Topps Damage Replacement Nonsense

[cholodolo]

Originally Posted by STLtoMN

its not up for topps to decide or care about... its part of their T's & C's to replace damaged cards at like value... period end of story

what the end user does with them is of no concern to topps

It actually is up to them...as they are the ones deciding what to send...hello?

Originally Posted by STLtoMN

Update from Topps...They now agree the Bobby Miller was undervalued by $100 and are shipping a comparable card.... for the topps japan here was their valuation and notes:

Matt Olson /50 = $5
Steven Matz /50 = $2
Jo Adell /50 = $2
Ohtani /50 = $50 - Used /75 sale as benchmark
Nootbar /99 = about $5 since /50 sold for $10
Marsh /99 = under $4 since /75 sold for $3.80
Mookie /25 = $24

Shohei Ohtani (87B-1) Cherry Tree Parallel $93 based on last (6) RAW sales

clearly they dont realize the /99 sell for better than most other parallels...if anyone has any nootbaar cherry blossoms for $5 let me know

So the Ohtani Cherry Tree parallel was a good deal for you despite the whining, noted.

[vwnut13]

No, no, you're not the one for me

[bub838]

Originally Posted by STLtoMN

Update from Topps...They now agree the Bobby Miller was undervalued by $100 and are shipping a comparable card.... for the topps japan here was their valuation and notes:

Matt Olson /50 = $5
Steven Matz /50 = $2
Jo Adell /50 = $2
Ohtani /50 = $50 - Used /75 sale as benchmark
Nootbar /99 = about $5 since /50 sold for $10
Marsh /99 = under $4 since /75 sold for $3.80
Mookie /25 = $24

Shohei Ohtani (87B-1) Cherry Tree Parallel $93 based on last (6) RAW sales

clearly they dont realize the /99 sell for better than most other parallels...if anyone has any nootbaar cherry blossoms for $5 let me know

I think they run through these as quick as possible to get them out the door so they can't look as closely as we do at values. They probably don't get a lot of people challenging them either.

It goes both ways: I sent in a mangled Bobby Witt purple /50 and they sent me back a Bobby Witt cherry blossom /99.

[Stifle]

Spent $105 on a box of 06 Donruss Elite and didn’t pull a auto. Sent in the box # to Elite and let them know. I received a Chad Johnson 06 game used non numbered card in its place. I would say that only cost Elite the loss of roughly 4 boxes of sales a year from me. If a company does that to a hundred customers ?

[STLtoMN]

Originally Posted by cholodolo

It actually is up to them...as they are the ones deciding what to send...hello?

Its a contractual part of their terms and conditions to send fair value... they cant make a decision to not send fair value for any reason you are claiming (i didnt send base, i want to grade/resell, etc.)

what dont you get about this?

Originally Posted by cholodolo

So the Ohtani Cherry Tree parallel was a good deal for you despite the whining, noted.

Again, did you not read any of my post? Their valuations on the ohtani and cherry blossoms are laughable... it is in no way a good deal... not to mention the cherry tree was damaged as well and last sold for $51 raw

[STLtoMN]

Originally Posted by bub838

It goes both ways: I sent in a mangled Bobby Witt purple /50 and they sent me back a Bobby Witt cherry blossom /99.

thats definitely a good score!

[Bunny Hop]

Originally Posted by STLtoMN

Update from Topps...They now agree the Bobby Miller was undervalued by $100 and are shipping a comparable card.... for the topps japan here was their valuation and notes:

Matt Olson /50 = $5
Steven Matz /50 = $2
Jo Adell /50 = $2
Ohtani /50 = $50 - Used /75 sale as benchmark
Nootbar /99 = about $5 since /50 sold for $10
Marsh /99 = under $4 since /75 sold for $3.80
Mookie /25 = $24

Shohei Ohtani (87B-1) Cherry Tree Parallel $93 based on last (6) RAW sales

clearly they dont realize the /99 sell for better than most other parallels...if anyone has any nootbaar cherry blossoms for $5 let me know

Interesting response from them. Glad you were (we all are) able to at least get some transparency, for whatever it's worth.

[STLtoMN]

Originally Posted by Bunny Hop

Interesting response from them. Glad you were (we all are) able to at least get some transparency, for whatever it's worth.

ya i was suprised honestly that they provided their valuations and method

[DynaEtch]

Originally Posted by STLtoMN

Its a contractual part of their terms and conditions to send fair value... they cant make a decision to not send fair value for any reason you are claiming (i didnt send base, i want to grade/resell, etc.)

Where is this wording of the terms and conditions, is it on the box or pack itself? Topps product page on its site?

I think maybe what that poster means is Topps is still deciding. I mean yea I guess someone could challenge that in small claims court or something (quite unlikely), and imagine even doing that, trying to successfully convince them about the nuances of baseball card valuations of Ohtani Cherry Tree parallels and what not. All seems kinda unlikely.

Honestly back in the day I thought if you got a dinged up card in a pack it was unfortunate but just bad luck. I still get this with UD marvel cards- the QC on the cards is pretty bad and can often have chipping on their thick cards...meh.

[STLtoMN]

Originally Posted by DynaEtch

Where is this wording of the terms and conditions, is it on the box or pack itself? Topps product page on its site?

When you submit a claim through the website it is part of the process

Originally Posted by DynaEtch

I mean yea I guess someone could challenge that in small claims court or something (quite unlikely), and imagine even doing that, trying to successfully convince them about the nuances of baseball card valuations of Ohtani Cherry Tree parallels and what not. All seems kinda unlikely.

dont disagree that it would be a waste of time to try and take them to small claims court... but either way Topps doesnt have discretion to not provide fair market value based on their T's and C's

[DynaEtch]

Originally Posted by STLtoMN

When you submit a claim through the website it is part of the process



dont disagree that it would be a waste of time to try and take them to small claims court... but either way Topps doesnt have discretion to not provide fair market value based on their T's and C's

This may be an issue of semantics but they are still making the decision on what to send. It's just up to the customer to challenge it in a formal setting (doubtful they do, or have success, guess you never know).

Topps imo is being pretty generous with the policy of even replacing cards- just like the missing hit replacement Im sure there's plenty of possibility for shenanigans.

[cholodolo]

Originally Posted by STLtoMN

Its a contractual part of their terms and conditions to send fair value... they cant make a decision to not send fair value for any reason you are claiming (i didnt send base, i want to grade/resell, etc.)

what dont you get about this?

What don't you get? You don't have a contract with Topps...if so, please point me to the recourse clause. As Dyna mentioned -- small claims? Sternly worded letter?

Topps is ultimately deciding what to send you based on their own criteria and discretion.

If anything, my overarching point was it's a bad look to only send in perceived valuable cards demanding "fair value" so you can resell them. Topps is under no obligation to replace any cards, much less make you "whole" on your perceived value. Please spare me the "I'm not going to sell them"...if you aren't then the originals probably would have been sufficient for your binder or top loader.

Doubt you are also the only one who does this...imagine how many borderline "damage" requests they get because someone thinks it won't grade 9 or higher?

Again, I ask -- do you have any photos of the "damage"? Seems like you are wanting pristine condition cards when I believe they only guarantee a 7 out of the pack.

Again, did you not read any of my post? Their valuations on the ohtani and cherry blossoms are laughable... it is in no way a good deal... not to mention the cherry tree was damaged as well and last sold for $51 raw

Laughable according to you...Topps, the ultimate authority in this situation, disagrees.

Originally Posted by DynaEtch

I think maybe what that poster means is Topps is still deciding. I mean yea I guess someone could challenge that in small claims court or something (quite unlikely), and imagine even doing that, trying to successfully convince them about the nuances of baseball card valuations of Ohtani Cherry Tree parallels and what not. All seems kinda unlikely.

Honestly back in the day I thought if you got a dinged up card in a pack it was unfortunate but just bad luck. I still get this with UD marvel cards- the QC on the cards is pretty bad and can often have chipping on their thick cards...meh.

Thank you, Dyna, for understanding the point. It's very generous of Topps or any manufacturer to accept slightly damaged product and send replacements.

Demanding "like for like" or "fair value" kind of violates the spirit of the policy.

These aren't $1,000 boxes...Topps Japan is what $100 a box?

[STLtoMN]

Originally Posted by cholodolo

If anything, my overarching point was it's a bad look to only send in perceived valuable cards demanding "fair value" so you can resell them.

its a bad look to expect a product to be delivered in an undamaged state? so its fine to send in product of no value?

would you accept delivery of a car with cracked glass and dented and scratched paint?

Originally Posted by cholodolo

Topps is under no obligation to replace any cards, much less make you "whole" on your perceived value.

Again topps is under obligation...its clearly spelled out what the conditions are.

Originally Posted by cholodolo

Again, I ask -- do you have any photos of the "damage"? Seems like you are wanting pristine condition cards when I believe they only guarantee a 7 out of the pack.

ill see if i can dig them up just for you... but i deleted off my desktop when i sent the original submission and it was accepted... they guarantee an 8 and these clearly didnt meet that criteria or they would not have offered replacement at all...all i want are cards without major damage at fair value to what was damaged

i did call out that it had a massive crease in it right when pulled: https://www.blowoutforums.com/showpo...&postcount=332

Originally Posted by cholodolo

Laughable according to you...Topps, the ultimate authority in this situation, disagrees.

topps is not the authority on secondary market value of their cards... nor do they claim to be

Originally Posted by cholodolo

It's very generous of Topps or any manufacturer to accept slightly damaged product and send replacements.

Demanding "like for like" or "fair value" kind of violates the spirit of the policy.

nothing was slightly damaged

and "like for like" or "fair value" is the entire spirit of the policy to make the customer whole.

Originally Posted by cholodolo

These aren't $1,000 boxes...Topps Japan is what $100 a box?

what does this matter? i spent plenty of money on the product and expect the "hits" to not be destroyed.... which was a common occurence in the product in 2022

[STLtoMN]

Originally Posted by DynaEtch

This may be an issue of semantics but they are still making the decision on what to send. It's just up to the customer to challenge it in a formal setting (doubtful they do, or have success, guess you never know).

agreed on semantics....they can literally make the decision not to send anything... that doesnt mean they are abiding by their posted process

[whitmm]

Originally Posted by STLtoMN

Its a contractual part of their terms and conditions to send fair value... they cant make a decision to not send fair value for any reason you are claiming (i didnt send base, i want to grade/resell, etc.)

what dont you get about this?



Again, did you not read any of my post? Their valuations on the ohtani and cherry blossoms are laughable... it is in no way a good deal... not to mention the cherry tree was damaged as well and last sold for $51 raw

So, what constitutes fair value? Is that written in their terms and conditions?

The $51 sale happened on 1/28/24. Looks like their original response of what they sent you (and where they would have come up with their value) was before that date. Looking at 130point, the first 6 raw sales I see before that are $80, $99.99, $90, $90, $100, and $168.99. If you throw out the oddball, that next sale was $88.69. Sounds like their $93 valuation is fair market.

[STLtoMN]

Originally Posted by whitmm

So, what constitutes fair value? Is that written in their terms and conditions?

The $51 sale happened on 1/28/24. Looks like their original response of what they sent you (and where they would have come up with their value) was before that date. Looking at 130point, the first 6 raw sales I see before that are $80, $99.99, $90, $90, $100, and $168.99. If you throw out the oddball, that next sale was $88.69. Sounds like their $93 valuation is fair market.

thats a good question with several potential variables.... what can you readily replace the item for, what are sold comps, and when were the comps are the things i typically would look for...it gets a bit more complicated when there is a small market of available items for sale/sold

if i wasnt clear, i dont disagree with their valuation on the cherry tree, there is plenty of data to support it, albeit with the market potentially trending down... i disagree on the value of what was being replaced (specifically the ohtani purple, nootbaar, and marsh)

[cholodolo]

Originally Posted by STLtoMN

its a bad look to expect a product to be delivered in an undamaged state? so its fine to send in product of no value?

Again topps is under obligation...its clearly spelled out what the conditions are.

ill see if i can dig them up just for you... but i deleted off my desktop when i sent the original submission and it was accepted... they guarantee an 8 and these clearly didnt meet that criteria or they would not have offered replacement at all...all i want are cards without major damage at fair value to what was damaged

You seem to have impossible expectations of Topps despite the well publicized dip in their QC and customer service since 2020. Continuing to "spend plenty of money" on boxes while getting the same outcome is...your choice. Many of us no longer purchase boxes from Topps for these reasons.

Have you ever had "damage" replacements returned? I've never heard of one rejected. Most of the time Topps does their best to placate the few (comparatively) customers who take the time to send in "damaged" cards.

topps is not the authority on secondary market value of their cards... nor do they claim to be

Seems they are when you are asking them for replacements.

[whitmm]

Originally Posted by STLtoMN

thats a good question with several potential variables.... what can you readily replace the item for, what are sold comps, and when were the comps are the things i typically would look for...it gets a bit more complicated when there is a small market of available items for sale/sold

if i wasnt clear, i dont disagree with their valuation on the cherry tree, there is plenty of data to support it, albeit with the market potentially trending down... i disagree on the value of what was being replaced (specifically the ohtani purple, nootbaar, and marsh)

Did you send Topps a message back with what you thought fair market value was? Just curious as to what you valued those specific three cards at and how you came up with that value? I get Topps logic on the Nootbaar and Marsh, as they had sales from lower numbered cards. And, yes, I understand Nootbaar has a surprising market, but if a #ed to 50 sold for $10, fair market logic would say that a card #ed to 99 should sell for less.

[STLtoMN]

Originally Posted by cholodolo

You seem to have impossible expectations of Topps despite the well publicized dip in their QC and customer service since 2020. Continuing to "spend plenty of money" on boxes while getting the same outcome is...your choice. Many of us no longer purchase boxes from Topps for these reasons.

My expectations are exactly inline with what topps has agreed to... to replace or provide fair value

You seem to have expectations that the consumer should bend over and accept poor quality and take it from a half a billion dollar company vs. them using their resources to make it right. can you name another industry where that would fly?

Originally Posted by cholodolo

Have you ever had "damage" replacements returned? I've never heard of one rejected. Most of the time Topps does their best to placate the few (comparatively) customers who take the time to send in "damaged" cards.

Yes, and there is a checkbox right on their form for it

[njsportscardguy]

Originally Posted by STLtoMN

clearly they dont realize the /99 sell for better than most other parallels...if anyone has any nootbaar cherry blossoms for $5 let me know

Firstly,...sorry for the conundrum that Bottoms has subjected you to. Unfortunately, I'm of the thinking that...it's only going to get WORSE(in virtually every regard)....moving forward!

Secondly, regarding your quoted text, I've got this puppy at the "upgrade shop", in Grading,...ATM. Unless the grader's dog got ran over, his car got repossessed, or...his wife left him during the time he's grading this card, there's no realistic-reason why it shouldn't hit the 10!

[crpav]

Adding my frustrating story from last year. Hit a true blue Noah Schultz Bowman 1st auto in a break. Back had 2 large creases whcih crazy ddin't appear on front so had to be from manufacturing? Front only had typical production marks like faint roller marks whcih breaker pointed out when he pulled it but he ddin't notice the back. A Tyler Schweitzer refractor auto in same case also had a large scratch on it.

Sent both in for replacement. Topps sent me back a refractor auto of... forgot the guy... for the cheap auto so no issue. However for the Schultz I was sent a blue wave auto of Erick Hernandez. Not even close in value. I argued but they said Beckett shows equal and that was that despite me showing recent comps.

[STLtoMN]

Originally Posted by whitmm

Did you send Topps a message back with what you thought fair market value was? Just curious as to what you valued those specific three cards at and how you came up with that value? I get Topps logic on the Nootbaar and Marsh, as they had sales from lower numbered cards. And, yes, I understand Nootbaar has a surprising market, but if a #ed to 50 sold for $10, fair market logic would say that a card #ed to 99 should sell for less.

Yes...the issue with most of these is there arent many comps, especially in raw form so it really comes down to how you value a 9 vs. raw

Ohtani - The last (3) /75 sold were all 9's and averaged $123.33. The last /50 was a 9 and went for $220. Only one is currently for sale is a SGC 9 up for $340. If you figured 75% value for raw vs. 9... $165. Their comp of $50 would be 23% of the last 9 value for raw. His 2023 purple has sold for $130, $199, $299 while a psa 8 2021 sold for $203.50

Marsh - There is only one available on Ebay at $35 or best offer and one sale of a 9 at $20. I sold around 50 cherry blossoms in 2023 and the cheapest rookie was sold at $7. I would expect $15 out of Marsh. His 2023 non-rookie recently sold for $10.

Nootbaar - This one is the toughest as all prior sales have fallen off ebay/130pt. There was one around release that sold for close to $200. Nootbaar's gold /25 sold for $120 which i have seen several instances of /99 selling for similiar comps to gold. I would guess if one was listed it would fetch between $50-120 in todays market with the higher end potential from overseas buyers. For reference, his 2023 non-rookie cherry blossom has sold 3 times for $45, $50, and $55.

[cj828282]

These two sales from the 2021 product say it all regarding the value of the Cherry Blossoms:

https://www.ebay.com/itm/38668661540...Bk9SR4SGztisYw

https://www.ebay.com/itm/38668436286...Bk9SR4aGztisYw

[cholodolo]

Originally Posted by STLtoMN

My expectations are exactly inline with what topps has agreed to... to replace or provide fair value

You seem to have expectations that the consumer should bend over and accept poor quality and take it from a half a billion dollar company vs. them using their resources to make it right. can you name another industry where that would fly?

The baseball card industry isn't like others -- stop acting like you bought a Jeep Grand Cherokee with a missing tire.

Zero sympathy for people who make a living grading or reselling cards. This is supposed to be a hobby, and if you consider scouring cards for imperfections and returning them a hobby...so be it.

Yes, and there is a checkbox right on their form for it

Is this your photo? So you also do this for other sports? Topps definitely has you on a list. And my question was have they returned any to you -- as in rejected your request for a replacement.

[vthobby]

2 words in your title made sense.

Topps and Nonsense.