At What Point Does It Become False Advertising?

I’ll get to the main point of the post title in just a second, but first I want to encourage anyone who may have missed it to read Andy’s latest post below.  It can be really easy for us to dismiss certain blog posts because of the title (I know I do it often when pressed for time), and in doing so, sometimes we miss some great content.  I’ve heard this story from his life a few times over the years, and I think there’s a lot to be taken away from it.  So, please, if you have a minute, take a gander.

Back to our regularly scheduled program.

Like virtually every other blogger, we took part in the Million Card Giveaway conducted by Topps last year for their monumental 59th Anniversary celebration.  Like virtually every other blogger, we got our cards delivered near the deadline and they arrived in the mail a couple months ago.  Unlike most bloggers, however, we had a card on backorder.  I decided to hold off on posting the goods until all the goods were in.

Well, this week we finally got the last card we were waiting for.  A Terry Fox SP card #576 from 1965.  And here it is….

Wait a second....

Hmmm…That doesn’t look like Terry Fox to me.  That doesn’t look like a 1965 card to me.  The card number on the back doesn’t look like it’s an SP, either.  What happened?

I knew something was fishy when the card was placed on back order.  According to Topps’ accompanying letter, “We are in the process of fulfilling all cards and unfortunately we are unable to secure the card you unlocked.  In effort to over-deliver and be fair we have included a substitute that will be more vintage than the original card you unlocked.”

So, I pose to you the question that is the title of this post.  At what point does it become false advertising?

Shouldn’t the simple fact that the card is in their system and is “unlockable” mean that it is in fact available?  Why even mention it on the site if you don’t have it to fulfill?  I’m fairly certain that we unlocked this card directly from a code, since we did little trading over the course of the program.  But what if we had traded for it?  What if I gave up a specific card (or several cards) of a specific perceived value to specifically get this highly sought after 1965 SP?  How can you tell me that I just traded for a card to be named later?

What if I sold the rights to this card on ebay?  People have done that with the diamond die-cuts, promising shipment once available (not saying that’s right or allowed by ebay, but it’s been done so it’s not out of the question).  So, say I hold this auction and my customer is waiting for his card, and months later I have to tell him he’s getting Johnny Logan instead?  What would make him believe I didn’t just pocket his card to sell later and pawn a “more vintage” card.

I guess the ebay example is where the argument really comes from.  On ebay, and in stores in general, you can’t pull the “bait and switch” like this.  I can’t win a Frank Thomas Auto auction, or purchase from sportlots, etc. and have a different card come in the mail saying, sorry we’re out, but thanks anyway.  You would have problems.  I know that the Million Card Giveaway isn’t a store in the traditional sense, but they are selling something.  Even though it’s running off the guise of a contest, specific cards have specific perceived values to the people unlocking and trading them.  If I would have known the SP wasn’t in house and may not be fulfilled, you’d be damn sure I’d trade it for something else.

For the record, in the 2011 Standard Catalog, the Fox SP is listed at $9, whereas the more vintage non-SP Logan is $6.  It’s a negligible difference, but I’m upset about the principle of the thing.  If the 1952 Mantle was unlocked and someone got a 1951 Red Back in the mail as compensation for the card they were unable to acquire, there’d be riots on the message boards and blogs.  I’m just saying that the principle is the same.

I don’t know, I guess I just assumed that the cards shown on the Million Card site were actually already, you know, owned by Topps and ready to be transported.  After all, when the Diamond Giveaway started up there was nothing but commons with a few sprinkled semi-stars.  That’s actually still pretty much the case.  Honestly, refresh the page for a while and see if you see any star players that aren’t on a 1980-something card.  I even tried some big names in the search function and found a whopping zero unlocked by anyone.  I waited to redeem most of my codes in hopes that superstars left over from the Million Card site would eventually be loaded up into the Diamond queue (but I got die-cut fever and ran through them all one night only to come up empty).  That all had to mean something right?  The supply was depleted.  Now, we find out that they can pick and choose whatever cards they feel like showing, because there’s no real obligation to go out and get them.

Looking on the Diamond Giveaway, I see nothing in the official rules stating that there is a chance the card will not be available – only that they reserve the right to substitute prizes at their sole discretion.  I’m asking a lot of questions, so I want to hear your thoughts, but before you chime in, take a look at this trade request I found while looking up the rules.

Seems fair to me

A trade request by “topps diamond.”  Do you think that this is some random dude that happened to nab that name, or is Topps trying to fill a Joe Sparma 1966 back order through a terrible, terrible trade offer?  You decide.

Also, for your viewing pleasure, here is the rest of the cards we had delivered – nothing younger than 1972.  I had planned to turn these into individual images, but I don’t think most of them deserve the effort.  Anyway, that’s why they’re out of order in the scans and that’s why Niekro shows up twice.  The 1971 in the middle of the first image is the same card as the back with wax stain shown in the second.

God that Niekro looks horrendous, but still about what we expected

As you can imagine, most of them are either off-center, have fuzzy, rounded corners, surface damage or all of the above.  And for the most part that’s totally fine, because we’re talkin’ vintage here.  I will say the Walter Alston card is basically mint.  Sharp corners, good centering, solid surface and color.  Really surprised at how great the condition is on it.  You can see that for the rest, some are better than others.

Double Whammy with that wax stain

The Ken MacKenzie looks like it’s been through a war and lost.  Oh, and we did get a Terry Fox, just a different year, and again not the SP we were hoping for.

In case you’re wondering, all of these are for trade and/or sale.  These were a joint effort, so if you want to trade us for them, we’d prefer to get something in return that we could potentially sell rather than something that would only go into only my or Andy’s collection.  Now, if you want to offer up a mix of stadium club and Frank Thomas cards, that’s a whole new ballgame.

Speaking of Frank Thomas, I figured I’d end my little tale with the positive side of Topps customer service.  I’ve bought a couple blasters of Gypsy Queen so far.  In my second blaster, I was lucky enough to pull a framed paper parallel of Frank Thomas.

You can image my excitement, since it’s pretty rare that a player collector will find a good parallel of one of his guys.  The excitement died pretty quickly when I noticed it came damaged.

I'm a MS Paint Pro!

I hear this is a recurring problem with the paper cards.  Mine was subject to some paper loss/peel in the bottom middle.  So, I followed the rules and sent the card/wrapper/upc in with a nice letter asking like a 10 year old kid to “please, sir give me another Frank Thomas, or if you don’t have one a Tony Gwynn would be neat-o.”  A couple weeks later, I get this in the mail.

Spot the Difference

Yes, Topps came through with a replacement of the same card.  I’m very happy with the speed at which this was handled as well.

So, let me hear it?  Do you think I should bother to contact Topps about the Terry Fox issue?  Do you think my rant is out of line?  Does this change the way you handle your Diamond Giveaway account?