Who believes UD is using fake stuff?

[30ranfordfan]

There is no way they're using fake autographs. Like has already been suggested, they would get sued for it by the players.

As for fake patches, why would they? Upper Deck already makes a ton of cards with photo shoot jerseys, or manufactured patches. They openly declare this on the back of cards. There are a ton of 'patch' cards out there with single color patches.... UD obviously has no problem using 'low quality' patches. They never have.

Besides the fact that there are way too many one color patches out there, the credibility Upper Deck would lose if they were caught using fake patches and trying to pass them off as Game Used would be too big to be worth it.

[Drifter2000]

Yeah, I can't really see this being a reality. The risk of it slipping out into the public and the disaster it would be is really too big of a gamble for UD to take. Things like this have a way of magically getting out, especially in this day and age. All it would take is one disgruntled employee who could prove it.

It's not like they give us large enough swatches in GU cards to really be pressed for material. Especially when they use "event worn" or "photo shoot worn" material instead of actual game used jersey swatches.

[Fisk-Factor75]

The only thing I fear is the way they changed the wording on the back of the cards. What the cards used to say was:
" You have received a game worn jersey card of (insert player here). This memorabilia is certified as being worn by (insert player here) in a MLB/nhl/nfl game".

Now the cards say: "You have received a (Insert Player Name here) game-used trading card. On the front of the card is memorabilia that has been certified to us as being worn in an NHL/NFL/MLB game."

Now the skeptic in me reads the above caption as such: Ok, on th front of the card is such and such player with a piece of game used material on it, so the back of the card is correct that the card is a such and such player game used trading card. But the rest of UD'S statement does nowhere certify in it's words that the jersey was worn by the player pictured on the fromt of the card. only that the jersey piece is certified to having been game worn.

I believe the wording on today's game used cards is worded that way to take the onus off the company issuing the card should a jersey show that it was not worn by the player, or even worse that they can put any piece of jersey on the card as long as it was worn in a game by any player in the game even if it is not that particular player pictured on the front of the card in question. Its a little Oliver Stonish, but if this was not the case, why did they change the wording on all gu cards like this.

[Cerialthriller]

The only thing I fear is the way they changed the wording on the back of the cards. What the cards used to say was:
" You have received a game worn jersey card of (insert player here). This memorabilia is certified as being worn by (insert player here) in a MLB/nhl/nfl game".

Now the cards say: "You have received a (Insert Player Name here) game-used trading card. On the front of the card is memorabilia that has been certified to us as being worn in an NHL/NFL/MLB game."

Now the skeptic in me reads the above caption as such: Ok, on th front of the card is such and such player with a piece of game used material on it, so the back of the card is correct that the card is a such and such player game used trading card. But the rest of UD'S statement does nowhere certify in it's words that the jersey was worn by the player pictured on the fromt of the card. only that the jersey piece is certified to having been game worn.

I believe the wording on today's game used cards is worded that way to take the onus off the company issuing the card should a jersey show that it was not worn by the player, or even worse that they can put any piece of jersey on the card as long as it was worn in a game by any player in the game even if it is not that particular player pictured on the front of the card in question. Its a little Oliver Stonish, but if this was not the case, why did they change the wording on all gu cards like this.

I am assuming it was just a legal issue. Imagine if a player said to UD yeah I just wore this in a game and sent a cheapo jersey to UD and sold the real one on ebay. Now down the road it comes out that this player did this alot and now UD is responsible legally even though they were unknowingly frauded. With the new wording, if they were found to be frauded by player X, player X or his agent or whoever claimed that it was real is legally responsible. The only way UD could protect itself and use the original wording would be if every time they bought a jersey they had a representative there who not at any point took his eye off the jersey. That means after the photoshoot/game following him into the locker room and receiving the jersey directly off his back and then getting on the plane with it. You can see how this would be cost prohibitive. Just like everything else there are going to be haters on the company on top even if its not the best company.

[Crater_Satori]

To a dark place this discussion could lead us,

lol, good ol' Yoda....

... Not his fault or mine for stating our opinions.

lol, this cracks me up...this is like saying..."I can't be held responsible for the things that come out of my mouth"


Back on topic...

I do not believe for a second that anyone from UD would knowingly use illegitimate jerseys or autos...ever! But I guess stranger things have happened.

[30ranfordfan]

The only thing I fear is the way they changed the wording on the back of the cards. What the cards used to say was:
" You have received a game worn jersey card of (insert player here). This memorabilia is certified as being worn by (insert player here) in a MLB/nhl/nfl game".

Now the cards say: "You have received a (Insert Player Name here) game-used trading card. On the front of the card is memorabilia that has been certified to us as being worn in an NHL/NFL/MLB game."

What I would suspect this actually means (I've noticed the difference too) is that the player is not the one certifying it's authenticity. The team, the leauge, the PA, MeiGray, whoever (just not the player) is the one providing the GU stuff to Upper Deck.

[blindros88]

When I read the noticeable difference in language used on the back of the cards today by Upper Deck vs a few years ago, it leads me to believe that one of two things has happened. Either there has been some sort of legal action taken against them with an adverse result or they recognize that quality control is lacking in the sense that far too many pieces get placed on the wrong card and end up in the public.

Honestly, there is only one reason for a company to change the express warranty on the back of the card. Avoiding liability in the future.

If Upper Deck wants to avoid this liability, they need to get the jerseys directly from the league. They are the holder of the exclusive license, I am sure this can be negotiated into the contract. Furthermore, if the NHL expands the license in the coming year, direct access can still be achieved through negotiation.

Lets just say I for one find the different language very troubling. If I was on the Upper Deck legal time, I would have strongly suggested this change not be made unless it was absolutely necessary.

[blindros88]

What I would suspect this actually means (I've noticed the difference too) is that the player is not the one certifying it's authenticity. The team, the leauge, the PA, MeiGray, whoever (just not the player) is the one providing the GU stuff to Upper Deck.

Actually, I think the change refers more to the third parties not other wise associated with the league that Upper Deck may be obtaining the jerseys from.

MeiGray gets the jerseys from the team, and they are all tagged before they go into play, or at least that is how I understand the program to work.

I honestly think that Upper Deck found out it purchased a jersey from a third that was not authentic, and they changed the language to try to deflect liability.

[flemingc04]

The only thing I fear is the way they changed the wording on the back of the cards. What the cards used to say was:
" You have received a game worn jersey card of (insert player here). This memorabilia is certified as being worn by (insert player here) in a MLB/nhl/nfl game".

Now the cards say: "You have received a (Insert Player Name here) game-used trading card. On the front of the card is memorabilia that has been certified to us as being worn in an NHL/NFL/MLB game."

Now the skeptic in me reads the above caption as such: Ok, on th front of the card is such and such player with a piece of game used material on it, so the back of the card is correct that the card is a such and such player game used trading card. But the rest of UD'S statement does nowhere certify in it's words that the jersey was worn by the player pictured on the fromt of the card. only that the jersey piece is certified to having been game worn.

I believe the wording on today's game used cards is worded that way to take the onus off the company issuing the card should a jersey show that it was not worn by the player, or even worse that they can put any piece of jersey on the card as long as it was worn in a game by any player in the game even if it is not that particular player pictured on the front of the card in question. Its a little Oliver Stonish, but if this was not the case, why did they change the wording on all gu cards like this.

I wonder if Upper Deck may have been advised to change the wording to how it is now in case there ever is an incident where a piece of cut jersey is mixed with another. There have been at least a couple of cases on SCF where people have pulled or seen a patch and yet nobody could describe how it could have come from that player's jersey. There was a case like this in the past 2 or 3 weeks where there was clearly no way the patch could have come from a player. That way, the card still says it was used in an NHL game, but they do not guarantee who's jersey.

[07mears07]

Just to clarify, I always believed Upper Deck was true haha.