CardFanz Keeps Ultra SP Hit in Player Break

[whitmm]

Originally Posted by illiggle

So, if there was a 1986 Fleer SSSP of the Jordan card but with Benny the Bull photoshopped over Jordan's head but didn't say "Jordan" anywhere on the card, you'd consider that to be a "Benny the Bull" card? I assume you'd list it on eBay as such with no mention of Jordan and would also price it accordingly? And if you owned the card, you'd tell people about your awesome "Benny the Bull" card but not mention Jordan?

If they took the image from the front of that 86 Jordan and did all of that. And then put the back from a mascot insert set on it and then put that card into into a 2022 set. Would you call that a Jordan card?

And the mentioning Jordan thing is not calling it a Jordan card. 100% I would not put Jordan's name in the title.

Would I price it accordingly to previous sales of the cards? Yup. That still doesn't mean it's a Jordan card, nor does it mean that I think it is.

[DynaEtch]

Originally Posted by BBases31

Exactly the point, it's not unique territory. No sane person would look at a card that has no face, name, or description of a player, and actually has the name and description of something else, as the "headless, nameless" player. If you have to explain why a card is of a player not listed anywhere on the card, it's not of that player.

My point was a sole figure on a card with a photoshopped-out head does seem unique. As in this is a new thing with these mascot cards, unless someone can give other examples of the sole figure on a card with a head photoshopped out. Being such a unique and weird situation, it really just comes down to definition.

[whitmm]

Originally Posted by discodanman45

Just assumed you were by defending this not being a Wander card. My bad. Who do you think the card should go to? You also called this an "insert set." That is a much bigger stretch IMO than calling it a variation of a Wander card.

If this card was in series 1, would you call this a Wander short print?

Well, if you read my posts. I've said exaclty where I though it should go.

And I didn't call it an insert set. I said the back of the card is from an insert set.

If this card was in series one and the only difference was Raymond's head, I would consider it a Wander card. If it was this exact card in Series 1, I'd still call it a mascot card.

Do you refer to the legend variations as cards of the original base player?

[whitmm]

Originally Posted by DynaEtch

My point was a sole figure on a card with a photoshopped-out head does seem unique. As in this is a new thing with these mascot cards, unless someone can give other examples of the sole figure on a card with a head photoshopped out. Being such a unique and weird situation, it really just comes down to definition.

But it's more than just the head, it's that they changed the name on the front of the card. It's that they used the back of a Raymond card for the back.

[DynaEtch]

Originally Posted by whitmm

Well, if you read my posts. I've said exaclty where I though it should go.

And I didn't call it an insert set. I said the back of the card is from an insert set.

If this card was in series one and the only difference was Raymond's head, I would consider it a Wander card. If it was this exact card in Series 1, I'd still call it a mascot card.

Do you refer to the legend variations as cards of the original base player?

Do legends variations look like basically the same card, with the same body as the base player, with a photoshopped out head?

Originally Posted by whitmm

But it's more than just the head, it's that they changed the name on the front of the card. It's that they used the back of a Raymond card for the back.

While that is true, it is not the point of what my post was getting at. You are claiming this 'IS a Franco'. As mentioned in a previous post, there is no ultimate correctness of a statement like this, it is dependent on definition. And again, this is a rather unique situation with a card like this.

[illiggle]

Originally Posted by whitmm

If they took the image from the front of that 86 Jordan and did all of that. And then put the back from a mascot insert set on it and then put that card into into a 2022 set. Would you call that a Jordan card?

And the mentioning Jordan thing is not calling it a Jordan card. 100% I would not put Jordan's name in the title.

Would I price it accordingly to previous sales of the cards? Yup. That still doesn't mean it's a Jordan card, nor does it mean that I think it is.

Why are you saying 2022 set? I said if it was a 1986 card. I think this is what you're missing here.... if Wander becomes an all-time great, 36 years from now people will call it a Wander Franco variation card and covet in that way. No one will care one bit about the mascot on the card -- they'll care that it's a very rare variation of the Wander Series 1 card.

There is ZERO doubt in my mind that a 1986 Fleer SSSP Benny the Bull mascot card of Benny the Bull's head photoshopped over Jordan's head from the original Jordan photo used would be a grail "Jordan card" today and 99.9% of the industry would reference it as such. And I think saying otherwise is purely cognitive dissonance.

[whitmm]

Originally Posted by DynaEtch

Do legends variations look like basically the same card, with the same body as the base player, with a photoshopped out head?

I'll take that as a no then, so why do you not use the same reasoning for all of the short prints?

And this isn't basically the same card. They changed the name, they removed the RC badge and rookie cup on the front. And they used the back from an insert set from a different product for the back.

[DynaEtch]

Originally Posted by whitmm

I'll take that as a no then, so why do you not use the same reasoning for all of the short prints?

And this isn't basically the same card. They changed the name, they removed the RC badge and rookie cup on the front. And they used the back from an insert set from a different product for the back.

Take what as a no? Since I have to spell this out...what I meant is basically the same photo. Do legend cards do that? Use the same photo, but with a different head photoshopped on?

[whitmm]

Originally Posted by illiggle

Why are you saying 2022 set? I said if it was a 1986 card. I think this is what you're missing here.... if Wander becomes an all-time great, 36 years from now people will call it a Wander Franco variation card and covet in that way. No one will care one bit about the mascot on the card -- they'll care that it's a very rare variation of the Wander Series 1 card.

There is ZERO doubt in my mind that a 1986 Fleer SSSP Benny the Bull mascot card of Benny the Bull's head photoshopped over Jordan's head from the original Jordan photo used would be a grail "Jordan card" today and 99.9% of the industry would reference it as such. And I think saying otherwise is purely cognitive dissonance.

Because series 1 and series 2 are different products. It's not a series 1 card. They used an image from series 1 to make this card for Series 2.

[illiggle]

Originally Posted by whitmm

Because series 1 and series 2 are different products. It's not a series 1 card. They used an image from series 1 to make this card for Series 2.

Right...and the image still including the majority of the original image and the # of the card of a star player with the intention of making it a huge card due to being related to that player. Hence the reason they used Votto for Redlegs and Alonso for Mr. Met rather than some other random player on the team.

[whitmm]

Originally Posted by DynaEtch

Take what as a no? Since I have to spell this out...what I meant is basically the same photo. Do legend cards do that? Use the same photo, but with a different head photoshopped on?

How about you take the whole card into consideration. The back is basically the same as the Opening Day Mascots insert set, why isn't this a utlra SP of that?

[whitmm]

Originally Posted by illiggle

Right...and the image still including the majority of the original image and the # of the card of a star player with the intention of making it a huge card due to being related to that player. Hence the reason they used Votto for Redlegs and Alonso for Mr. Met rather than some other random player on the team.

That's why I used different years. Because they aren't from the same product like you were trying to say.

The back of the card is an Opening Day insert back, and #215 doesn't exist in that insert set. And #215 is Salvador Perez in the base

They made 4 mascot ultra sp cards for Series 2.

[DynaEtch]

Originally Posted by whitmm

How about you take the whole card into consideration. The back is basically the same as the Opening Day Mascots insert set, why isn't this a utlra SP of that?

Just wanted a yes/no answer to whether legend cards use the same photo, but with something like a photoshopped out head.

Since you arent answering, I'll answer it for you. The answer is no. They are totally different images. There is an asymmetry here in the analogy.

So I will answer your question about whether I'd consider a legend card the same player as the base card, and my answer is no.

But due to the above mentioned asymmetry, this is not illustrative of this bizarre case with the mascot and essentially the same photo, and I dont like the Legends analogy. Again, you are arguing a point of definition. Definitions, in general, are not 'true' or 'false' in some ultimate sense, they are just definitions. Not much more needs said tbh

[whitmm]

Originally Posted by DynaEtch

Just wanted a yes/no answer to whether legend cards use the same photo, but with something like a photoshopped out head.

Since you arent answering, I'll answer it for you. The answer is no. They are totally different images. There is an asymmetry here in the analogy.

So I will answer your question about whether I'd consider a legend card the same player as the base card, and my answer is no.

But due to the above mentioned asymmetry, this is not illustrative of this bizarre case with the mascot and essentially the same photo, and I dont like the Legends analogy. Again, you are arguing a point of definition. Definitions, in general, are not 'true' or 'false' in some ultimate sense, they are just definitions. Not much more needs said tbh

What is on the back of the card that this thread is about?

[TruBlueBrewCrew]

I highly doubt that Topps' thought process was: "let's create an image variation using Wander Franco's (hopefully) iconic flagship rookie card, keep it a secret, and produce it in ULTRA low unknown quantities because it's just a shitty mascot card with minimal value and desirability for the hobby." (The Mascot market is not really a high-end market to my knowledge)

Topps almost certainly intended for this to be a card that generated Francomania levels of excitement and chase. They want a healthy secondary market for wax so that distributors make profit and want more and more from Topps.

I find the argument that they intended for very few to care about these cards hilarious and unlikely.

[whitmm]

Originally Posted by TruBlueBrewCrew

I highly doubt that Topps' thought process was: "let's create an image variation using Wander Franco's (hopefully) iconic flagship rookie card, keep it a secret, and produce it in ULTRA low unknown quantities because it's just a shitty mascot card with minimal value and desirability for the hobby." (The Mascot market is not really a high-end market to my knowledge)

Topps almost certainly intended for this to be a card that generated Francomania levels of excitement and chase. They want a healthy secondary market for wax so that distributors make profit and want more and more from Topps.

I find the argument that they intended for very few to care about these cards hilarious and unlikely.

And last year it was the big head ultra sp. And there was hype and now pretty much nothing. I don't see anyone saying that Tatis card is going to be the holy grail card.

If it is all about Francomania, why do the other 3 cards? They already created hype by putting the Witt, Julio, and Tork SPs in. Also, there's about 250 pages arguing that the Bowman's Best is the true RC and how it will be the iconic card

[NHRonin]

Originally Posted by TruBlueBrewCrew

I highly doubt that Topps' thought process was: "let's create an image variation using Wander Franco's (hopefully) iconic flagship rookie card, keep it a secret, and produce it in ULTRA low unknown quantities because it's just a shitty mascot card with minimal value and desirability for the hobby." (The Mascot market is not really a high-end market to my knowledge)

Topps almost certainly intended for this to be a card that generated Francomania levels of excitement and chase. They want a healthy secondary market for wax so that distributors make profit and want more and more from Topps.

I find the argument that they intended for very few to care about these cards hilarious and unlikely.

So how do you explain the Red Legs Votto SP that’s similar?

[DynaEtch]

Originally Posted by whitmm

What is on the back of the card that this thread is about?

You are all over the place. This is not a response to the content of my post, which was to illustrate the difference between this and legends cards. Im literally just pointing out the difference, and why I dont like using that as an analogy. Since you are not disagreeing with that asymmetry, and bringing up yet a different question here, I'll take it you understand the point.

[illiggle]

Originally Posted by TruBlueBrewCrew

I highly doubt that Topps' thought process was: "let's create an image variation using Wander Franco's (hopefully) iconic flagship rookie card, keep it a secret, and produce it in ULTRA low unknown quantities because it's just a shitty mascot card with minimal value and desirability for the hobby." (The Mascot market is not really a high-end market to my knowledge)

Topps almost certainly intended for this to be a card that generated Francomania levels of excitement and chase. They want a healthy secondary market for wax so that distributors make profit and want more and more from Topps.

I find the argument that they intended for very few to care about these cards hilarious and unlikely.

100% this. People can claim it's a "Raymond" card because that's what it says on cardboardconnection and on the front and back of the card and that makes them "technically" right, but no one pulls that card and sees "Raymond" or tells people they pulled a "Raymond" card. And people won't buy series 2 boxes hoping to land an ultra short print mascot card.

In any common sense terms, it is seen and will be known as a Wander Franco card. I'm not sure why anyone cares what it "technically" is other than to defend the breaker in this situation. Like someone else said in this thread, if it was a 25 cent card of a mascot photoshopped on a star player's head the breaker would have given it to the star player's spot. If people watch the video, they'd know the breaker knew full well what he was doing... he took 9 minutes afterwards to even mention Wander's name in passing. He was intentionally not mentioning his name.

[whitmm]

Originally Posted by DynaEtch

You are all over the place. This is not a response to the content of my post, which was to illustrate the difference between this and legends cards. Im literally just pointing out the difference, and why I dont like using that as an analogy. Since you are not disagreeing with that asymmetry, and bringing up yet a different question here, I'll take it you understand the point.

Right. You don't consider a legend short print to be a card of the original base player. I'm not all over, I asked for a specific reason. With a legend card, the focus of the image is the legend, the name on the front is of the legend, and the back is all about the legend. That's the exact same with this card. The main focus is the mascot's head, the name on the front is thr mascot and the back is all about the mascot.

So, why do you not apply the same reasoning to both cards?

[illiggle]

Originally Posted by whitmm

Right. You don't consider a legend short print to be a card of the original base player. I'm not all over, I asked for a specific reason. With a legend card, the focus of the image is the legend, the name on the front is of the legend, and the back is all about the legend. That's the exact same with this card. The main focus is the mascot's head, the name on the front is thr mascot and the back is all about the mascot.

So, why do you not apply the same reasoning to both cards?

Not true at all. Otherwise they would have just used an image of the mascot. And it's certainly easily debatable it wouldn't be an ultra short print card if it was just a mascot.

[zworykin]

Originally Posted by illiggle

100% this. People can claim it's a "Raymond" card because that's what it says on cardboardconnection and on the front and back of the card and that makes them "technically" right, but no one pulls that card and sees "Raymond" or tells people they pulled a "Raymond" card. And people won't buy series 2 boxes hoping to land an ultra short print mascot card.

In any common sense terms, it is seen and will be known as a Wander Franco card. I'm not sure why anyone cares what it "technically" is other than to defend the breaker in this situation. Like someone else said in this thread, if it was a 25 cent card of a mascot photoshopped on a star player's head the breaker would have given it to the star player's spot.

You're so certain about what "no one" does or what "people" won't do. You need to step back and re-examine that stance, because people in this thread have already said that they disagree with you. I am one of them. I do NOT consider this a Wander card. Indeed I WOULD describe it as a Raymond card if I was discussing it, and indeed I WOULD buy a box hoping to land this or any of the other ultra short prints (because I don't really care who's on them at the end of the day - I like to collect the set).

If you didn't KNOW that the picture was of Wander, and you didn't know (or look up online) that card 215 in a different set was Wander, you'd have no idea that this picture started out as Wander.

Here's a question for you - what if they had photoshopped Raymond's head onto a different photo of Wander, instead of the same one that was originally on 215? Still a "Wander card," even though it no longer "looks mostly like" 215? Or what if they had used an actual photo of Raymond? It would still have "Wander's" Series 1 card number on the back. Would it be a "Wander card" then?

In my opinion, Topps SHOULD have put the players' names and bios on these cards, so the only difference would be the photoshopped mascot heads. That would be in line with the "big heads" USPs from last year, and I think would have made them way more "collectible" to most people. But they didn't. Oh well.

I'm not sure who in this thread, if anyone, has actually defended the breaker's actions. Just because I believe he's right in calling it a Raymond card, doesn't mean I think he's anything other than a thief for not getting it to SOMEONE in the break.

[zworykin]

Originally Posted by illiggle

Not true at all. Otherwise they would have just used an image of the mascot. And it's certainly easily debatable it wouldn't be an ultra short print card if it was just a mascot.

If it's code 867, it's an ultra short print card. That's the one part of this whole thread that there CAN'T reasonably be debate about.

[whitmm]

Originally Posted by illiggle

Not true at all. Otherwise they would have just used an image of the mascot. And it's certainly easily debatable it wouldn't be an ultra short print card if it was just a mascot.

That's 100% true. Tell me how any of what I said is wrong about how I describe this short print. And anyone that tells me that the focus of the card is Wander's body is a liar.

[DynaEtch]

Originally Posted by whitmm

Right. You don't consider a legend short print to be a card of the original base player. I'm not all over, I asked for a specific reason. With a legend card, the focus of the image is the legend, the name on the front is of the legend, and the back is all about the legend. That's the exact same with this card. The main focus is the mascot's head, the name on the front is thr mascot and the back is all about the mascot.

So, why do you not apply the same reasoning to both cards?

Because the situations are asymmetrical, for the reason I clearly laid out above. I do not think the legend example is a good analogy because of this. In case you didnt read it:

-Legend cards feature a totally different photo
-This mascot/Franco card features largely the same exact photo, just with a different head.

The above two items are different. That's an asymmetry.