What's your opinion of Modern-Day 'Vintage' Art Cards?
 

Please excuse me if I have posed this question before:


These are two of the better ones I have seen:

This one is currently on the 'bay:

Attachment 257173


...and this is one I purchased last year:


Attachment 257174



.

I like 'em but I wouldn't pay more than a few bucks for them. I have picked up some of these Edward Vela art cards lately both from the artist direct as well as secondarily. They are really nice in hand:

http://photos.imageevent.com/exhibit...oreman%201.jpg
http://photos.imageevent.com/exhibit...la%20Brown.jpg
http://photos.imageevent.com/exhibit...%20Gretzky.jpg
http://photos.imageevent.com/exhibit...ela%20Howe.jpg
http://photos.imageevent.com/exhibit...Vela%20Ali.jpg
http://photos.imageevent.com/exhibit...%20Leonard.jpg
http://photos.imageevent.com/exhibit...la%20Tyson.jpg
http://photos.imageevent.com/exhibit...ela%20Pele.jpg

I feel like they look much better in picture than in person. A little disapointed in them.

Was there EVER a time when Stengel didn't look old?

I tend to think of them as junk. If you just want to look at the picture, you can Google Image Search that. What's significant about owning the card itself? (Contrast with actual old cards, where owning the card itself is the whole point.)

There are tons of them on e-bay, and I always hope that the people bidding on them know that they're not old.

I have been a fan and collector of the Ars Longa 19th century Detroit cards.

I hold myself to a budget limit as some of the cards command a healthy premium. Check out Sam Thompson, for example, I'm patiently waiting for one within my budget.

http://arslongaartcards.com/series/beginnings-1880s/

I like them and will continue to pursue them. I do not collect them with expectation to profit but instead to enjoy them for what they are, well done color depictions of the players I enjoy.

No different IMO than a reprint, whether or not they look cool.

I should have also noted that they allow you to obtain cards that never were but perhaps should have been. I particularly like the Helen Dauvray card with her cup that she would present to Detroit in 1887.

I have only one
 

http://www.collectorfocus.com/images...kett-ars-longa

I don't know why.;)

I personally love them!

I collect Sam Crawford so I have tried to pick up his cards from these issues...mainly because there are not a lot of vintage Crawford cards available, and many that are available are WELL outside of my personal budget.

Some of these cards are very beautiful and if you are into the collecting of cards, then I think these fill a nice niche in the hobby.

I think some could argue some of the prices that some of these cards command is a little bit on the ridiculous side at times...The people making these state they are limited to only so many...but of course there is no way other than taking them at their word that this is in fact the case.

It does seem like Helmar and Ars Longora, Banty Red and Sporting Life all have a bit of a following. (as disclosure I helped do some of the back write ups for the person that makes the Sporting Life Famous Golfers set)

Will they ever be worth a ton of money? Maybe not, maybe some will? It seems that an auction has sold some of the Helmar cards in the past and they seemed to bring some pretty good prices, even in that format.

I enjoy the artwork and they cost about what a Starbucks does so I see no harm. I wouldn't buy the expensive ones.

Here is a reprint photo with Ars Longa and Helmar Art Cards.
...Guess an artists fav. Gibson pose.

Attachment 257218

I think they're cool. Some more than others of course depending on the artwork. One great thing about them is they lend themselves to framing and display in situations where you wouldn't put up a valuable tobacco cards on your wall. I also agree with Adam and wouldn't spend any real money on them but if they are cheap, why not? Not too different in my mind than spending $10 on a box of 1988 Fleer because it will be fun to open the packs, even if the cards might not be worth anything when you're done opening them.

Seems like modern day Broders to me. Broders were cool, too at the time.

I dont mind them and have others have said I wouldnt pay big bucks for them either. There is a really nice Virginia League Helmar Card with a T206 SL Portrait head shot from each team I wouldnt mind adding some day.

$70 average for Thompson. I bought 2 nice T205s for that yesterday......

Nice artwork but not for me....

Nothing wrong with them, but I just don't understand the prices on some of them. I also wonder about the legality of it. Are they paying a cut to the teams or the players?

Besides, it's really easy just to make your own:

http://i811.photobucket.com/albums/z...psppcfofdd.jpghttp://i811.photobucket.com/albums/z...psstuspfwx.jpg

I agree on the question of legality as I have never seen any proof that the estates or licensing fees were ever followed. If you are making them for yourself it's one thing, but these are made strictly for profit thus illegal without royalties.

I am also wholeheartedly against any of these that are artificially aged to look like a vintage card and have no production date as it is ripe for abuse.

If you want one, I think they have zero value now and in the future, so under 10 bucks enjoy it. Over that? Well, then it's just in the throwing money away category.

Pretty crazy what the "1952" Banty Reds are going for. These are SOLD prices. Not sure if the high bidders are just very appreciative of high quality art cards or if they believe these are truly vintage.https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/201...28a6af5baa.jpg

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920A using Tapatalk

Nice to look at (sometimes) and zero interest in owning them.

Holy BLEEP, that is crazy. It is horrible that they are not putting a date(2017) or something on the cards to indicate they are modern.

IMO No need - I would think that almost everyone sees the difference between those and the real 1952 cards- different poses too.

These backs are very different from 1952 Topps. Here is an example from the "1952" Hank Aaron.https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/201...a9ebbbb888.jpg

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920A using Tapatalk

People try to sell crappy reprints as real. I can easily see people trying to con others with these.

I did a t205 update set for funsies a few years ago...meant to print them out but never really did...feel free to print a set if you like...some turned out better than others.

http://s235.photobucket.com/user/bbc...?sort=6&page=1

Really nice work!

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920A using Tapatalk

I own a few ACEO cards and one of the Banty Red cards, all Steve Garvey. I stopped buying when other bidders were jumping the price up over $5 in most cases. They were fun to chase for something new at first, but eventually you have to realize that they keep getting churned out. There will be an endless supply of limited cards like this as long as people are paying 2 and three figures for them!

The one I really wanted and didn't get was a 1978 art card that went for about $45, well beyond what I would want to pay. The guy who bought it resisted it for $150 and there it has sat since.

To me these have a little bit of art value, very little. For a very low price (5 bucks or less) I could see owning one. I remember buying a Joe Jackson, on the Pelicans, Reach cut out from a magazine. It went well with a premium I had and was about 10 bucks. Same idea here...

Yeah. I really loved the job Banty Red did on their "1952" Hank Aaron. I would have been game at under $10, even if they printed a million of them. As it is, I think the lone copy they're issuing for now went for around $100. At that point I would ABSOLUTELY rather get a real Mickey Mantle or Ted Williams.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920A using Tapatalk

I don't own any and have no desire to own any, but refuse to judge others on what they want to collect.I do object to any mis-repretention or fraud in trying to pass these cards off as real....

https://www.flickr.com/photos/151843924@N04/albums

Well said. If we all had a nickel everytime a completely obvious fake Honus Wagner or Babe Ruth card (autographed, no less!) sells on eBay for more than a dollar, we could quit our day jobs.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920A using Tapatalk

This one is in a PSA slab. Now mind you, there is no grade or certification number on it, but on the slab it clearly says "1936" and not anything about it being modern. I could see that fooling a newbie that doesn't collect prewar cards.

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Banty-Red-On...gAAOSwfRdZOCmg

I had only seen them in PSA slabs when they would be labeled "1 of 1." Didn't know they were getting others slabbed. In fact, I didn't know PSA was slabbing modern/vintage cards at all, although with no grades.

What's the point of paying to slab that?

To get some fool to pay way more than it is worth. It is a 1936 card in a PSA slab after all.:D

I have no interest in them

Kind of neat advertising maybe?

IMO sticking this stuff into green label PSA holders labeled 1936 is fraudulent. Should be labeled 2017.

Generally, there's a line between artwork (no fee required, generally, under any theory due to First Amendment considerations) and commercial product (fee required). A painter, for example, does not have to pay a fee to anyone to paint and sell an original Babe Ruth portrait; that's considered fair use and protected artistic expression. But he would probably have to pay a fee to create a mass produced commercial card set from the art. That's probably why the listings on these cards stress the work and customization that go into each piece, probably why they engage in so much hand distressing of the cards, and probably why the art cards are very limited editions: they are trying to set up an art defense. The further you go towards mass production and away from customization, the closer to the line of copyright and trademark and publicity rights. And believe me, the publicity racketeers are watching this. There are law firms that spend all of their time trolling the Internet on behalf of clients looking for uses of their clients' names, images, products, trademarks, etc., then shaking down the users for damages under the copyright, trademark and publicity laws. The remedies under these laws are draconian; even a small improper commercial use that makes very little money can result in crippling damages and liability for attorneys' fees.