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

[nat]

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.

[Joe_G.]

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.

[Peter_Spaeth]

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

[Joe_G.]

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.

[frankbmd]

I don't know why.

[Golfcollector]

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.

[Exhibitman]

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

[MartyFromCANADA]

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

martyfromcanada-img_20160208_192356008.jpg

[Luke]

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.

[bbcard1]

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

[Snapolit1]

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

[Leon]

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

Nice artwork but not for me....

Originally Posted by Joe_G.

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.

[SAllen2556]

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:

[JustinD]

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.

[Exhibitman]

Originally Posted by JustinD

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.

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.