.

Then it will be very shiny :D

imnotded

01-25-2014, 03:48 PM

The Harper is the same level as the Middlebrooks. His is not as shiny and he's pissy because the picture is not Middlebrooks (gee THAT's never happened before) and it took a year to get to him.

His is using this as extortion because he is not happy.

No More no less

He is not happy because the redemption says refractor and he didn't get one. Yes I realize that they didn't make a refractor for him, but that does not mean that he should not expect a refractor if that's what the redemption says.

ChicagoCubsWS

01-25-2014, 03:50 PM

Haha, exactly!!! That's what I've been saying all along! At least someone understands what I'm talking about. There's also another link some idiot posted to COMC that showed there were more refractors of a ton of other players.

How am I an idiot for proving you wrong?

ChicagoCubsWS

01-25-2014, 03:50 PM

Did mommy not show you enough attention as a little boy (last week) or too much?

You have the same card as the Harper. It is a manufacturing issue. As with all manufacturing issues you have 2 choices-
1. Keep it
2. Return it for the "correct" version if it can be made.

Calling them to extort something extra out of it is not a choice.

Great role model for your brother. :rolleyes:

Thank you Jon.

Andrew Jones

01-25-2014, 06:27 PM

Unless they specifically told us that they sent it to him intentionally to make up for the year-long wait, you're damn right I'd make him send it back.

So now you're sending the Middlebrooks non-refractor back to Topps? That seems reasonable. I think the problem people had was with the notion of calling Topps and trying to get more product in addition to the Middlebrooks they sent you. Good on you for realizing that would be poor form.

rob11nats

01-25-2014, 06:28 PM

So now you're sending the Middlebrooks non-refractor back to Topps? That seems reasonable. I think the problem people had was with the notion of calling Topps and trying to get more product in addition to the Middlebrooks they sent you. Good on you for realizing that was poor form.

That's not what I said. Truth be told I don't know if we'll end up sending this one back or not. It depends what they tell us when we call about a wait time on a replacement. This card only came in yesterday and by the time we got the mail their CS was closed.

Andrew Jones

01-25-2014, 06:33 PM

That's not what I said. Truth be told I don't know if we'll end up sending this one back or not. It depends what they tell us when we call about a wait time on a replacement. This card only came in yesterday and by the time we got the mail their CS was closed.

Well my post mysteriously disappeared but when I asked you if you'd do the same thing if Topps sent your brother a Middlebrooks superfractor, I could have sworn you said you'd have him send it back unless Topps clearly stated they intended to send that card to your brother. Calling Topps and shaking them down for free product because they didn't send what you expected isn't the same as returning the card.

izybone

01-25-2014, 06:36 PM

So let me get this straight. Your refractor does not refract?

rob11nats

01-25-2014, 06:39 PM

Well my post mysteriously disappeared but when I asked you if you'd do the same thing if Topps sent your brother a Middlebrooks superfractor, I could have sworn you said you'd have him send it back unless Topps clearly stated they intended to send that card to your brother. Calling Topps and shaking them down for free product because they didn't send what you expected isn't the same as returning the card.

Yeah, I did say that, but it's not the same situation. Sending back the super is about honesty. Demanding that Topps send him the card he was promised (or something satisfactorily alternative or in addition to make up for it), is a totally different thing in my eyes. It has little to do with honesty - it's not like Topps intentionally produced the cards as non-refractors - but it has everything to do with being willing to demand what you're owed when someone doesn't give it to you.

rob11nats

01-25-2014, 06:40 PM

So let me get this straight. Your refractor does not refract?

Haha, yes, this is basically correct. But you also should know that Topps took over 1 year to fulfill the redemption, AND they put the WRONG player's picture on the card. It's a comedy of errors.

DSizzle31

01-25-2014, 06:43 PM

rob11nats

01-25-2014, 06:47 PM

So what is the ability to refract light worth? This request seems ridiculous.

It's not about that, that was just the last straw in an already ridiculous process.

But to answer your question, quite a bit:
1993 Topps Finest Nolan Ryan 107 | eBay (http://www.ebay.com/itm/1993-Topps-Finest-Nolan-Ryan-107-/181304070546?pt=US_Baseball&hash=item2a36909192&nma=true&si=yzlkUEdx%252Br7FCRr3tkWaUGXXd9A%253D&orig_cvip=true&rt=nc&_trksid=p2047675.l2557)

1993 Topps Finest All Star Refractor 107 Nolan Ryan Texas Rangers HOF | eBay (http://www.ebay.com/itm/1993-Topps-Finest-All-Star-Refractor-107-Nolan-Ryan-Texas-Rangers-HOF-/380792489633?pt=US_Baseball&hash=item58a90046a1&nma=true&si=yzlkUEdx%252Br7FCRr3tkWaUGXXd9A%253D&orig_cvip=true&rt=nc&_trksid=p2047675.l2557)

Andrew Jones

01-25-2014, 06:47 PM

Yeah, I did say that, but it's not the same situation. Sending back the super is about honesty. Demanding that Topps send him the card he was promised (or something satisfactorily alternative or in addition to make up for it), is a totally different thing in my eyes. It has little to do with honesty - it's not like Topps intentionally produced the cards as non-refractors - but it has everything to do with being willing to demand what you're owed when someone doesn't give it to you.

Well in both scenarios he didn't get what he expected. It seems like the real issue isn't not getting what he expected, but rather that you believe what he received is of a lesser value which entitles you to some sort of additional compensation from Topps. Good luck with that. I hope nobody ever gives you or your brother 5 nickels when you're expecting a quarter. That could get ugly.

armyatc22

01-25-2014, 06:47 PM

37Jetson

01-25-2014, 06:47 PM

The customer is always right. Where have I heard this before?

centereacan06

01-25-2014, 06:48 PM

I say you just take off the sticker, take out the relic, and send the two to one of the members who make amazing custom booklets on here. I'm sure your brother would treasure that a lot more.

centereacan06

01-25-2014, 06:48 PM

It's not about that, that was just the last straw in an already ridiculous process.

But to answer your question, quite a bit:
1993 Topps Finest Nolan Ryan 107 | eBay (http://www.ebay.com/itm/1993-Topps-Finest-Nolan-Ryan-107-/181304070546?pt=US_Baseball&hash=item2a36909192&nma=true&si=yzlkUEdx%252Br7FCRr3tkWaUGXXd9A%253D&orig_cvip=true&rt=nc&_trksid=p2047675.l2557)

1993 Topps Finest All Star Refractor 107 Nolan Ryan Texas Rangers HOF | eBay (http://www.ebay.com/itm/1993-Topps-Finest-All-Star-Refractor-107-Nolan-Ryan-Texas-Rangers-HOF-/380792489633?pt=US_Baseball&hash=item58a90046a1&nma=true&si=yzlkUEdx%252Br7FCRr3tkWaUGXXd9A%253D&orig_cvip=true&rt=nc&_trksid=p2047675.l2557)

Well, in this case, obviously. The refractor is much rarer. In your case, the rarity wouldn't be any different, just the look of the card.

rob11nats

01-25-2014, 06:51 PM

I can't believe your so livid over the "refractor" issue and not the fact that ITS NOT Middlebrooks in the picture

Also from your OP:

This is the last straw for me. I won't be buying another Topps product - pack or single - until they make this right for my little brother AND fulfill every single outstanding redemption I have. Good riddance.

Well with Topps having the only MLB license it looks like your Nats collection will be a lot smaller now....remember Bowman is Topps too

I'm livid over the whole thing: the wrong picture, the wrong card, and the over 1 year wait. That's absolutely ludicrous.

I've actually got my Nats binder and box out right now, snapping a few pictures. A sizable chunk of Topps ones might be finding their way into the BST forum later tonight.

izybone

01-25-2014, 07:02 PM

Haha, yes, this is basically correct. But you also should know that Topps took over 1 year to fulfill the redemption, AND they put the WRONG player's picture on the card. It's a comedy of errors.

I'd be pissed too. Like redeeming a redemption for a mini, and getting a full sized card.
Sorry to say it, but Topps doesn't care about you, your brother, or anyone else. Actually they do care about one person...Benjamin Franklin.
It's big business man. I hope you learned your lesson...always sell redemptions. Unless, of course, you like having a negative experience and being unhappy.

DSizzle31

01-25-2014, 07:17 PM

I'm livid over the whole thing: the wrong picture, the wrong card, and the over 1 year wait. That's absolutely ludicrous.

I think this sums it up. You're livid. I bet your brother isn't. I have a seven year old who collects. In his Christmas box of Finest this year, he pulled an Aaron Hicks orange refractor jumbo relic auto redemption.

If Topps accidentally makes all the Hicks orange autos "non-shiny", he won't notice unless I point it out to him. When it comes if it is auto'd and it is orange, he'll be excited. Kids take their cues from us. Parents or older brothers, it doesn't matter. You're getting worked up about something that is NOT a big deal. If all the Middlebrooks refractor autos were shiny EXCEPT yours, then I could see being upset. If they're all the same, then it is what it is. In life, if you teach your brother to get worked up over nonsense like this, I think you're only adding to his stress levels.

Ajax1723

01-25-2014, 07:26 PM

I guess I'm just failing to see the big deal, but It's not like a lower level of a card was sent.

I see this as kind of equivalent to those people that redeem a card for a prospect auto, and it comes with 60/40 centering and they are upset because the card should be shipped to them in gem mint condition because it's "straight from the factory". The card was sent to you at random, it's not like they only produced one card out of all of them that isn't a refractor. Refractor is the base version of this subset. Some refract more than others, it happens in every product. I have some Topps Chrome refractors that you can hardly notice they are refractors, but some that shine like the sun.

This is why I don't deal with redemptions, no chance to be upset when you know what you are getting, but the card delivered is the card that was supposed to come.

death2redemptions

01-25-2014, 08:37 PM

It's not about that, that was just the last straw in an already ridiculous process.

But to answer your question, quite a bit:
1993 Topps Finest Nolan Ryan 107 | eBay (http://rover.ebay.com/rover/1/711-53200-19255-0/1?campid=5335829740&toolid=10001&mpre=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ebay.com%2Fitm%2F1993-Topps-Finest-Nolan-Ryan-107-%2F181304070546%3Fpt%3DUS_Baseball%26hash%3Ditem2a36909192%26nma%3Dtrue%26si%3DyzlkUEdx%25252Br7FCRr3tkWaUGXXd9A%25253D%26orig_cvip%3Dtrue%26rt%3Dnc%26_trksid%3Dp2047675.l2557)

1993 Topps Finest All Star Refractor 107 Nolan Ryan Texas Rangers HOF | eBay (http://rover.ebay.com/rover/1/711-53200-19255-0/1?campid=5335829740&toolid=10001&mpre=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ebay.com%2Fitm%2F1993-Topps-Finest-All-Star-Refractor-107-Nolan-Ryan-Texas-Rangers-HOF-%2F380792489633%3Fpt%3DUS_Baseball%26hash%3Ditem58a90046a1%26nma%3Dtrue%26si%3DyzlkUEdx%25252Br7FCRr3tkWaUGXXd9A%25253D%26orig_cvip%3Dtrue%26rt%3Dnc%26_trksid%3Dp2047675.l2557)

Well there is a huge difference. In 1993 the refractors were much more limited than the "base" versions, therefor more valuable. In your situation with 2012 Finest, the "base" version = the "refractor" version because they are the same thing with same production run. One is not more valuable than the other because the are essentially the same thing. ALL of the "refractor" Middlebrooks auto/relics will look just like yours.

death2redemptions

01-25-2014, 08:38 PM

This is why I don't deal with redemptions, no chance to be upset when you know what you are getting, but the card delivered is the card that was supposed to come.

I am in the same boat. I will NEVER deal with redemptions. If I pull one, I sell it immediately and let someone else deal with the headache.