Quote:
Originally Posted by DeweyintheHall
I guess I'm old enough now to be labeled a curmudgeon.
|
Hey, you kids, get off of my lawn!
If you look, btw, many of the pictures used in Bowman (digitally altered to appear as major league uniforms) also appear in Pro Debut in their original (minor league) state.
This, I think, partially answers one question. No, there is nothing terrible about a player appearing in his minor league finery. Not even Topps thinks there is. OTOH, there are different types of collectors. Some only want the players in major league unis and some actually prefer the minor league unis. And then there is the crossover crowd, who is happy to see both, but unlikely to buy both products if they're using the same photos without the major league/minor league uniform difference.
I think its always worth remembering that Topps is in the business of making money...nothing more. If the majority of people buying their products were offended by the digital chicanery--offended to the point of not buying the product--then they wouldn't do it. As it happens, we have fairly contemporary evidence that most collectors prefer the digital changes. When there were multiple card companies, some (Fleer in particular) would have players who were traded in non-retouched uniforms of their former employers with current team designations. Collectors HATE that. Really, really, really HATE that. Let's say, as example, a Dodger player traded to the Giants has a card designated as a Giants card, but showing the player in a Dodger uni. Now a Dodger collector has to have a card designated as a Giants card in his collection and a Giant collector has to have a card of a player wearing a Dodger uniform in his. Fans of those two teams hate each other. And collectors are extremely vocal about such things.
Me, as a Mets fan and collector, I thought I had a complete run of Topps Mets from '62-2000 or thereabouts, And then, one day years ago, I see the 1962 Topps Don Zimmer card--where he's clearly wearing a Mets uniform and cap (unretouched and not obscured), though the card lists him with the Reds. Well, crap. All this time I thought I had a complete run of Mets only to find out there's a Mets card that isn't listed as a Met on any checklist. Thank goodness it wasn't an expensive card; I'd have never forgiven Topps (or myself) if it were. And, as a Mets fan and collector, I loved that Michael Cuddyer is included convincingly as a Met in last year's Heritage, even though the uniform number is a clear indication that it's not real.
In summation, the people who actually
buy Topps products have overwhelmingly demonstrated that they prefer the retouched images--especially when the digital manipulation is as good as it is today.