I'd like to start off by saying I am a big supporter of Leaf and love the quality of cards they produce. Gregg and his team truly do an excellent job, especially given the circumstances of not having a license.
A few comments I have:
1) I wholeheartedly agree with the "more than one 1/1 parallel" thing. I think that's crazy. Now, you have to look at why that is done. It's done because of the various parallels. If the "base" version is already really scarce as it is and you're squeezing all those parallels in, naturally there's only so many ways of doing that with a scarce print run, so there is going to be overlap somewhere in that case. It's important to note this is NOT the case for the majority of Leaf cards, only the scarcest of cards, typically those with rare vintage memorabilia pieces.
2) I agree I would like to see the parallels scaled back. It is excessive. Do we like rainbows with a lot of versions? Yeah, but within reason. Like was mentioned above, OPC Platinum does a great job of this. Even though there are a ton of parallels, they're all very different in appearance and print run. In this case though, would I rather have the base version /6 or a parallel of it /5? Well, honestly, it's essentially the same thing, especially if the only thing changing is the foil color. I would greatly prefer to see there be only one or two parallels of cards that scarce to begin with. Why? If the most common card is limited to just six copies, there's not going to be much difference in the value for the parallels. The 1/1 would get a bump, sure, but the other ones in between are almost as easy to find as the base anyway, and if you look at the quantity of base vs. parallel, there are more parallels. That dynamic decreases the value in the parallels since it's basically just going against the point of a parallel in the first place. On the flip side, suppose you go with a /25, /10, 1/1 type of system, for example. Obviously this will not be the case for the scarce stuff, but just for the sake of the argument. There would be a noticeable premium for the /10 and certainly for the 1/1 since they are noticeably rarer cards than the /25 base version.
3) I think scaling back the amount of parallels could actually save memorabilia in the long run. Yes, in the OP, that example is an equal amount if copies. But let's look at something like a multi-player vintage memorabilia card. Let's suppose that card has /5, /4, /3, /2, and two 1/1 versions. That's a total of 16 copies. Suppose you want to still really focus on the scarcity of those cards, which they SHOULD be. If A Vezina memorabilia piece is /20 or /25, I think that is just way too high nowadays for what it is. A card like that should be an extremely tough pull. Suppose you switch that card to have just a /5 base version and a 1/1 version. You just saved 10 pieces of memorabilia while still achieving the goal of having an extreme level of scarcity for the card. Also, in that process, you are actually driving up the demand for the card by decreasing the supply. AND, the memorabilia you have goes a longer way. I'd be EXTREMELY cautious with how I am using vintage memorabilia at this point, especially guys like Vezina and Cyclone. Once those remaining pieces are used, they're gone. That's it. If throughout your line of products you incorporate 25-30 Vezina pieces per year, you're going to use it up a LOT quicker than if you limit the parallels and only use say 15 pieces per year. It drives up the demand for those cards AND makes the memorabilia last longer. Total win-win.
4) Though not related to the original topic, the same can be said for the focus on multi-player memorabilia cards. Is it great to have some? Yes, absolutely, no question. But when that becomes the norm, it actually hurts the value of the cards. I have opened a ton of Leaf ITG Used over the years and I can 100% tell you if I pull say a six-way vintage memorabilia card, I'd be able to get substantially more value if those six memorabilia pieces were on their own cards. That six-way I might get $100 for. If they're individual pieces, I could easily get twice that amount. Easily. And again, by limiting the number of multi-player memorabilia cards, you are stretching the usage out over a longer period of time. Take that six-way memorabilia card. That is one card. If you break up those pieces into single-player cards, you just allowed yourself to make SIX TIMES the amount of content with the exact same amount of memorabilia being used. I also believe the cards with tons of players hold less demand. Suppose you collect Cyclone. Do you want Paddy Moran on the card too? You couldn't care less if he's on it or not, most likely, because you just want Cyclone. Would you enjoy having that piece? Sure, but that isn't why you want the card, at all. If I'm collecting a specific player, I'd rather see my guy on his own, or with guys that make a lot of sense to be paired with, say if they all played on the same line, for example. It's a natural fit. But just throwing together guys from the same era doesn't make a ton of sense to me outside of just enjoying the hockey history presented.
Woof, this got a bit out of hand, sorry for the long read, folks. Gregg, you know I love what you guys do; just trying to provide some insight that would make the product better for both the consumer and manufacturer. If you guys want to hire me on as a hobby/business consultant, let me know.
but you'll enjoy it
