General Forum

Modern licensing is destroying many sectors of the economy and needs to be reigned in. That said, I got used to cards not having logos.

However, the thing I do not like that Panini does in baseball is not use the A/AL vs N/NL for their New York and Chicago cards. Easy to tell between Dodgers (blue) and Angels (red) but and usually between White Sox (black) and Cubs (blue) but sometimes not, but not with Mets (blue) and Yankees (a darker blue) and that is ONLY when they are using a color scheme on the cards. Sometimes in the DK sets it is hard to know which is which and it may be because the cards are printed on a weird stock. If there is no color scheme in the design then it may be impossible. Sure with big stars you can know, but there are so many rookies I never heard of. Now that I moved into sets, the destinction is not important to me anymore but it was a real pain when I was doing anything with teams.

I see where you are coming from, but as an autograph collector, I love the unlicensed cards from SAGE, Press Pass, Classic Draft, etc. as it allows me to fill out my autograph collection relatively cheaply.  

Please don't remove other people's work...unless I did it. Then it's free reign to change and ignore reality just to erase my original research that existed nowhere else on the internet and now no longer exists at all. 

And you wonder why I don't post any scans, checklists or track my collection here anymore?  This is no longer a real database, just another incomplete, inaccurate Beckett knockoff.

I agree with tpxcards on the Panini cards. I separate cards into teams for a local card shop and Panini is a pain in the rear. I spend a lot of extra time having to go to Baseball Reference to find out what team and when the players are/were associated with them. I believe that not being licensed to use a team's name would not prohibit them from stating what league they are in