Skip to main content

The continuing horror of buybacks

I don't know how long stamped buybacks have been around.

I have considered them a recent creation as they are so pointless to me that they have to be a modern invention, right? The earliest reference to buybacks that I can find on my blog is from July, 2014, not that I should be a historical source for buybacks.

In fact, my disregard for these affronts to cardboard means I'm fully unaware of the fact they probably have been around for much, much longer (I am aware of the longstanding practice of inserting old cards that are newly signed into new product, but that's a different thing and totally understandable).

For instance, the card above.

Did you know that is a buyback? Did you know it's a buyback from 2003?

I didn't notice the stamp at first as it's much less apparent than the buybacks these days. And then I was horrified. WHY ARE WE STAMPING A PERFECTLY GOOD 1961 TOPPS GIL HODGES CARD?

It's a good thing I have a copy of this card -- unstamped -- already. This rant would be a lot longer.

So this weird practice of stamping perfectly good cards has been going on at least since the the start of the 21st century. I have to say, this is not a good look, 21st century. Stop it right now.

I received this card from Jeremy of Topps Cards That Never Were (And Were Never Stamped). Just about all of the cards he sent were fancy in some way, numbered and other kinds of semi-exclusiveness.

This is a Donruss Studio Portraits card from 2005 Throwback Threads. The stamp on the back (ON THE BACK -- BUYBACKS -- ON THE BACK!!) says it is one of only 25 made. I already have another one of these. So having two of the 25 makes me cackle inside.

Parallel versions of base cards. That Kendrick card is quite a sight and baffled me for a good while. I believe it's one of those "pulsar" parallels but in gold form. Yup, had no idea these existed.

This is the relic portion of the package. The Shawn Green relic gets added to my already completely unnecessary number of Shawn Green relics. The LoDuca is a relic card I had once but then got rid of in a relic purge and now it's back! The Gibson relic is the best because it's my first one of him. Likey.

Now the Panini portion of parallels-and-such that I didn't know existed. I will probably get every parallel of Caleb Ferguson by the end of the year because people keep sending them because nobody knows who he is.

Jeremy also sent a couple of his creations, although both are kind of half a card. I guess you'd call them samples.

The Muncy card is a very good reason for creating a Card That Never Was. The guy needed a base card in a 2018 flagship set and Topps didn't want to create it.

The Homer Bailey is flat-out interesting as Bailey never played for the Dodgers. He was acquired by the Dodgers in the Yasiel Puig/Matt Kemp deal and then instantly released. He's now with Oakland, sporting a 6-plus ERA.

So those are some much appreciated -- and different -- cards from Jeremy.

They're helping me get over the stamped horror of that '61 Hodges.


Old Cards said…
Never knew buybacks dated back to 2003. I had to enlarge the Hodges card to find the stamp. In your blog on 2-28-19, you discussed your efforts to collect the '75 buybacks. I wished you well, but commented that the appeal of a set of identical looking cards with the exception of a stamped logo on the card escapes me. You told me there is a lot about collecting that escapes me. After reading this blog, it escapes me even more.
night owl said…
I collect the 1975 stamped buybacks because I know many buybacks go unwanted and it pains me that any '75 Topps card is treated in this way. Those are the ONLY buybacks that I care about. In an ideal collecting world stamped buybacks wouldn't exist and I wouldn't be doing this. But they are so this is my way of making sense out of a nonsensical aspect of collecting.
Chris said…
I'm ambivalent about buybacks but I do look for them, mostly for other bloggers. It's tough to see a vintage great like Gil Hodges get stamped like that.

The 2005 Studio Portraits design is one of my favorites from the '00s. I had Corky cook up a custom for me using that matted frame-looking template.
SP Authentic had buybacks back in 2000.
Sean said…
The buybacks thing is something I've never followed, but I'm horrified to discover they are (or were) doing it to actual old cards with some value like that Hodges. I had thought it was just a way to deface junk wax era cards in an attempt to make them worth something. Shocking.
steelehere said…
I believe taking previously issued cards and stamping them started with Pacific Trading Cards in the mid-late 1990's. They actually would do to this if you stopped by their booth at the National Sports Collectors convention back then.

Once the idea was let out of the bag, all the other trading card companies eventually copied the idea (whether it was a good idea or not) by putting them in their packs (i.e. 2000 SP Authentic) because original ideas aren't exactly the forte of the product development folks that work for the trading card manufacturers.
Jeremya1um said…
I want to say I pulled the Hodges out of a pack of ‘03 Topps. I think they were inserting every Topps card before 2003 into 2003 Topps packs (similar to what they did in 2001), and I was lucky enough to pull the Hodges.
Billy Kingsley said…
Scoreboard introduced buybacks in their 1996 college basketball set. As far as I know they were the first. Most were autographed but not all were.
Fuji said…
Don't exactly know my oldest stamped buyback, but definitely not as far back as 2003. That being said... I did pull a 1971 Topps League Leaders card out of a 1991 Topps pack back in the day. Just like you like it... no stamp or anything.
Jonathan said…
As someone considering collecting all the sets from the 60s, it really bothers me to see any buybacks from the decade. Cards in that condition are hard enough to come by. Why ruin it?
Defenders50 said…
Yeah, buybacks of actual vintage and the corresponding stamps should be a Federal offense or something like that- and I don't even collect vintage.

Popular posts from this blog

The slash era

I'm not sure how many images of Joe Adell on the 2021 Topps design you have seen already. At the moment of this writing (3:42 p.m.), I've seen it several times, as well as a couple of blog posts about it. I'm sure there are more on the way.

These are what people are saying about it ...

Wait, I suppose I need to show you the image one more time:

There you are.

OK, now, the first reference I saw to it when I woke up out of my nest late this morning is that the design has a border. This was met with applause and I'm right there with them. It's the first Topps bordered flagship set since 2015, although you could make a case for 2019.

There is a lot of tinkering with the border but that just continues the theme of the entire design, which is: IT'S AWFULLY BUSY, AIN'T IT?????

How many design elements are on that card? Ten? Twelve? Fifteen? (Also, purple? There is no purple in the Angels color scheme. Are we going back to the random Topps colors of the '60s, …

The weird things collectors do

It is interesting to me how card collectors seem to have so much in common, as far as interests, personality tendencies, how their brains are wired, etc., and still can be so different.

There are many things that card collectors do that confuse the heck out of me. ... Why? Why would they do that? ... And there are many ways card collectors think that don't match my collecting thought process at all.

I think the influence of the time period in which a collector grew up has a lot to do with the differences. And that's what I'm going to chalk up to the excuse I am now giving to whatever lost soul decided to grade a 1982 Topps Burt Hooton card.

Let's go through the reasons why there's no need to grade a 1982 Topps Burt Hooton:

1. The card came out in 1982.
2. It's Burt Hooton.

I'm done.

But, I'm thinking, somebody grew up in a period when everyone was grading cards and that, yes, even commons should be graded because, you know, they could, uh ... they coul…

Thrill of the chase

An old high school classmate asked me this week how to go about selling some completed Topps baseball sets that she had purchased for her sons each year while they were growing up.

I explained how to search for the sets on eBay by using the completed listings option, but because she is one of my favorite former classmates, to help lessen the shock for her, I searched the sets myself and then gave her an average for each of them, along with an explanation of why they weren't worth much more than what she had paid for them originally.

The sets were from 1997-2008 and with the exception of the 2001 set, which at 790 cards is the largest of the bunch and also contains the Ichiro rookie card, it was clear that nobody values completed sets anymore. At least not non-vintage completed sets.

I already knew this. But seeing it underlined in back-lit numbers stunned me a bit. The 2005 complete set sells for only 40 bucks? I like the 2005 set! I'm trying to complete the 2005 set! Why don…