General Forum

Not homemade or/art cards but I'm specifically thinking of Leaf/Wild Card football cards. With NIL releases this year I'm fairly confident that we will see more and more. It doesn't really affect me since the team I collect doesn't have much in the ways of logos to airbrush out, but to me a lot of the cards look bad/incomplete without logos. It's just kind of funny how sellers view them as valuable and buyers seem to think they have little to no value. (whether it's $ or collectibility) How do you perceive the unlicensed cards??

I've always given unlicensed cards a pass. I don't see that ever changing.

I'm not a fan...but as long as the leagues keep giving exclusive licenses these are something we're going to have to deal with. 

It's really unfortunate because some of the unlicensed cards are significantly better than the licensed ones, and it would be great to see what they could do as full cards. I'm thinking particularly of the current Leaf hockey stuff. Great designs, innovative concepts...but without licensing it's like only half a card. 

Garbage. Part of the enjoyment of being a team collector is seeing your team's logos and uniform elements on cards. I don't even like traded or rookie cards that show them in their previous team's uniforms.

I can tolerate them I suppose.  Like I said in another thread I bought a pack of new Pro Set hockey recently and got a Lemieux and Jagr in the pack.  They were wearing the black and gold of the Penguins but not a logo in sight.  Having a Penguins logo on the uniform or card would have put them over the top.

I have a semi related question to this although different set of cards.  I noticed the 1982 TSR dungeons and dragons cards exist in the database (which is good!) but I have another set from Mercury Games that don't appear to be listed. The set almost appears to be home made cards but Mercury Games went on to be a semi successful game company.  It's a 20 cards set (plus an information card and title card) which I have the complete set and can create the checklist.  This was one of their first attempts to break into the gaming industry so it is in the fuzzy area where it might be considered an unlicensed D&D product at that time but now they are a legit company.  Is it worth it putting them in?

I can tolerate cards with no team name or logo but not cards which don't even include a picture of the player. I would refuse to consider this a Wayne Gretzky card, for example:

Agree. Like those cards with pictures of a player's jersey, bat, hat, glove, shoes, baseball, trophy, etc on display in the Hall. Or cards that have a picture of a trophy and the winner's name. 

I'm ok with cards that show equipment that are exclusive to that person, probably because I'm NASCAR focused and the car is clearly tied to one person but is essentially just equipment. That stick card though, yeah that's awfully tenous to be considered a card of anyone in particular. 

Althought it was illegal and they lost their MLB license, I liked Upper Deck's approach in 2010 where they tried to claim their set was OK as long as part of the logo and script were covered. Casual collectors looking at this set wouldn't even notice anything was different about it.

Also for some reason the airbrushed stuff didn't bother me as much on the 70s and 80s food cards, but on the current stuff, it just looks unprofessional to me.