Interesting what people like and why

[Phil68]

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

[brian1961]

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

[bnorth]

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.

[Phil68]

Originally Posted by bnorth

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!!!

[Phil68]

Originally Posted by brian1961

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

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

[tulsaboy]

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

[Phil68]

Originally Posted by tulsaboy

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

[steve B]

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.