Card thickness, perceived value, and a soapbox rant.

[ChuckNorrisFearsSid]

Am I the only one who doesn't think a regular jersey swatch needs to be on 100+ point stock? Not bashing any brand in particular but I just got a Giacomin Superlative GUJ in the mail and it barely fits in a 100 point one-touch. Is that really necessary?

I broke a box of Portfolio, and got destroyed, but one of the hits was a SPGU rookie. Unsigned, no jersey, and it's probably a 130pt thick card. Does anyone feel like they got more than what they did because the card is super thick?

Take Cup as an example. Every card is ginormous in thickness. Is that really necessary for base cards? For base jerseys?

Whatever I stick in my PC I like to keep in a one-touch. Not necessarily because it's a valuable card but mostly just because I think it looks better than top loaders. I'm perfectly fine with a jersey fitting in something less than a 100pt one-touch.

Anyone else think the same? I personally don't think just because a jersey is an inch thick makes it special.

 

[sdpdesign]

I have found it difficult to find the right holder for various jersey/prime/patch cards since they have varied from year to year. What was "the size" for UD last year is too small this year.

I can see why some cards are made in the thicker stock, like jersey cards, since the cards may have a tendency to get a crease if not bigger. THIS does not stop the problem, but it probably has reduced it.

I think the thickness in the base cards is "status" thing...the thicker, the more expensive. But for quality issues, it is much harder to crease a thick card that you paid big bucks for than a regular card. True?

just my 2 pennies.

 

[SNobles]

I hate thick cards altogether myself. I am sick of the GU craze and I have moved or moving all of my Roy base cards from The Cup, NT, ITG Ultimate etc. I like to display all of my cards in binders and do not like how the thick cards look in the 4 pocket pages.

To get back to your initial question, I don't think regular GU cards need to be that thick but it might be for consistency if there is a patch parallel version.

 

[gallinator]

I am a little torn. Agreed on the regular jersey cards - just make them thick enough to hold the swatch and make the patch/prime ones thicker as needed. Panini did a good job with this, IMO. The second piece about the thick base - yes, I do feel it makes it a little more special to have a low-numbered, thick base card in my hands vs a low-numbered parallel thin card, unless the thin card has other attributes to compensate (foil, gold leaf, a gemstone LOL). So I do see inherent value in thicker base, but only in the higher-end stuff (but it's all becoming higher-end, so let's say just The Cup and maybe Premier).

 

[quincy]

Brother, you're singing my song. There is a HUUUUUGE disconnect between collectors and manufacturers on this point: "expensive to produce" does not translate into "value for the collector". This is most true of card stock. Heavier stocks are more expensive to work with for a variety of reasons...and quite honestly, the average collector gives less than a tinker's cuss about it. And yet that is usually in the top three explanations trotted out as a defence for a higher-dollar product: "Well, we used a premium stock" "Well, nobody cares except you."

Cup is perhaps the best example of this. It never had to be on 130 point stock. It would have been quite reasonably done on 100 point stock, and heavier stock could be used as needed (e.g. shields). 'Course, that djinni is out of the bottle now.

 

[uvic99]

It's a bit of hassle to get the right sleeves, top loaders or one-touch holders for those extra thick cards. Like others have said, I'd prefer the thickness to match the material. Sure thick cards are more expensive to manufacture, but does anyone think "yeah, thick stock - that justifies $500 a tin."? Thick or thin, it's still just cardboard.

 

[creasecollector]

Yeah, I would have to agree when it comes to card thickness. Cup shield cards, fine, make it as thick as you want to support the card. Other than that, very few cards need to be extra thick, especially base cards. Seeing a thick base card is just a waste.

If they saved a bit more on their cardboard stock, maybe they wouldn't have to charge so much for their products to their retailers, and consumers could actually afford hockey cards. Maybe I'm digging a little deep here, but every bit helps when trying to cut down physical production costs.

Instead of spending (in my opinion) wasted material to produce a high-end product, just stick to the basics. This will help everyone right down to the collectors who buy it, and everyone can save a little bit more money along the way. Just my 2 cents

 

[odjickfan]

The cards in ITGU this year were really thick.