Who believes UD is using fake stuff?

[JordanStaal11]

If they used fake jersey pieces, auto, patches ect, ect ect, could the MILLIONS AND MILLIONS of collectors form the biggest class action suit the world has ever seen?

We all spend money on these cards. If we were being mislead to believe all these card are real and found to be fake (with undeniable proof) couldn't we, as collectors do something about it?

As for me, I don't think they would. They are riding a HUGE money train and they don't want it to derail.

[gregmal05]

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.

This is exactly what I would assume it is. It's simply legal talk stating that the company is not liable if there was ever issue with it. This by no means is an indication that they are doing anything wrong, however it is simply a company protecting itself from any future problem. The autos used to be the same way. "This card was sent to us directly from player x" has been changed for similar reasons.

[worr8529]

My vote is that the jersey's are what they say they are on the back of the card. When they say the card was used in an event they mean it. But sometimes the wording can get a little tricky as in "certified to us as having been used in an nhl game" legally that could mean a lot of things, such as someone used the jersey to mop up blood on the ice. I know people who stay away from the hobby just because they do not trust UD. I wouldnt let it bother you though, if all the cards turned out to be fake you could kiss the hobby goodbye...

[cnshockey]

yeah....about that whole sending a crap jersey....that can't happen. NHL game jerseys have a patch sewn on the inside signifying that it is game used.

[jpietrzak7862]

Yes they do, they get paid for it. So why not? Players would make a lawsuit if someone forged their signature.

I understand they are compensated but even knowing that signing your name over and over 10000 times is not something most people would look forward to.

[Cerialthriller]

yeah....about that whole sending a crap jersey....that can't happen. NHL game jerseys have a patch sewn on the inside signifying that it is game used.

who sews the patch in and when does it get sewn in? i mean do they come pre sewn in like maybe a player asks for however many jersey to use for the season? Is it sewn in after the game like is there a guy in the lockeroom taking each players jersey after they take it off firing up a Singer? In the first scenario what stops the guy from just ordering extra jerseys and sending ones that would have eventually been used out. And if its done after the fact whats stopping anyone whos hands it passes through from making a swap. And whats the point of sewing anything in after the fact when its just gonna get cut up.

[Inferno]

I have no faith in Upper Deck memorabilia

[Prime B]

Prime B, who has one of THE best KIngs collections I have seen believes this I think. I would love to hear his take on it. If you read this, please write what you think.

First of all, thanks for the kind words. I like my Kings collection, at least the portions of it I KNOW are legitimate.

I dont, Prime B say this in his thread,

"I appreciate the offer but I am trying to avoid most of the UD memorabilia cards made in the past couple years as the "certified to us" crap regarding the "supposed" game used material on the card doesn't fly with me......

Thanks again"

So i wanted to say how could this be true, because they would be sued so bad and spending their life in jail. Prime B knows what he is doing, and he always had his doubts on UD so I wanted to bring this up. Not his fault or mine for stating our opinions.

Yup, I said that and I think the quote below conveys what I was alluding to:

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.

This is quoted for truth. The autographs they use are totally legit. That said, why do they have redemptions for some autos? Maybe because they're cash poor and can't pay the players up front like they are supposed to for the signatures.

There is no way they're using fake autographs.

Another thoughtful reply:

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.

Quoted for truth and comedy!

I have no faith in Upper Deck memorabilia

Ok, now here is my honest take on UD memorabilia as 07mears07 asked:

The rookie stuff IS photo shoot. We All KNOW that.

The rest of it? I break it down like this.

I will give UD the benefit of the doubt and believe that many of the players who had game used cards before the 06/07 season still may have legitimate pieces out there. Through 05/06 UD used the terminology that "this was used/worn by said player in an official NHL game."

THAT could be the lawsuit you guys are all referring to if ever proven otherwise (though I personally would like to see their archives of provenance and/or paper trail to be sure............)

That all changed in 06/07 when it went to being "certified to us as being worn by said player."

So it was still the same player but now the wording is getting sketchy as in "we're not sure this jersey was really worn in an NHL game but it IS of this player!" Like that matters!

Now it says "certified by us as being worn in an official NHL game."

So now we don't if A) It's actually been in a game or B) If it has, WHO the heck might have worn it?

That is what I am getting at!

I am saying the "game worn" cards of guys like Ovechkin could be from a dang Brian Sutherby sweater, no joke people.

I think Crosby may be one of the exceptions of the 05/06 and after issue because he is a spokesman........but with UD you never know.

Uncertainty SUCKS and, well for this year at least, so do UD's products so far.

Outside of OPC and SPA, BRUTAL year, brutal.......................hopefully The Cup is decent but I am not holding my breath.

[xirxious]

What about just plain wrong Autos? I have a Barker RC auto #/5 (and they couldn't get these right) and it has a Cam Ward auto sticker on it? This is a card that should be in the higher end of the players stuff, but it wortyh $30 because UD screwed up. I inquired about this and they have no reason or want to fix it?!? ™™™, They made the card into a legal contract as a COA and it means bupkiss?

[twotoekenn]

the whole official event thing makes me kinda sick. i pulled an anton stasny guj card from spgu, and it was black. if i pull an anton stastny, i expect it to be a nice blue piece from a nordiques jersey. btw anybody know when the exclusive liscence ends?