Non-sport hobby pet peeves

[AngusMacGyver]

Anyone else have this thread as their new pet peeve?

[Pacmeyer]

Originally Posted by MisterX

Yes mate. Did you read my pet peeve about fly-by-night collectors who don't know as much as they think they do?

I saw the scans on the Topps website back in 2004 before the release of Heritage. I remember the fuss made about the first ever Star Wars sketch cards. I was excited at the images shown (particularly Kilian Plunkett's cards).
I bought a box of Heritage at release and was very disappointed with the sketch that I pulled by Randy Martinez.
GREAT artist, but pencil caricature of Bib Fortuna in profile. It wasn't 'bad', just not what I was expecting due to the adverts.

I also pulled a pencil Obi-Wan of his from the few packs of Revenge of the Sith I bought.
(He did 3,000 sketches for each product).

I met Randy at a convention in the UK in 2006. Nice guy, and he did me a fun James Bond PSC and I saw some of his Star Wars aftermarkets in person. Not long after I mailed him my Heritage and ROTS cards to 'upgrade'.
I no longer have the Obi-Wan but still have my Bib > Han Solo.
It's kind of neat you can still see some of the original pencil impressions if you look closely.



Of course Randy and other artists got paid more for a commission than what Topps were paying for the pack inserts.

I paid £45 each for Randy to do mine (~$90 at the time).
Topps were paying I think $2.50 for each card. It may even have been less than that.

If you go on Jeff Allender's website (do you know who he is?), he states:

Notes: Distribution for some of the sketch cards is hard to quantify because some artists were provided blank cards for personal distribution outside the placement in factory packs. Further information and scans are found at the Topps web archive.

Hodges, Busch and Fabbri all did 2000 cards minimum.

You are re-hashing a very old argument.
Regardless of how you feel about it, the artists all turned in what they were contracted to do.
Art is subjective but a sketch is not necessarily a fully rendered 'masterpiece'.
And an artist with thousands of cards to draw will obviously not have the same amount of time to devote to the project as the artists who did a couple hundred.
It is at every artist's sole discretion how they value their time in relation to any project.

I don't think the quality of Hodges work, although less detailed than some, is justification enough for insulting remarks such as self-serving. Particularly where they were all allowed to erase and re-draw their own cards.

Nobody did anything wrong.

You're using terminology incorrectly.

You're describing an 'erased card'. It is not a 'blank'.
A blank sketch card is unused.

I agree though some artwork could be perceived as 'lazy' in comparison to other pieces, even from the very same artist.

There is nothing "illegal" about 'official' artists re-drawing on their own cards for sets they worked on, prior to LOTR Evolution.
As mentioned plenty of times already, artists could erase their own work, not that of others, for the sake of private commissions.

It's OK you don't like it, but it's not the scandal you seem to think it is.

I don't normally bring up post count, but your 113 posts in 7 years sums up members like you perfectly ... hardly, if ever, contribute anything but go to town when the mood strikes attacking other members and twisting what the other person actually said.

Since you like sports terminology so much, enjoy your scrub sketches.

[BobCollects]

Originally Posted by AngusMacGyver

Anyone else have this thread as their new pet peeve?

Haha yup.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[glorbgorb]

Sadly the usage of the term rookie has been used for years, though not consistently. Marvel Annual has had inserts over the years ranging from Rookie Heroes to Future Watch Heroes, the latter of which is based on one of the more highly coveted rookie cards from hockey's SP Authentic (even the style is similar). And then, of course, 1990 Marvel Universe I had it on the cards, so it is not a new phenomenom:



However, what IS new is people actually caring about that designation. And that I blame on the sports people coming over and trying to capitalize on something that meant nothing to non-sports collectors for years.

[DynaEtch]

Originally Posted by glorbgorb

Sadly the usage of the term rookie has been used for years, though not consistently. Marvel Annual has had inserts over the years ranging from Rookie Heroes to Future Watch Heroes, the latter of which is based on one of the more highly coveted rookie cards from hockey's SP Authentic (even the style is similar). And then, of course, 1990 Marvel Universe I had it on the cards, so it is not a new phenomenom:



However, what IS new is people actually caring about that designation. And that I blame on the sports people coming over and trying to capitalize on something that meant nothing to non-sports collectors for years.

Yea I always think of that 90 MU subset when I think of marvel rookies haha.

I view it as Impel trying to mimic baseball cards smack dab in the middle of the junk wax era. They also had team cards, etc. Basically a marriage of baseball cards and marvel.

The problem with that small rookie subset is it was mainly B-list characters (with the exception of Ghost Rider I guess). And then again, Ghost Rider has been around since the 70s, so what are even doing here. First card appearance I suppose.

It's definitely a newer thing to care about rookie cards. The question 'what is X's first card appearance?' comes up more and is almost invariably asked by speculators trying to make money on rookies. For example people asking it about Miles Morales during the pandemic...and his Marvel Beginnings 3 base card promptly rising in value.

Time will tell how important the hobby views these first card appearances in the longer term future. What gets me is when the set in question has several appearances of the character and the earliest card number is designated as the rookie (like the 1966 Donruss Spiderman #34)...I mean there are many more spidermans in the set! going by card number seems rather artificial. Regardless, none of this is Spider-man's 'rookie' or 'first appearance' imo...Aug, 1962 gets those honors.

[glorbgorb]

It takes me back to a time in the 80s and 90s when Beckett would denote cards as FUDC or FTC for First UD Card and First Topps Card, respectively. There was also XRC for Xtended Rookie Card. My experience back then was almost solely baseball, but I imagine those designations were in other sports. That means collectors tried to attach 'artificial' value for those tags, or perhaps Beckett was the first pumpers. Probably a little of both.

[PurplesaurusRex]

Originally Posted by DynaEtch

Love the Sauron sketch! I missed the boat on the sketch version of this book.

[glorbgorb]

To keep the ball rolling on pet peeves, I've never understood the fascination with alpha and omega stamps. Cool? I guess (but not really), but enough to charge extra for? Not at all. Especially knowing they are typically stamped in reverse order anyway.

[DynaEtch]

Originally Posted by glorbgorb

To keep the ball rolling on pet peeves, I've never understood the fascination with alpha and omega stamps. Cool? I guess (but not really), but enough to charge extra for? Not at all. Especially knowing they are typically stamped in reverse order anyway.

That’s a good one. I guess since we don’t have jersey numbers #’d to in nonsports, we’re left with alphas and omegas. I think it’s just a way a market can add an extra element of chase and value, regardless of how artificial it is. If enough people acknowledge it, then the value is created. On one hand, it’s silly, on the other hand, who am I kidding if I wouldn’t prefer a 0001/1999 over a 1537/1999 on one of those modern Masterpieces base.

Originally Posted by PurplesaurusRex

Love the Sauron sketch! I missed the boat on the sketch version of this book.

Yea Joe did a great job on that one. Also in case any confusion, this was not the kickstarter book from FPG with original art that just happened…those were separate paintings that come with a book about 1992 MM, soon to come out. The above was a personal composition Jusko did in the 2016 Masterpieces book by IDW (not part of any campaign). This is probably why it didn’t break the bank.

[jdandns]

Originally Posted by DynaEtch

Yea I always think of that 90 MU subset when I think of marvel rookies haha.

I view it as Impel trying to mimic baseball cards smack dab in the middle of the junk wax era. They also had team cards, etc. Basically a marriage of baseball cards and marvel.

The problem with that small rookie subset is it was mainly B-list characters (with the exception of Ghost Rider I guess). And then again, Ghost Rider has been around since the 70s, so what are even doing here. First card appearance I suppose.

With Ghost Rider in the 1990 set, that "rookie" card did dovetail with the introduction in comic books of his new alter ego, Danny Ketch, so that's probably where they were going with that one.

As for the original GR, Johnny Blaze, he actually made it onto an, er, rookie card, way back in 1975, so a mere 3 years after his first appearance in comics.
It's in the first of two mid70's Topps Marvel Super Hero sticker sets. Those sets contain several characters who might not have otherwise appeared on a pack issued card/sticker until 1984 FTCC Marvel First Issue Covers Set or even the various Comic Images releases beginning in 1986.

[MisterX]

Originally Posted by Pacmeyer

I don't normally bring up post count, but your 113 posts in 7 years sums up members like you perfectly ... hardly, if ever, contribute anything but go to town when the mood strikes attacking other members and twisting what the other person actually said.

Since you like sports terminology so much, enjoy your scrub sketches.

I apologise for my low post-count, I do not live online. An excellent retort by the way when there is nowhere else to go with a flawed argument. You are welcome to peruse my previous contributions to see if they meet your standards.

You asked if I had any knowledge of the product.
I answered.
Contradicting your (partially) inaccurate info. is not an "attack".
I'd say you bashing artists/their work using words like "underhand" and "illegal" fits your definition more appropriately. Now "scrub". Classy.
I would be interested to see what art you could knock out for a couple of bucks.

[Pacmeyer]

Originally Posted by MisterX

I apologise for my low post-count, I do not live online. An excellent retort by the way when there is nowhere else to go with a flawed argument. You are welcome to peruse my previous contributions to see if they meet your standards.

You asked if I had any knowledge of the product.
I answered.
Contradicting your (partially) inaccurate info. is not an "attack".
I'd say you bashing artists/their work using words like "underhand" and "illegal" fits your definition more appropriately. Now "scrub". Classy.
I would be interested to see what art you could knock out for a couple of bucks.

Where did I say anything these artists did is "illegal"? You just confirmed that you're simply making things up.

People bash stuff they don't like all the time on BO. Get over it. What they don't do typically is bash other members.

Originally Posted by MisterX

Yes mate. Did you read my pet peeve about fly-by-night collectors who don't know as much as they think they do?

Originally Posted by MisterX

The fly-by-night fickle collectors all ready to board the latest hype train, espouse their passionate love for whatever films or shows, throw money around hoovering up cards like there's no tomorrow, brag across all the socials, and maybe a year or two down the line all is up for sale. "Moving on from the hobby", "PC interests have changed" whatever.
I can't say I'm totally surprised when in the youtube videos, or in discussions, the collector doesn't even know character names of something they apparently follow. Spending hundreds of dollars on sketches depicting scenes of your favourite movies you don't even recognise? Big fan you say? OK.

Now you're implying that I'm lacking in class and also some kind of failed artist?

But don't let me stop you. While you won't get me to muzzle my opinions, you'll eventually succeed in getting this thread locked. That would be quite an accomplishment for someone with barely 100 posts.

[MisterX]

Originally Posted by Pacmeyer

Where did I say anything these artists did is "illegal"? You just confirmed that you're simply making things up.

People bash stuff they don't like all the time on BO. Get over it. What they don't do typically is bash other members.

Now you're implying that I'm lacking in class and also some kind of failed artist?

But don't let me stop you. While you won't get me to muzzle my opinions, you'll eventually succeed in getting this thread locked. That would be quite an accomplishment for someone with barely 100 posts.

Post #85 in this thread, from yourself.
You've shown an artist's work, said they erase sketches to make a 'blank', and then implied that as illegal.

Originally Posted by Pacmeyer

The points that matter here are:
- artists could not create and sell Stars Wars sketches without a blank Topps Star Wars sketch card (illegal of course)
- artists could obtain blank Star Wars sketch cards by erasing the cards returned to them as part payment from Topps (artist's returns)
- artists could charge whatever Star Wars collectors were willing to pay to draw their dream sketches

I never said you were a failed artist. I was trying to get you to think critically about the bashing you have been doing throughout. What art would you, me, or most people, produce for $2, even if they could?

Calling them 'scrub' sketches is insulting to the artists. These are not the akin to the Ryan Waterhouse screaming monkey sketches!

This, after you've said artists who engaged in sanctioned practice (at the time) were:
"Playing games".
"Lazy".
"Gaming the system."
"Clowns".
"Underhand".

You are entitled to your opinions but yes, I would say you lack a little class because in giving your opinion, you are being repeatedly insulting.

You've also insulted other posters where you suggest they don't know what they're talking about when you appear to not know all that much about the history of the aftermarket cards you're slamming.
Anyway, we're going in circles. If you can't remember what you wrote translates to me "making stuff up", you'll no doubt be pleased to hear I won't be replying to any more of your posts.

Like you, plenty of other collectors are not big fans of aftermarket cards. I don't mind them. It's no big deal.

[MisterX]

Back on topic...

Too widely accepted as normal these days, but sticker autographs is a huge pet peeve.

Signer didn't handle the card.
Signature is cramped/altered/runs off sticker.
Depending on design, sticker can be an eyesore. Especially if stunk on wonky.
Fluff can get stuck under the edges.

A real step backwards for autograph cards IMO.

[Pacmeyer]

Originally Posted by MisterX

Post #85 in this thread, from yourself.
You've shown an artist's work, said they erase sketches to make a 'blank', and then implied that as illegal.

You are absolutely in the wrong here. I never said or implied that anything is illegal. Go back and read without skimming. How am I implying that anything is illegal if I'm also saying Topps wouldn't care?

Originally Posted by MisterX

I never said you were a failed artist. I was trying to get you to think critically about the bashing you have been doing throughout. What art would you, me, or most people, produce for $2, even if they could?

The same frivolous argument. No one forced any of these artists to accept Topps' terms.

Originally Posted by MisterX

Calling them 'scrub' sketches is insulting to the artists. These are not the akin to the Ryan Waterhouse screaming monkey sketches!

This, after you've said artists who engaged in sanctioned practice (at the time) were:
"Playing games".
"Lazy".
"Gaming the system."
"Clowns".
"Underhand".

You are entitled to your opinions but yes, I would say you lack a little class because in giving your opinion, you are being repeatedly insulting.

Are you so thin skinned that no one can disparage your precious sketches and sketch artists? If you need a safe space, try a different hobby.

Originally Posted by MisterX

You've also insulted other posters where you suggest they don't know what they're talking about when you appear to not know all that much about the history of the aftermarket cards you're slamming.

No I haven't. There were Marvel collectors who assumed the same concepts applied to Star Wars sketches so in that case they didn't know we weren't talking about the same thing. The mistake has been cleared up. How long are you going to keep white knighting a nonexistent cause?

Originally Posted by MisterX

Anyway, we're going in circles. If you can't remember what you wrote translates to me "making stuff up", you'll no doubt be pleased to hear I won't be replying to any more of your posts.

Like you, plenty of other collectors are not big fans of aftermarket cards. I don't mind them. It's no big deal.

Nice save. That's the typical response on forums when people realize they can't browbeat someone into shutting up.

[DynaEtch]

Originally Posted by Pacmeyer

No I haven't. There were Marvel collectors who assumed the same concepts applied to Star Wars sketches so in that case they didn't know we weren't talking about the same thing. The mistake has been cleared up. How long are you going to keep white knighting a nonexistent cause?

Sigh, back to this. Your aiming this at me was already responded to above.

Originally Posted by Pacmeyer

APs are irrelevant here and injecting a debate about them is only confusing a simple matter. I'm talking about the blank cards provided to artists from sets licensed by Topps. The only way anyone including hired artists can get a hold of blank copies of these for their own use is to erase an existing sketch.

The bolded is false. That Star Wars does it differently than Marvel in not even differentiating the AP stock, so that it's basically just a blank regular sketch, actually supports this being false (which was my original point about it). It's not true that artists always have to erase a sketch to get blanks...they can get blanks direct from topps as APs. As mentioned, nslists (Jeff Allender) even says this on the SW Heritage page, but a 5 sec ebay search will confirm it also. This has nothing to do with what I was assuming or not. The fact SW APs arent differentiated strengthens that case. For whatever reason, you wont just admit the above wasnt true, but it is what it is. You are accusing others of attacking, but yet you are the one saying posters do not know what they are talking about (several posters by my count), calling others' sketches scrub sketches, etc....there is some irony here, and I absolutely get where MisterX is coming from. Should I be saying in fact you dont know what you are talking about regarding SW heritage based on that post I just posted? Because it contains false info.

Btw MisterX, I for one liked the Han portrait. Cant see the pencil impressions but probably because it's a scan. Example of commissions often being better quality, that has usually been my experience. It makes sense in light of the discrepancy in how much they are paid for aftermarket vs pack sketches. That Martinez did 3,000 sketches for SW heritage is absolutely insane btw.

Supposed to be a thread about pet peeves, which I've been trying to get back on track, and looks like a debate straight out of the sports section tbh.

[VinnyH]

Originally Posted by MisterX

Back on topic...

Too widely accepted as normal these days, but sticker autographs is a huge pet peeve.

Signer didn't handle the card.
Signature is cramped/altered/runs off sticker.
Depending on design, sticker can be an eyesore. Especially if stunk on wonky.
Fluff can get stuck under the edges.

A real step backwards for autograph cards IMO.

While others get sidetracked… Ditto… well said,
Vinny

[Pacmeyer]

Originally Posted by DynaEtch

As for the Artist proof point, I was just responding to you saying returns were desirable because they were licensed stock. In marvel cards today, I didnt get the meaning of this because AP blanks are also licensed stock, just imprinted AP. Maybe Topps does it differently, dont really follow sketches outside marvel that much. But you can see in Marvel that an artist wouldnt need to erase their own sketch to get a blank on official stock since they get AP blanks (I think?). So at least today it wouldnt be an issue.

Originally Posted by DynaEtch

Sigh, back to this. Your aiming this at me was already responded to above.

I agree that the "artist's returns versus artist's proofs" debate was already hashed out ad infinitum pages ago. In your own words, it was based partly on your own lack of knowledge of Star Wars Heritage. Saying that you didn't seem to know much about the product in question was a simple fact.

If you prefer to keep taking that as an insult, then you have fallen for MisterX's ploy to deflect by stirring up conflict between other members. Really pathetic behavior on MisterX's part which you somehow failed to notice.

Originally Posted by DynaEtch

The bolded is false. That Star Wars does it differently than Marvel in not even differentiating the AP stock, so that it's basically just a blank regular sketch, actually supports this being false (which was my original point about it). It's not true that artists always have to erase a sketch to get blanks...they can get blanks direct from topps as APs. As mentioned, nslists (Jeff Allender) even says this on the SW Heritage page, but a 5 sec ebay search will confirm it also. This has nothing to do with what I was assuming or not. The fact SW APs arent differentiated strengthens that case.

My original post was about the artist of the R2 sketches requiring some of them back from Topps, erasing them, and offering commissions on the erased cards. This was announced by the artist on his website shortly after the release of Star Wars Heritage in 2004.

Your research about the availability of blank Topps Star Wars sketch cards cards, to prove that such cards were actually widely available, while interesting is irrelevant to what this artist was doing. Maybe the artist didn't know he could get empty cards without loading up hobby boxes with terrible sketches.

Originally Posted by DynaEtch

For whatever reason, you wont just admit the above wasnt true, but it is what it is.

What would you like me to admit? That artists could obtain blank licensed Topps card stock? I already said that blanks were available from sources other than Topps.

If you want me to say that SW Heritage blanks were routinely available from Topps, I will never say that based on some cursory research you just did because it makes no sense. Why would an artist need to erase his own sketches if blank cards were available from Topps?

Originally Posted by DynaEtch

You are accusing others of attacking, but yet you are the one saying posters do not know what they are talking about (several posters by my count), calling others' sketches scrub sketches, etc....there is some irony here, and I absolutely get where MisterX is coming from.

If you want to characterize anything I said as an attack on other members, I can't stop you. You seem unable to distinguish between personal attacks, like calling someone a fly-by-night collector who drives up prices for everyone, versus taking pot shots in response at someone's cards.

Originally Posted by DynaEtch

Should I be saying in fact you dont know what you are talking about regarding SW heritage based on that post I just posted? Because it contains false info.

Btw MisterX, I for one liked the Han portrait. Cant see the pencil impressions but probably because it's a scan. Example of commissions often being better quality, that has usually been my experience. It makes sense in light of the discrepancy in how much they are paid for aftermarket vs pack sketches. That Martinez did 3,000 sketches for SW heritage is absolutely insane btw.

Supposed to be a thread about pet peeves, which I've been trying to get back on track, and looks like a debate straight out of the sports section tbh.

Perhaps you should have stated in your original post that all opinions are welcome except those that don't align with your own, and maybe added a keep out sign for anyone who also collects sports cards

Originally Posted by dd316

I'm not the only one confused. But I'm dropping it as we're just not seeing eye-to-eye on what the issue is.

I'm tired of the subject as well but others keep misinterpreting what I wrote, or outright misquoting it for their own purposes. This is the card I pulled, erased as I said by me years ago.



You see from the pencil impressions it was a very simplistic sketch even by early standards. Regardless, sketches shouldn't be able to be erased this cleanly. That's my opinion which as I've said I don't expect everyone to believe.

[jdandns]

I remember in advance of the release of the Star Wars Heritage set, the Topps booth at Comic-Con had a binder album full of some of the sketch cards that were going into the packs.

"Can I have one as a promo?", I asked.

"No.", they said.

I then suggested to them that they should bring back Star Wars Galaxy, this time with sketch cards.
Not long after, they announced that they were doing just that.

You're all welcome.

[Pacmeyer]

Originally Posted by jdandns

I remember in advance of the release of the Star Wars Heritage set, the Topps booth at Comic-Con had a binder album full of some of the sketch cards that were going into the packs.

"Can I have one as a promo?", I asked.

"No.", they said.

I then suggested to them that they should bring back Star Wars Galaxy, this time with sketch cards.
Not long after, they announced that they were doing just that.

You're all welcome.

Topps should have skipped the bubblegum in Heritage. You could smell it in the boxes five feet away.

'93 SW Galaxy feels like a lifetime ago. Talk about a set that didn't need any bells and whistles. It was exciting just to pull a foil card.

[DynaEtch]

Originally Posted by Pacmeyer

I agree that the "artist's returns versus artist's proofs" debate was already hashed out ad infinitum pages ago. In your own words, it was based partly on your own lack of knowledge of Star Wars Heritage. Saying that you didn't seem to know much about the product in question was a simple fact.

If you prefer to keep taking that as an insult, then you have fallen for MisterX's ploy to deflect by stirring up conflict between other members. Really pathetic behavior on MisterX's part which you somehow failed to notice.



My original post was about the artist of the R2 sketches requiring some of them back from Topps, erasing them, and offering commissions on the erased cards. This was announced by the artist on his website shortly after the release of Star Wars Heritage in 2004.

Your research about the availability of blank Topps Star Wars sketch cards cards, to prove that such cards were actually widely available, while interesting is irrelevant to what this artist was doing. Maybe the artist didn't know he could get empty cards without loading up hobby boxes with terrible sketches.



What would you like me to admit? That artists could obtain blank licensed Topps card stock? I already said that blanks were available from sources other than Topps.

If you want me to say that SW Heritage blanks were routinely available from Topps, I will never say that based on some cursory research you just did because it makes no sense. Why would an artist need to erase his own sketches if blank cards were available from Topps?



If you want to characterize anything I said as an attack on other members, I can't stop you. You seem unable to distinguish between personal attacks, like calling someone a fly-by-night collector who drives up prices for everyone, versus taking pot shots in response at someone's cards.



Perhaps you should have stated in your original post that all opinions are welcome except those that don't align with your own, and maybe added a keep out sign for anyone who also collects sports cards



I'm tired of the subject as well but others keep misinterpreting what I wrote, or outright misquoting it for their own purposes. This is the card I pulled, erased as I said by me years ago.



You see from the pencil impressions it was a very simplistic sketch even by early standards. Regardless, sketches shouldn't be able to be erased this cleanly. That's my opinion which as I've said I don't expect everyone to believe.

It's not MisterX stirring things up, from where Im sitting.

To answer your bolded, that the statement of yours that I bolded in the last post is false (it is). Similarly the earlier statement that seemed to imply APs arent on licensed stock (they are). You talk about me not knowing about how APs in SW work...those were specific facts that were claimed that arent true. No one is talking about how often it is done...that's not what the statement in that post was. The fact is blanks do exist out there, they get out several ways (dd said this above). Right now there are blanks all over the place from Masterpieces 2022 on the market, both APs and non-APs, and that set wasnt even relased yet.

It is silly to go on about it, but yes MisterX raised several points in his posts that I agree with, including who is attacking whom. I'll let people come to their own conclusions.

You seem to be implying here Im not tolerating your opinion or pet peeve....I not only went out of my way to say pet peeves are subjective and are not true/false but opinion, but I even said I agree with yours lol: Im also not a fan of the light pencil sketches (generally, there are some exceptions, I posted one recently in the MM sketch thread from 2008 MM that I like). i dont think the practice of doing them to erase them is as prevalent as some posts ITT suggest though. It's also a moot point because card sets have largely moved away from these light pencil type sketches, for example they are all color sketches now in Marvel.

[jdandns]

Originally Posted by Pacmeyer

Topps should have skipped the bubblegum in Heritage. You could smell it in the boxes five feet away.

'93 SW Galaxy feels like a lifetime ago. Talk about a set that didn't need any bells and whistles. It was exciting just to pull a foil card.

Or one of those redemptions for an actual artist autographed card!
I got one in Series II and was over the moon.
I promptly sent it in and got a regular base card signed by Joe Phillips in small silver letters, but with nothing else whatsoever to distinguish it from an unsigned version of the same, which was disappointing in that sense.

It later turned out that the unredeemed redemption cards, particularly from Series 1 where they were issued at longer odds, are worth significantly more than any autograph card you would've received for sending it in, in some part because the signed cards had nothing on them authenticating them.

I did have another from Series 2 I pulled after the redemption date had passed, and just put it aside. A good while later, I sold it for $50, making me wish I'd also kept the one I'd wrote on and mailed in for the Phillips card. Of course, there was no way to know, and I do still have the Phillips card in my collection as one of the first (sort of) pack-pulled autographs I ever received.

Topps must've had a lot of the SW Galaxy Series 2 autographed cards left over after the redemption cards expired as they randomly issued them via packs in a rebooted Star Wars Galaxy some 15 years later, but this time thankfully with an identifying logo overprinted on them.

[Pacmeyer]

Originally Posted by DynaEtch

It's not MisterX stirring things up, from where Im sitting.

The thread was gifted with several posts to get it back on track and this is your response? Personal attack on a member is ok, but attacks on sketch cards not ok

Originally Posted by DynaEtch

To answer your bolded, that the statement of yours that I bolded in the last post is false (it is). Similarly the earlier statement that seemed to imply APs arent on licensed stock (they are). You talk about me not knowing about how APs in SW work...those were specific facts that were claimed that arent true. No one is talking about how often it is done...that's not what the statement in that post was. The fact is blanks do exist out there, they get out several ways (dd said this above). Right now there are blanks all over the place from Masterpieces 2022 on the market, both APs and non-APs, and that set wasnt even relased yet.

It is silly to go on about it, but yes MisterX raised several points in his posts that I agree with, including who is attacking whom. I'll let people come to their own conclusions.

apples= 2004 Star Wars Heritage sketch cards
oranges= all of the cards you're referring to

I never said I collected newer Star Wars sketches or claimed any special knowledge about them. The only reason I even mentioned artist's proofs is because you and other posters injected the discussion to disprove what I was saying about Star Wars Heritage which never had any cards distinguished, one way or another, as artist's proofs.

Frankly, your need to pin a gotcha! on me is weird, considering you don't collect outside Marvel and don't have any firsthand knowledge of the product I've been talking about which is, once again, 2004 Star Wars Heritage, not 2022 Masterwork or any other Star Wars product with a plethora of unused sketch cards floating around today.

Originally Posted by DynaEtch

You seem to be implying here Im not tolerating your opinion or pet peeve....I not only went out of my way to say pet peeves are subjective and are not true/false but opinion, but I even said I agree with yours lol: Im also not a fan of the light pencil sketches (generally, there are some exceptions, I posted one recently in the MM sketch thread from 2008 MM that I like). i dont think the practice of doing them to erase them is as prevalent as some posts ITT suggest though. It's also a moot point because card sets have largely moved away from these light pencil type sketches, for example they are all color sketches now in Marvel.

And you seem to be implying that I derailed your thread with unwanted sports card predilections. So which is it?

[DynaEtch]

Originally Posted by Pacmeyer

And you seem to be implying that I derailed your thread with unwanted sports card predilections. So which is it?

Not worth my time to repeat for the umpteenth time the points about the APs, specific examples of incorrect notions were given above - yes about 2004 Star Wars Heritage. There is an irony about someone getting something wrong about subject X, while telling others they dont know anything about the subject. Im not convinced the point being discussed is even understood based on these responses, so I think we're just talking past each other.

As for the above, that's not an either/or. The pet peeve you are voicing, which apparently is not light pencil sketches in general, but specifically light pencil sketches in one specific set, 2004 SW Heritage only, because they can be erased, is noted. Im not saying that opinion is 'wrong', or 'bad' whatsoever...that wouldnt even make sense. But the subsequent posts indeed have derailed it, and people can come to their own conclusions why. What the common denominator is there.

So I'll just say I disagree with a lot of what you are saying in these posts, while I dont necessarily disagree with the pet peeve itself. You are free to agree/disagree, but thats my stance.

[jdandns]

I don't not undisasgree with anything that's been said in this thread so far, I mean, if that's OK. I mean, is it OK? Would that not be OK, me not undisagreeing? That would be OK, yeah? I'm mean we'd be OK, right?

Sorry, guys, I just watched a few episodes of "Succession".

My pet peeve would be how few sets there are based on animated TV shows, although I do get it from the manufacturer's standpoint. Even when a new set comes out of the gate on fire like Rick & Morty did, the line still fizzled out, as did Family Guy. South Park only ever got one basic set, way back in 1998, same for Beavis & Butthead. The ol' granddaddy Simpsons had a good number of sets over the first 10-15 years, but almost nothing in 20 years since. Spongebob got two sets from Topps and Crytozoic managed some nice Archer and Cartoon Network sets, but nada so far from anyone for Futurama(!), King of The Hill, American Dad, Squidbillies, Bob's Burgers, Great North, and on and on.

As we've seen from the best cartoon releases by Inkworks (Simpsons, Family Guy, Scooby) and Cryptozoic (R&M, Adventure Time, Archer), all of these properties are tailor made for the voice actor autograph and artist sketch cards that drive today's market.