Interesting what people like and why
 

I get asked a fair amount of times "what do you suppose is the attraction to Banty Red cards? Is it the vintage feel, artwork, selection, etc.

This week I was making a custom card for a fellow collector. First, it's kind of funny that some guys are secretive about purchasing or liking an art card...like a guy hiding that he prefers sushi to beef--I digress--

Anyway, this collector noted: "totally love the image and colors but I want it to look poorly printed like a '48-- but not ugly. Is that possible"

That's exactly what I aim for with every card; to make them look pretty BUT stay in period (within reason). I'm actually curious which of these cards most of you would like to own more (I understand that most here have zero interest in actually owning one). This is just for collector insight to the cards themselves--spruced up or more authentic.

Card A is on the left...Card B is on the right

Phil, I like card A. The Leafs drive me nuts with their p--- poor quality all the way around. To me, card A looks like the quality Leaf SHOULD HAVE BEEN STRIVING FOR. It's not too slick, and the print registration is nice, but not super. I like A.

For what it's worth, well done, mate. --- Brian Powell

I also like the top card way more. The only thing wrong with it is the letters of his name should be the same color as the borders.

I like custom cards. I go the other way, I like making new shiny/sparkly versions of old cards. What I don't like is people who like to make old looking cards and not putting the modern date on them. Putting the word CUSTOM or even REPRINT on them also works.

Ben, good eye! The writing will end up the same as the stock toning when I set it for print.

Thank you for your input guys!!!

It's worth a lot, Brian! I agree 100% on Leaf.
That's exactly the balance I strive for.

I know that I'm outvoted at this point, but I like the one that looks crappier. Part of the charm of older cards is that they aren't perfect. And they weren't even perfect when they were new. They were novelties that were originally designed to sell a product -- candy, gum, cigarettes -- and ultimately became the product themselves. They weren't intended to be works of art; they were intended to amuse children. I for one struggle with newer cards because they are too shiny, too perfect, too flashy. I like newer cards because my kids know the players and they don't know Brett or Mays or Mantle or Aaron. But to my eye, if I'm wanting to obtain a "card that never was but should have been" I would want one that fit in quality, style, and design. Thus I like option B.

Thanks for sharing your work, by the way!
kevin

Kevin,
You're the MAN! Insights are fantastic. It helps explain things for me. Collectors connect differently with product. It's kind of like musical taste.
I meet mainstream folks that dig 3 chords and some enjoy the sounds of hubcaps rolling down stairs. I loathe shiny, new things. I do, however, totally get why people like them. It's the explanation that interests me. Ben stated he likes shiny versions of older cards. He's very detail-oriented that way (he noted the toning difference in the name plate). Thank you for your insights!
Phil

I'd have to say the first one.

The second while it has some nice deliberate registration problems just isn't "right" for the sort of stuff Leaf did, and just looks wrong.

I won't nitpick it, as it's a decent effort, and would work for most people who like the roughness of the originals. (But ask me if you want to know.)

One little thing that would make either seem more "leaf like" would be s strip of green to the left of the base. The originals would have come both ways though, so it's not a big thing.

Steve,
Good stuff!
Yeah, the object wasn't to make them look exactly "leafy"
but to make them "leafy " without making them gross, lol.
The print plates slipped quite a bit on the originals.
What other earmarks would you consider adding to a super-leaf?

Mostly just little stuff that I notice but other people probably wouldn't.

On my monitor it's hard to tell but it looks to me like the yellow was rotated slightly to get some of the out of register look? Leaving some yellow in the name.
And maybe a bit of something on the edges of the halftone black to make it a bit out of focus looking (Can't recall the technical term, and it's probably different for digital anyway)
If it's just my old eyes, then the following is way off.

The originals were very crude 4 color, and I believe designed to minimize ink usage. So there wouldn't have been any other colors under the name panel.

While it can happen, a rotary displacement of one colors registration isn't at all common. That would have to happen when the mask was made (Or the plate, but that would be even less common, and would mess up the cards farther away from the center of the rotation even more) Usually if there is that sort of displacement they got all four colors wrong the same way.

Of course, it's Leaf..... if anyone messed up that much it would be them.

Most printers use subtle " tricks" to hide minor misregistration. Like having a transition from one color to another be under black, or another darker color so if it gets printed a little off it won't really be noticeable.*
Leaf apparently missed that day in printing class. :D

What they did was sloppy, but while sloppy each color was crisply done.

All that stuff is also likely a boatload of work to do digitally, unless doing the four colors as overlays.
To me that's why the left one looks like what Leaf was probably trying for, while the right one just seems "off"

*Black is almost always printed last, yellow almost always first. If you know registration is a problem, and it's something like 57 Topps, they either didn't care, or made the entire yellow halftone slightly smaller than the cyan which would be slightly smaller than the Magenta. that way small registration problems aren't obvious.
Of the few exceptions I've seen, one of the most interesting is the 81 fleer star stickers fronts, which are typically dark blue, but come in a lighter blue that as far as I can tell has the black printed before the blue.

Fantastic!

I do like the vivid green of the first card. Reminds me of the 33 Goudey Ruth, an all time favorite of mine. That card is way more attractive with the deep green than with a faded green look to it.

I am a semi avid buyer of the Banty cards, when they don't get too pricy. Most start at $10 and something just makes me stop at a point, not being able to spend much more than around $20 per card with a few exceptions (usually Garvey), knowing that these are custom creations and that their popularity may be limited. There are obviously other collectors with no interest in them at all, but also those willing to pay 3 figure sums, maybe more?

Are you willing to share the highest price paid for a single Banty card at auction, as the producer selling them to the public for the first time (as opposed to someone reselling one later).

I think they just look great and are certainly more "substantial" than many of the customs and ACEO cards out there that possibly compete for that piece of the collector's money.

I'll add that it was not the pose as much as the background that drove me to love the card. I know that other Ruth's from that issue are more popular, but I love old #181 because of that deep green. The pose itself has grown on me over time too, but would not have been an initial favorite w/o the green background.

Sure thing. No secrets there...
The highest price paid, to date, for ANY Banty Red item is 805.00. It was an oversized (12x18") trolley board advertising piece.


Four cards have topped the $400 mark--none have hit the 500.00 plateau.
The 4 subjects were Joe Jackson, Stan Musial, Roy Campanella and Jackie Robinson.

For consistency, Mickey Mantle leads the way with 7 cards topping the 250.00 mark...
2 of those 7 sold for a HIGHER price when they were re-sold by Rick Probstein.

WOW, good for you. I had a famous custom card guy make me my first one several years ago for $35. I thought that was crazy but I wanted a specific old card turned into a superfractor.

I am a known cheap a$$ so I learned by trial and error how to make them myself. I have tried to help a few learn how to make customs. When they learn it isn't easy or cheap to make shiny cards they give up.

Thank you, Ben.
Each card takes me between 2-3 hours on average (some more--some less). Re-makes take me about an hour for an 8-card sheet-- assuming everything goes well.
Recently, I did a '56 Mantle for our set. It took almost 14 hours. So, at minimum wage, I'm lucky to break even. BUT, I can sell it 7 times over the next 3 years, so it works out. The commons that sell for 10-15 bucks are strictly for enjoyment. I lose my ass on those, Lol. In fact, I get some resistance from my family on making those. They don't get why I wouldn't just make a bunch of Babe Ruths!
I list about 3 Ruth cards per year. If you make 'em easy to get--why would anyone want 'em? I print what I print, then move on. So far, I have NEVER gone back and "made more" of a card. I'm a collector and very particular about that. Not to mention I use different printers and settings for each set. That would be a nightmare to re-do each card individually:D

There are plenty of collector issues that seem to have found a home being accepted and listed in guides. Perhaps some of the current art cards will as well in the future. As I said, I really like the Banty cards, but being a bit of a bargain hunter/cheapo, I only buy a few here and there. I'll settle for the commons at my price, as I do most of my collection. I think I might be up to about 15 or so.