Or that willing fools pay premium money for cut up vintage cards that are subsequently re-inserted into modern product with a seemingly low serialy number?
I vote the latter
I am actively buying MIKE SCHMIDT gem mint baseball cards. Also looking for any 19th century cabinets of Philadephia Nationals. Please PM with additional details.
Or that willing fools pay premium money for cut up vintage cards that are subsequently re-inserted into modern product with a seemingly low serialy number?
I vote the latter >>
Marc
Spot on! They do this cause they can - they distribute it cause people buy them.
<< <i>I think they should asked Knuckles to do the work - the cuts woulda looked a lot better!
mike >>
Although I would love to see Knuckles get employment from UD or someone else - I guess part of the issue from Upper Deck's cost perspective is that they had to obtain forty-two examples of a dead Hall of Famer's signature for this issue. Perhaps they could have used less or done something different - but they got 42 Durocher signatures [which isn't particularly hard - but isn't something you can do at a moment's notice], and then they have the issue of trying to make 42 cards look the same with these 42 cut signatures that differ in size, autograph example, etc.
But, yes, they are ugly, and it is silly.
I am actively buying MIKE SCHMIDT gem mint baseball cards. Also looking for any 19th century cabinets of Philadephia Nationals. Please PM with additional details.
Who wouldn't love to have a sliced up piece of an autograph that was on a 1982 Fleer team sticker? Where are they buying their auto's, at a flea market? At this point, the card companies are phoning it in because there's no more competition, and the only cards that sell are the ones on the shelf at Wal-Mart or the ones that cost $500 a pack.
Upper Deck has taken works of art and turned them into garbage!!!
Steve >>
Actually, if you adopt a certain post-modern perspective these new cards have an aesthetic appeal that's all their own. You have be a little ironic in order to enjoy it, but it's definitely there. You take something grossly sentimental and kitschy like a Perez-Steele postcard, and cut it up to make something even MORE kitschy. Andy Warhol would be tickled pink.
<< <i>Hadn't seen these before, but I agree - those are some ugly cards. No wonder people shake their heads when contemplating the future of modern cards... >>
Modern cards are just fine, at least the ones with photos of ballplayers. That's all I want from my modern cards. The photography is much better now than it was previously (for the most part) and to me that is what makes a good card. Notice I said good card, not good investment. I was attracted to cards as a kid for the photos, and as an adult I still am. I'm the guy that will buy a mid 90s Stadium Club set for $8 just because I like the photography.
These cut autos don't do much for me, I much prefer the sig on the acutal card versions.
Where is Knuckles? I miss seeing his great work. A lot of those cut sigs are just disgusting to look at and have some half-assed execution. These card companies need to put out a better product - I am done with modern cards.
Comments
That Upper Deck does this?
Or that willing fools pay premium money for cut up vintage cards that are subsequently re-inserted into modern product with a seemingly low serialy number?
I vote the latter
Who would want even want such a card unless that person was attempting the complete set of cuts?
mike
<< <i>What is worse?
That Upper Deck does this?
Or that willing fools pay premium money for cut up vintage cards that are subsequently re-inserted into modern product with a seemingly low serialy number?
I vote the latter >>
Marc
Spot on! They do this cause they can - they distribute it cause people buy them.
mike
<< <i>I think they should asked Knuckles to do the work - the cuts woulda looked a lot better!
mike >>
Although I would love to see Knuckles get employment from UD or someone else - I guess part of the issue from Upper Deck's cost perspective is that they had to obtain forty-two examples of a dead Hall of Famer's signature for this issue. Perhaps they could have used less or done something different - but they got 42 Durocher signatures [which isn't particularly hard - but isn't something you can do at a moment's notice], and then they have the issue of trying to make 42 cards look the same with these 42 cut signatures that differ in size, autograph example, etc.
But, yes, they are ugly, and it is silly.
Lee
They actually cut up Perez-Steele postcards to put on their cards!!!!!!
Steve
<< <i>What about this one...
They actually cut up Perez-Steele postcards to put on their cards!!!!!!
Steve >>
Steve
IMO?
Pure trash!!!!
mike
Upper Deck has taken works of art and turned them into garbage!!!
Steve
<< <i>I agree Mike...
Upper Deck has taken works of art and turned them into garbage!!!
Steve >>
Actually, if you adopt a certain post-modern perspective these new cards have an aesthetic appeal that's all their own. You have be a little ironic in order to enjoy it, but it's definitely there. You take something grossly sentimental and kitschy like a Perez-Steele postcard, and cut it up to make something even MORE kitschy. Andy Warhol would be tickled pink.
<< <i>Hadn't seen these before, but I agree - those are some ugly cards. No wonder people shake their heads when contemplating the future of modern cards... >>
Modern cards are just fine, at least the ones with photos of ballplayers. That's all I want from my modern cards. The photography is much better now than it was previously (for the most part) and to me that is what makes a good card. Notice I said good card, not good investment. I was attracted to cards as a kid for the photos, and as an adult I still am. I'm the guy that will buy a mid 90s Stadium Club set for $8 just because I like the photography.
These cut autos don't do much for me, I much prefer the sig on the acutal card versions.
Really quite sad.
Sorry, just had to throw 2 cents in.