Results 1 to 4 of 4
  1. #1

    Pete Rose being erased from Topps cards

    Apparently Topps has started to erase Pete Rose from its cards, according to the link below from the Big League Stew blog.

    http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/mlb-bi...6880--mlb.html

    Whether or not you like the man, and yes, he did admit to betting on baseball (finally), although he says it was only on the Reds to win, he did set the record for hits BEFORE the betting scandal. The record is recognized by the HOF and MLB. So why not give him his due for the record?

    I can see Topps being adverse to being sued, but it's a pretty bad reason to leave references to Rose off of cards.

  2. Wata Photo
  3. #2
    I think Topps is told by baseball who and who they can't use. Or at least if they aren't told they are "told". I mean Bonds, Clemens, McGwire, Canseco, etc have all been absent from sets that Topps has made and I'm pretty sure it is directly because they can't and they don't want to lose the exclusive license they have. That's why everyone without a license uses Pete Rose stuff to death.
    Trade Bucket: Hidden Content

  4. #3
    the other possibility is, since Mr Rose has incorporated himself (I believe) he may be asking topps to pay him for his likeness, something they dont want to do
    taking a break from trading

  5. #4
    No, MLB does not want Pete Rose on their licensed cards by likeness or name. MLBPA has a different stance which is why Panini has done so. You can say the same as to why Shoeless Joe Jackson is never in any Topps products.
    Undercover Pope
    Hidden Content
    BuckHidden Content t
    Hidden Content - Hidden Content SportsCardBlog - FacebHidden Content k
    I ship on Tuesdays & Wednesdays - Hidden Content

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •