04-12-2013, 11:38 PM #1
Panini messing up patches in a $500+ box??
I've heard about this on youtube and would like to know what everyone else thinks. Panini looks to have messed up big time on the rookie patches in their HighEnd product National Treasures. here are some examples.
Andrew Luck has never worn a Reebok Jersey since the nfl signed with Nike before the draft.
Andrew Luck is #12. There is no 8 in #12
This looks to be part of #88 in a RG3 Patch?
and i've heard they have screwed up other rookie patches in other products.
04-13-2013, 12:19 AM #2
04-13-2013, 12:21 AM #3
I haven't trusted the authenticity of a patch, even right out of the pack, for a few years now.
Certainly not since I joined here.
04-13-2013, 12:40 AM #4
04-13-2013, 01:15 AM #5
They didn't! You know that.....
Look at all the Bronco jersey cards for 2012. The Hillman's and Osweiler's. So many of them are blue jerseys. 2011 JERSEYS. All of the pictures of these two players show them in new, Nike ORANGE jerseys. That's what they wore at the Rookie Premier, where all these swatches are supposed to come from. Right?
Well, where are the shots of Broncos in blue jerseys?
Actually, the real question is: Where did all the blue swatches come from? Not from the jerseys they wore at the RP, so where?
From their stock of jerseys. How are we to know exactly where a swatch comes from. Because they say so?
I've had several jersey swatches over the years I just thought, right out of the pack, that this swatch was not from this players jersey. There's something just wrong with this. I can't find this color, or whatever, on any jersey, or in any picture from this player. (Usually a Bronco who's jersey I have. I should be able to match it somewhere on the shirt.)
And colors from swatches I pulled from Playoff years ago, when they had pictures of "the actual jersey from which this swatch was taken". A white jersey with black numbers on the back, and a grey swatch on the front. This from a 2002 Piece of the Game. Just one example that comes to mind. A Rich Gannon Raider card. It could be from a Raider jersey, but NOT the one pictured, like it says, no way.
Anyway, this years Bronco jersey cards, some of them, are proof enough to me that the card companies, and definitely Panini, are using older jerseys they have on hand, cutting them up, and passing them off as worn by this years rookies.
I just wanna say that again, there was an article I learned about not long after I joined here about how the card companies were buying jerseys from people who were buying them at retail stores, ruffing them up, and passing them off as genuine game used jerseys to the card companies.
They were using "less than reliable" sources that proved to be fake then, and there's no reason to believe their ethics have gotten any better since.
It's why I stick to Contenders. Just auto's, no questionable swatches.
Cheers to all those who bought NT at $450 a box. At least the autographs are genuine.
04-13-2013, 10:38 AM #6
04-13-2013, 11:55 AM #7
Wouldn't surprise me.
Panini obviously has a lot of respect for it's customers to put Reebok patches on cards for players who could simply not have worn one, and expect nobody to notice. On their premium, most expensive product to boot!
Clearly, Panini is not familiar with it's customers at all. They must really think that 10 year old kids are buying this stuff still. That we are all just a bunch of idiots who wouldn't notice something like this.
And to think. All the hype for this stuff. All the care and attention to detail they took to produce their top product.
It's sad that THIS is considered their finest work......
It's no wonder they have so many problems with redemptions. They can't even get a simple patch on a card right........
04-13-2013, 01:42 PM #8
While it would not surprise me if they put the wrong jersey pieces in the card, these are event worn pieces, not game worn. Even though the photos show the players in the Nike jerseys, remember the players wear dozens of jerseys to put on cards. They often only wear these jerseys for a few seconds or minutes. As such it woudl not surprise me if the players did wear some Reebok jerseys. At previous shoots some players have worn older jerseys and I believe Larry Fiztgerald actually wore a Cris Carter Pro Bowl jersey that was used in his SP Authentic rookie card.
To therefore say that there is no chance the player wore these is not true. While they should not have worn Reebok jerseys, this is different to whether they did wear Reebok jerseys. Again, they are event worn, not game worn, so the players could have worn some Reebok jerseys, or even for that matter some old Starter jerseys.
Now whether these event worn jerseys have much value given how little they are worn by the player, well that is another question....."President Barack Obama, they warn, is a socialist. The critics cry, "Obamacare is socialism!" They falsely equate Western European-style socialism, & its government provision of social insurance & health care, with Marxist-Leninist totalitarianism. It offends me, & cheapens the experience of millions who lived, & continue to live, under brutal forms of socialism." - Milos Forman
04-13-2013, 02:32 PM #9
04-13-2013, 02:56 PM #10
Ya know OZ? Your right.
There is a chance that these players wore these swatches at the Rookie Premier. I have read here about players doing stuff like you said. Although, I don't remember from who, or where. (It might have been you, lol.)
I just won't take their word for it. Not at this point in time.
I have just read too much, seen too much, and pulled too many questionable cards over the years that I have my doubts.
And I have ALWAYS thought, since I first read it on the back of card, that a Rookie Premier jersey is a rip off. These swatches might as well be manufactured like the recent Topps Retail 1 per blaster cards. They are no more "connected" to the game than those are. Well, barely....
Jerseys, (likely cheap wholesale from China) bought and brought to the Rookie Premier for the express purpose of being cut up after a player tries it on.
And he probably doesn't even give it the same consideration he does a pack of underwear he buys at Target.
But a swatch is a swatch right?
I'd go on, lol, but I think I have made my point.