I have seen different costume cards with different descriptions. I wonder what is real and what is not? It seems like some only used fabrics and some used actually outfits worn in the shows/movies. The reason why I'm asking this is because English is not my first language and I wouldn't notice it if they are playing with words sentences. I have a few examples.

Lord of The Rings Topps costume card: "The card contains genuine material used for the creation of Frodo's Grey Havens Vest"
^^ Seem to me this is just the same fabric instead of a part of the actual outfit. Of course still awesome but less special I guess?

Alias Inkworks costume card: "Item featured are Slacks worn by Michael Vartan as Michael Vaughn in the season three episode of Alias Full Disclosure"
^^ Seem to me this is a part of the actual outfit worn in the show. But how did that work? Did Inkworks buy an outfit and then cut it in little pieces for the trading cards?

Then other examples..

Outlander Cryptozoic costume cards: "Congratulations. This card contains an authentic piece of the Fabric used to create wardrobe for Gellis Abernarthy from Outlander"
^^ So just like the Lord of The Rings cards. Not the actual outfit?

American Horror Story Breygent costume card: "Congratulations! The card features two authentic pieces of wardrobe material worn by Dylan McDermott as Ben Harman & Riley Schmidt as Rubberman.
^^ So is this one is like the inkwork cards? Or like the Lord of The Rings ones?

What about the Rittenhouse costume cards?

Your interpretations are pretty much spot on.

Material used to create is just fabric from the costumers, but not from a worn costume. Star Wars cards use the term "source material" for fabric cards.

The Breygent card is more difficult to say as it is vague, maybe intentionally so. When in doubt, assume fabric and not actual costume.

As for Rittenhouse, most are actual costume pieces. But it does vary by what assets they are given by the studios. I know some of the Original Series Star Trek relics were material and not cut up costumes due to value. Rittenhouse has many times provided pictures of the costumes prior to being chopped up for cards.

You really have to read each card and decide for yourself. Usually if it says worn by, it was a costume. I wish there was an easy way, as you are at a lingual disadvantage, but it varies sometimes even within the same set by the same manufacturer.

Ed

quote:

Originally posted by Scifi Cards:
Your interpretations are pretty much spot on.

Material used to create is just fabric from the costumers, but not from a worn costume. Star Wars cards use the term "source material" for fabric cards.

The Breygent card is more difficult to say as it is vague, maybe intentionally so. When in doubt, assume fabric and not actual costume.

As for Rittenhouse, most are actual costume pieces. But it does vary by what assets they are given by the studios. I know some of the Original Series Star Trek relics were material and not cut up costumes due to value. Rittenhouse has many times provided pictures of the costumes prior to being chopped up for cards.

You really have to read each card and decide for yourself. Usually if it says worn by, it was a costume. I wish there was an easy way, as you are at a lingual disadvantage, but it varies sometimes even within the same set by the same manufacturer.

Ed

LOL so it wasn't just me. The Breygent card is really vague. Some fabric used is cool to. But actually worn outfits makes it just more special and more worthy of my money. Wish I knew for sure what is real and not. All inkworks/pieceworks seem real so that is good.

I do know Breygent did have actual costumes. Sometimes the picture on the card doesn't match the colour of the material, which doesn't help. The Dexter costume cards (made by Breygent) show the item of clothing on the back of the card.

I've never understood why they do a costume card saying it contains a piece from the costume and then put a picture on the card of something totally diffrent.

I may be wrong, but I have heard that when a company has an actual costume worn by an actor / actress and they cut it up for cards, that they try to save as much as they can by cutting pieces from collars and sleeves and the inside of extra layers if possible. They don't just chop up the costume with a pair of scissors. Perhaps this is why the pictures on the cards don't always match the material.

quote:

Originally posted by hammer:
I do know Breygent did have actual costumes. Sometimes the picture on the card doesn't match the colour of the material, which doesn't help. The Dexter costume cards (made by Breygent) show the item of clothing on the back of the card.

Yes the Breygent has indeed a picture on the back

This has been a tricky issue for a long time and, even when you think you can kinda sorta figure out the wording, you can pretty much take it with a grain of salt because you are never really gonna know. That is the big reason why I personally see no reason to sink a lot of money into any costume card, now often called a relic card. If I like a particular celebrity and the "swatch" card is cheap, looks nice and says some version of "worn" I might pick it up for the heck of it. Expensive costume/relic cards are not worth it to me, in part because even real costumes may have been worn by the stunt double or been one of the extra costumes never used at all.

So there is a whole lot of going on faith in the process. Here are some facts. If it says "screen worn by" or "personally worn by" its supposed to have been actually worn by that person. Some cards have used swatches from personal wardrobes that are not connected with any show or movie, but came from that person or from their Estate. If the card says "fabric" or "material" that probably means the raw material and has no connection to the actual costume. Often times there are multiple costumes made, so the swatches may be taken from a costume that just hung on the rack. It would still be an authentic costume, but should not be called screen worn. Of course, how would anyone know? The studio issues a certificate and sells off things from time to time, just as Estates and museums do. It is what the documentation says it is, but unless you are an insider on the spot, you have no one with first hand knowledge.

Full outfits are indeed cut up and, as mentioned, Breygent was the best at showing the entire pieces. Breygent was the best at making costume and prop cards, period. Artbox was second.

Some card makers have tried to increase the number of relic cards by making the size of the material as small as possible. They will use everything, including the stuffing, if they can make it look like anything. Patch pieces on uniforms are especially prized, as are weird things like buttons, button holes and even seams. Anything that someone can call a variant, And of course the multi-color swatch beats the single color swatch and will earn a premium in many places.

Be especially careful of the manufactured patch or medallion, which may look nice, but come from no authentic item. That's just a cheap hit thrown in to replace a real hit.

The most expensive costume card that I can remember comes from The Wizard of Oz Dorothy dress. Without looking it up, I believe there were only 5 or 6 made. The material came from snips of an inside seam. The dress itself is intact and displayed in one of the museums. It was in Breygent's 2006 Wizard of Oz set. I got two boxes. One with a piece of brick from the Yellow Brick Road and the other had the Scarecrow's straw. Couldn't tell you if it was screen worn straw or just scooped up from the floor.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Raven,

These cards look very nice and can make for a cool collection.

But the bottom line is collect them if you like them. Don't spend a lot of money for them.

There is absolutely no way to prove they are what is described on the card.

It can be really tough to know for sure. Generally fabric pieces provided by the filmmaker are just that, fabric pieces provided by the filmmaker. Most often they have been scraps from the "making of" a costume, but quite often a costume is made in several copies or evolves during shooting. Was the costume created for use by the character? Easier to verify. Was it worn by the actor? Often traceable. Was it worn by the actor in a scene that made it to the screen? Toughest. There may be instances where the studio just doesn't know. The most reliable 'provenance' comes if a studio provides a complete outfit, maybe one of a kind, and it's cut up by the cardmaker. At times it can be reasonably (not always certainly) stated that it was one of a kind, and if so, it helps if there's a screen shot showing it in use.

Possibly prop cards are easiest to track because they can be unique, but a studio will often make spares if they're cheap enough. Was that specific item used in filming, or did it sit in a box in case something happened to the first one?

"Used in the making of" most often means fabric was a leftover from the costumer's pattern or sewing machine. It's honest, but the sentimental value of the eventual card can deepend a lot on how the cardmaker presents it. I have enjoyed costume cards for certain properties, but I admit I wouldn't pay a huge amount for something that doesn't have a certificate signed by the actor. (And maybe not even then; I'm not a fanatic.)

The most desirable items with complete authentication are likely to be marketed by the big-time entertainment ephemera outlets, and not sold to cardmakers to be cut up. There can be exceptions, and details of licensing agreements are rarely shared. So if the wording is vague, I tend to assume the lowest level of actor and screen use that is consistent with the fuzzy words. From-the-making-of is not likely to be screen-worn.

It would be hilarious if we had a new category, "certified to have been touched by the actor." To many the physical contact with their favorite star is the most personal part, and another reason why autographs remain more popular than relics.

quote:

Originally posted by allender:

It would be hilarious if we had a new category, "certified to have been touched by the actor." To many the physical contact with their favorite star is the most personal part, and another reason why autographs remain more popular than relics.

Which I think is the assumption of many collectors. To be fair, these cards are not released on ratios that imply the manufacturer is lying. It's just there is no way to prove any of it.

quote:

Originally posted by mykdude:

quote:

Originally posted by allender:

It would be hilarious if we had a new category, "certified to have been touched by the actor." To many the physical contact with their favorite star is the most personal part, and another reason why autographs remain more popular than relics.

Which I think is the assumption of many collectors. To be fair, these cards are not released on ratios that imply the manufacturer is lying. It's just there is no way to prove any of it.

The exaggerated methods to provide certification for worn memorabilia in the sports world is even worse than in the entertainment business. In addition to having an abundance of cards that include pieces of jerseys, pants, shoes, caps, bats and balls, whole uniforms, tee shirts, hats and jerseys are often sold as officially authentic and game used.

The players will often participate in the merchandise selling by wearing multiple layers of clothing in key professional games or switching clothing off and on for short periods of times in the games. That way the items can be legitimately called game worn and there is a lot more of them to sell. People stay up nights thinking of ways to better cash in on these markets. "Certified to have been touched by the" sounds good compared to "the third pair of socks worn in the sixth inning".

I personally would rather not see most actual props/wardrobe cut up to make trading cards.

There are exceptions -- I don't mind back up props/wardrobe getting cut up, things mostly destroyed in production, or props that are able to be kept whole.

Cutting up TV wardrobe is less offensive to me since there is SO much of it typically, but in general I am not in favor of destroying one collectible to make another.

Thanks everyone for the replies. Makes it a bit more clear for me.

I'm okay if it's an outfit from a stunt double, or if it's a second outfit never worn but made in case the first outfit got cut or dirty. I still count all of it as real movie prop.

Same material used in the show/movie makes my eyebrows rise. Do they actually get the fabrics from the people who created the outfits or is it just second guessing what they used while watching the shows/movies.

So far I only got Inkworks and Breygent think I'm going to keep it that way. Also wanted to buy costume cards from Once Upon a Time and Outlander. But both are Cryptozoic so going to give it a pass unless I can catch it for a really good price.

Nicole, if you are just looking for costume cards with some interesting names, you might search titles like Americana by Donruss and later Panini, Pop Century 2010 by Razor and Prominent Cuts 2009 by Upper Deck, to name just a couple of products in that period. Many of the swatch cards are dirt cheap and some from Razor and others are extra large. Quite a few are one color, which is why demand may be light, but others are more attractive and there are truly big names and classic old actors in there. Some of the materials are non-specific, just from personnel wardrobe, others may mention a movie or show.

The best part is that they cost so little now because of the over supply, it's hard to get stuck as long as you look around.

Here are two costume cards. The backs specifically state "piece of event used wardrobe". Do you think there is a possibility this is not true?

quote:

Originally posted by cardaddict:
Here are two costume cards. The backs specifically state "piece of event used wardrobe". Do you think there is a possibility this is not true?

Of course there is a possibility but the real question is what does event used mean? During interviews? Back stage? In a match? Wardrobe closet at an event?

I remember seeing a video of football players changing into several jersey's at a game and then tossing them into a barrel so the claim could be labeled as "game used"

quote:

Originally posted by mykdude:

quote:

Originally posted by cardaddict:
Here are two costume cards. The backs specifically state "piece of event used wardrobe". Do you think there is a possibility this is not true?

Of course there is a possibility but the real question is what does event used mean? During interviews? Back stage? In a match? Wardrobe closet at an event?

I remember seeing a video of football players changing into several jersey's at a game and then tossing them into a barrel so the claim could be labeled as "game used"

Yep, "event used" is just vague enough to mean nothing. Could be any personal appearance and that's giving them the benefit of the doubt.

That explains why my DNA cloning experiments on these cards never worked!

quote:

Originally posted by cardaddict:
That explains why my DNA cloning experiments on these cards never worked!

I think they are required to clean them before card placement but I like where you're going with this.

Like Weird Science but with cards!