Card Identification Forum

The guideline is regarding sets made during a player's playing career. Sets made in 1991 contain no current (2021) players - that's not the guideline. It's regarding their status at the time of the set's issuance. So all those sets in 1991 that had active players in 1991 are not supposed to be listed here - according to the guideline. Those players were under contract with the MLBPA (for the most part) and in some cases, directly with other companies (such as with Star Int'l). 

This is how I always interpreted it. However, I drew attention to one of the lines from the FAQ in my last post that could cause confusion: The cards cannot feature any current players as they would presumably be under current player association contracts for use of likeness.

I think regardless of how this set in particular is handled (and the similar ones), this part of the FAQ may need some clearing up, because this could be interpreted as "current players" right now, or as "current players" when the cards were printed. In fact, it sounds more like "current players right now" to me when I read it.

Also, Dan, quit replying when I'm working on one. I had a whole fun post with an example and questions and quotes and everything and I had to scrap it because you beat me to the punch in a much less wordy manner   I kid, of course.

The cards cannot feature any current players as they would presumably be under current player association contracts for use of likeness.

I read that as "today". And in this, as the English language is spoken, I think I am right. It may not be what it was meant to say but the way it is written, it is current players in the present time of today.

This is why I use the term "bootleg". To distinguish from the legitimate "unlicensed", such as current Panini baseball. They don't have license to use team names, logos, distinct uniform elements.  But have license to include active players.

Chuck, fully agree with the term "Bootleg". The companies (and I think that is a liberal use of the term) that produced these had not license to put these up for sale.  But there are so many in the  hobby that I think they need to be recognized with the factual term "unlicensed" in the name.

I don't see many of these for recent years.  I think most basement shops are working on counterfeits more than trying to produce and sell "Bootleg" cards.

Like a few others have mentioned. When I read that FAQ to me it means Today and current.

Using some's logic an illegal bootleg unlicensed set becomes legal once all players retire?  Regardless, if today in 2021, the player is long retired, these cards still illegally used team names, logos, and distinctive uniform elements.  Those things are always "current". If it was just the status of a player, then Panini could use team logos and names on the retired players cards in their current sets.  And does a player lose his rights to his image after he retires?

I don't think anyone is using this logic. I think the concern here (which is starting to slide away from the main point) is that the FAQ can be incorrectly interpreted to mean exactly that Chuck. That's why I think some rewording would be helpful, to avoid any confusion

I think it should be added mainly because I have a card for my Will Clark collection I want to add. 😁