MGIM's right on the licensing. It's just Topps for "official" MLB products; the rest all have licenses with MLBPA. Mets Guy in Michigan wrote: My beef is the Bowman sets. I subscribe -- if that's the right word -- to a store in Iowa that builds team sets and sends them out every couple of months. It seems like year in and year out, the Bowman sets are awful. And it seems like there are three or four variations of the sets -- a Chrome version, and so on. Zvon wrote: I'm not a fan of all the special versions and all that. It makes the hobby into something that it shouldn't be. I still kinda dig it when I get one though. That's just it. Collect what you want and just pretend the other stuff doesn't exist. I find that pulling the parallels and short prints I don't want give me ammunition for trades and/or eBay sales to get the things I do want, though. G-Fafif wrote: A friend suggested perhaps teams that didn't exist in the years that are being replicated should have simply been left out until they were born. Probably wouldn't have gone over, but that's pretty damn authentic. Edgy MD wrote: That's problematic territory. Retrofit cards challenge us to accept (and often delight in) hairstyles, positions, ethinicities (at least at the big league level), and more that didn't exist in the time of the publication of the original set. The whole enterprise is a big exercise of what-if. It forces the artists and the collectors to adapt, and that's most of the fun, isn't it? Topps has largely done very well with the Heritage sets -- replicating errors, card numbering parallels, etc -- although for some reason, they can never quite get some of it exactly correct. It's nitpicky, but if you're going to go through the exercise of making the set, spend the extra time to make sure the fonts are right.