Why We Print Iconic Cards in Small Runs

People ask us this every other week and it's a fair question.

"Why don't you just print more? You'd sell them. The price could come down."

We could. We won't. Here's the actual thinking β€” not the marketing version.

A card that exists in five hundred copies is a different object from a card that exists in fifty thousand

A trading card is a physical thing, but its meaning isn't physical. The meaning lives in scarcity, in provenance, in the small social fact that not everyone has one. The moment you print past a certain threshold, the object loses that meaning β€” even if every individual card is identical.

Topps used to print baseball cards in tens of millions per year. Vintage Topps cards from those runs are now worth pennies each, except for the handful that survived in pristine condition. The cards themselves are the same. The market just understands they're not scarce. They never were.

We'd rather print 1,500 sets of something and have it be a real thing, than print 150,000 and have it be wallpaper.

Production quality scales the wrong way

The dirty secret of mass-market card printing is that quality goes down as runs go up. When you're printing 50,000 sets, you're optimising for throughput, not finish. The cold-foil starts thinning. The spot UV gets sloppy. The card stock drops weight. The laminate gets cheaper. You can see it on the supermarket card aisles every Christmas.

When we print 1,500 sets, we can hold the printer to 400gsm dual-laminated stock, every set. We can demand spot UV at the right thickness. We can do cold-foil on every chase card without the press getting tired. The quality control is realistic at small numbers; it gets fictional at large ones.

Small runs let us pay artists properly

This one matters and nobody talks about it.

When the band, the studio, the photographer or the rights-holder licences their work to a card set, they get a per-unit royalty. On a 1,500-set run we can pay a meaningful per-set royalty without the wholesale price collapsing. On a 50,000-set run, the per-unit royalty drops to fractions of a penny β€” and the rights-holders feel it.

We'd rather make 1,500 sets and pay the photographer fairly than make a hundred times that and pay them dust.

This also affects who'll work with us. The artists and rights-holders we've licensed from in the past have said yes specifically because they liked the small-run, premium-finish model. A photographer who shot one of our music sets told us last year: "I wouldn't have put my name on this if you were doing it the Topps way." That's the company we want to keep.

Small runs mean we never print a set we don't believe in

A 50,000-set print run is a Β£100,000+ investment before a single card has been sold. To justify that, you have to print sets you're not sure about, because you need volume.

We don't have to. A 1,500-set run gets greenlit on conviction alone. Every set we put out is something we believe in. The day we have to start printing sets we don't believe in to make the maths work is the day we've already failed.

What it means for you, the collector

It means three things:

  1. Your cards stay scarce. We don't reprint. Once a run is gone, it's gone β€” full stop, no second editions, no "anniversary reissue" in five years.
  2. The cards are better. Heavier stock, better finishing, real foil and spot UV, every set.
  3. The packs feel like the catalogue you remember. The way Topps cards felt in 1990, before the industry chased volume. That's the bar.
  4. If the trade-off is that some people miss out β€” that's the trade-off. We'd rather the people who get a set, get a real thing.

    What's next

    Set 3, the Verve set, is the next drop (details here). The base run is 2,000 sets β€” slightly bigger than usual because the catalogue's appetite for music cards is larger than for film tie-ins, but still small enough that we can hold the quality bar. Chase cards are 250 each. That's the line.

    Join the catalogue and you'll hear before everyone else when a new run goes live.

    β€” Laurence

Back to blog