Quote:
Originally Posted by bn2cardz
I did say "more like fantasy pieces", as far as if they actually are is more a question of semantics.
As far as the cards you included in your comparison like the Connie Mack All-Stars and the 1961 Fleer set, those are tribute sets. The Connie Mack cards specifically state "All-Time All Star", thus making them a tribute to what were considered all the best players to that point. There was nothing about those sets to make them appear to be older or from an era they weren't from. Talking about the players in past tense and giving a history of their playing time. The 1934 "1933" Lajoie is a single card that was distributed 1 year later by the same manufacturer to fill a hole in the set.
"Fantasy Piece" as I define it are "what if" cards, either licensed or not. For me it is about making a card look like the original with era appropriate players that for whatever reason weren't used on the card. The cards you make resemble (down to the distressing) older sets and as you have stated in your own thread in search of a copy writer "We use language consistent with the period (phrases, idioms, etc.). Rereading a few of the period backs from the relevant series should get you in the mood." This is all indicative of what I would categorize as a "fantasy piece".
There is nothing wrong with this being labeled "fantasy pieces". As people said they wish that certain players, especially those from the Negro Leagues, would have been included in these sets. The label isn't going to dictate my interest in your cards.
|
I'm not outraged at the term "fantasy", I just don't think that it fits well for what we are doing. The term "tribute" is nicer and closer to our intentions. I like that.
True, the cards mentioned were not distressed but you are moving the goalpost. I was replying to a post about players appearing in sets after they had retired, and whether those cards would also be considered "fantasies". No big deal.