Opinion on box breaks

TCC

We started posting box breaks (view here) and I wanted to get opinions on one item.

One of the main things I've always noticed about box breaks is that most have no mention of any quality issues with the cards or only mention the most blatant issues. As we just discussed here in a recent thread, it's very common in some products to not even see cards that are cut uniformly. In addition, I frequently look for surface issues on cards (holding card at an angle in light) which are never mentioned. What I'm trying to do though is see what others think about the "fairness" of pointing out certain things, especially in the area of surface issues. My feeling is that as long as consistent criteria is used, it's fair.

Here is an example of the "quality issues" portion of a 2004 Topps Football box break which might help to explain this:

"Quality notes: 73 cards (20.3 percent) had an issue with minor surface flaws such as indentation lines or areas, faint scratching or light scuffing and "crimping" imprints. These surface flaws were seen on both the card fronts and backs and existed on the basic cards as well as the insert cards. In addition, 4 cards showed significant corner bending or edge bulging. A significant number of other cards contained minor corner or edge issues."

Bottom line is that the cards had surface problems, but are these types of problems now considered "acceptable" as most products seem to have them (see other box breaks at the link above)? Maybe a good way to ask this is "what kind of effect would these type of minor surface flaws have on a grade"? Is the effect enough that you would want to know about these types of things ahead of time?

-Bob

phreakydancin

My take: if flaws are considered acceptable, then there will never be any motivation for the card companies to improve their quality controls. Reporting such flaws can only highlight the issues, and may make the manufacturers act on what they perceive to be customer dissatisfaction.

TCC

<< <i>My take: if flaws are considered acceptable, then there will never be any motivation for the card companies to improve their quality controls. Reporting such flaws can only highlight the issues, and may make the manufacturers act on what they perceive to be customer dissatisfaction. >>



This is why I included such information in the first place. After looking around at some other sites though and not seeing anyone else mentioning the same things on the same products, you start to wonder if you're being "too particular" though.

Honestly, do you look for these types of surface problems?

By the way, here's one of the most obvious things I've found (still not mentioned elsewhere):

From 2004 Fleer Ultra Football-



Notice the indentation and/or discoloration bands through the area showing the players' names on the card fronts. I just opened a box of 2004-05 Fleer Ultra Basketball and found the same thing. I believe the issue will exist across many Ultra products.

-Bob

inFluX

Flaw's are good. Makes having a PSA 10 a little more special.

TCC

<< <i>Flaw's are good. Makes having a PSA 10 a little more special. >>



Yes, there's always a "silver lining" for some.

-Bob

Stone193

I still subscribe to SCD and do take Tuff Stuff - no Beckett
One thing that seems to be a growing trend - as the amount of advertisers decrease compared to the power packed early to mid 90z, the bottom line seems to lie in NOT pissing off the manufacturers or big dealers who contribute the most revenue. So criticism would be 'spun' in a positive light with respect to the quality of card production. I will say, that we try to be helpful on the boards to inform people if we see a problem with the stuff we buy.
Mike

joestalin

good topic, it does seem that beckett never mentions this problem. For many collectors the only cards
they care about are the auto and GU, in some cases those cards represent only 2-5% of the total box
rip. The other cards are put into a box probably never to see the light of day.

I was amazed this year by just how bad topps heritage was in terms of quality control. It seems like many
topps issues this year have indentation lines across them. I don't remember seeing this in past years and actually
I don't remember seeing this problem in short prints.

Could topps print certain cards at a later time and if so...

Could topps "cut corners" on the base printing?? Kinda like setting your printer to level 1 setting under
quality, or 4 million mega pixels vs 6 million.

I find it absolutly amazing that so little is know in the hobby about the actual manufacturing of these cards! From
what I know, NONE of the companies print their own cards as topps once did. You don't even hear of what
company actually does this!

Even the companies dont know what comes off the press. I think if anyone ever researched this they could
make a lot of money giving us the info on this. So much of what we collect is affected by printing...errors and
condition.

In short...most people don't care about these imperfections, as long as they don't affect the big money
cards.

-Kevin

TCC

<< <i>good topic, it does seem that beckett never mentions this problem. For many collectors the only cards
they care about are the auto and GU, in some cases those cards represent only 2-5% of the total box
rip. The other cards are put into a box probably never to see the light of day.

I was amazed this year by just how bad topps heritage was in terms of quality control. It seems like many
topps issues this year have indentation lines across them. I don't remember seeing this in past years and actually
I don't remember seeing this problem in short prints.

Could topps print certain cards at a later time and if so...

Could topps "cut corners" on the base printing?? Kinda like setting your printer to level 1 setting under
quality, or 4 million mega pixels vs 6 million.

I find it absolutly amazing that so little is know in the hobby about the actual manufacturing of these cards! From
what I know, NONE of the companies print their own cards as topps once did. You don't even hear of what
company actually does this!

Even the companies dont know what comes off the press. I think if anyone ever researched this they could
make a lot of money giving us the info on this. So much of what we collect is affected by printing...errors and
condition.

In short...most people don't care about these imperfections, as long as they don't affect the big money
cards. >>



Kevin,

Great points as well.

For now, I've stuck to corner, edge and surface flaws and haven't even touched the area of centering. Spotting the surface flaws and reporting the total number from a box takes a little bit of time, but it sounds like something that other collectors would like to know. I'll keep doing it and see what response the box breaks get.

On the base cards and low-end products, I would point out that the paper stock used on some of those products is now very, very thin (see 2004 Topps Football). Based on the stock, it's no surprise that some of the quality issues are showing up. Then, just think what will happen to these same cards once people start handling them.

On the other end of the spectrum, many of the high-end products are very prone to surface scratching and/or scuffing due to their glossy finishes and/or raised profiles. This also applies to many of the autograph and game-used cards. In addition, it's not uncommon to find a game-used card with problems at the edges of where the game-used item meets the insert opening.

Bottom line is that each product is likely to show some flaws and it just seems like time that they actually get discussed rather than left out of every box break and product review.

On the whole subject of knowing more about the manufacturing process, I'm also very interested in the subject and have been bouncing ideas around about how to gather that information and put it into articles, etc. I ran across a story recently about a paper company that mentioned that they produce paper for trading cards. I'll have to locate that again and "dig around" to see if they mention who some of their customers are, etc.

By the way, doesn't SA-GE print their own cards?

-Bob

helionaut

A couple years ago I got to know something about the printing business and found that it's a smaller arena than you might think. The number of companies able to take on the job of printing the millions of cards that might go into a set, plus cutting and collating them, plus the packaging, plus the distribution, is really pretty small, and if they handle the printing for one company they probably do it for several. This leads to some rare problems, like the 2000 UD Black Diamond cards that were found in Fleer Ultra packs. There are also proprietary technologies like the patented Finest chromium style or Dufex that are only done by one company (I assume, but maybe they spread things out).

From what I've read over the years, the development of these technologies, plus the types of paper, packaging, and coordination of things like GU pieces and autos is usually driven and paid for by the client (card company) for which they have exclusive use. Sometimes it's something new. I wasn't in the hobby at the time, but I remember hearing that 1990 Leaf packs were tough to open without damaging the cards because they were wrapped so tight. The Donruss rep said they had a choice between that packaging and a pack that wasn't really sealed at all. I assume this is because the foil didn't behave the same or couldn't be used in the same machinery as the wax paper. So there's a learning process to it. UD was first to use the "Fin Seal" but their first packs were like metallic paper instead of the "foil" that came a little later.

Anyway, as to the topic, I always appreciate as much info as possible in a box break report. When I wrote them up, I told every little thing I could think of, from any persistent problems in the cards to the way the packs slid around in the box. Having 20% of your cards with noticeable problems is important, even if it's probably not endemic to the whole run.

This makes me want to go open a box of something. Is Bowman Chrome out yet?