And re;ics and costumes too...

quote:

Originally posted by Ben Chosid:
And re;ics and costumes too...

Hi have sent you an email. Thanks!

For those who may find it useful I have updated the Master List of ALL James Bond autograph cards on p.15 to include the most recent set, 007 Classics 2016 which brings 36 new cards.

So far we are at:
The Women of James Bond Supervue Set - 5 Cards
The World Is Not Enough Set - 6 Cards
Die Another Day Set - 8 Cards
40th Anniversary Series - 281 Cards
Women of Bond Series - 55 Cards
Full-Bleed Series - 268 Cards
Full-Bleed Double Autos - 6 Cards
Autograph Relic Cards - 3 Cards
Silver Signature Series - 1 Card
Gold Signature Series - 4 Cards

...so 637 auto cards in total.

X - Thanks for the original list, I used it and put in the last one myself. We have the same number of cards, I think we put a couple in different sections. I made one for the archive box specials by itself.

But there is a correction on that Britt Ekland 6-case incentive from Archives 2015. Unless RA has listed it wrong on the checklist, that one is part of the Silver Series, not Gold.

For Archives 2015 Ekland was always listed as being "Silver Signature series" but her ink was gold on the final card.

Some more checklist anomalies: for 007 Classics, RA lists Samantha Bond's newest full-bleed as a The World Is Not Enough card, and the text says so on the back. In my list I have put it in the Tomorrow Never Dies section because that is the picture the film is from. Same story with her Die Another Day full-bleed that says GoldenEye on card back and on RA's Archives 2009 checklist!

You're more of an expert than they are and of course that Ekland card is the only one that doesn't have an image on the RA checklist, so unless you've seen the card you would assume it belongs with Silver.

But I don't know about switching movie titles because you know where the pictures should belong. Anyone looking at the card would take it at face value based on the film title printed. They would therefore think they have found a card not on your list or that they are missing cards on your list.

I would just list it with the wrong title indicated to avoid the confusion.

That's one thing that drives me crazy with RA's autographs that carry no #A or #WA numbering. You can't rely on any of the date years to tell when they were released and they don't indicate the exact set they were released in. So unless you have your list handy and up to date, you don't know what you're looking at. Or at least I don't know what I'm looking at.

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

I would still place the autos by picture rather that title.
Let's say a collector wanted a full-bleed of Roger Moore in 'Moonraker', but RA released a card of him with 'Moonraker' titled on the back but the image on the front was from 'A View To A Kill' - the collector still don't have a card of Moore in 'Moonraker' despite what it says on the back.

If Christoph Waltz signed but on the back it said 'Casino Royale' it would most definitely be a 'SPECTRE' auto card and the 'Casino Royale' text would be the error.

These errors drive me mad because if RA is not sure what film a picture is from, all they have to do is crack out the DVD or go on google images. It's not hard.
It is worst on the 40th cards where the image and title don't match up and are both on the front. Totally ruins the card for me. At least with full-bleeds it is easier to ignore what is on the back.

Besides a couple of mismatched titles the two biggest facepalm moments in the auto series are getting Will Yun Lee to sign a new stack of 40th cards (#A142) because they forgot they got him years previously (#A36). They even use the same picture so there is really no reason to have both cards.

The worst offender for me though is A182 that is signed by Kenneth Tsang but has a picture of Vincent Wong. I brought this up at the time of release on the RA message boards but people were adamantly defending that the image was of Tsang! Not to get too literal but they are two completely different men with two completely different faces. It is a total non-argument. I'm there thinking: "Just watch the bloody film!" Or look at Tsang's 2002 Die Another Day day card that pictures a different bloke (Tsang!) because both cards can't be correct if the faces aren't the same!
*sigh*

quote:

Originally posted by X:
These errors drive me mad because if RA is not sure what film a picture is from, all they have to do is crack out the DVD or go on google images. It's not hard.

It is worst on the 40th cards where the image and title don't match up and are both on the front. Totally ruins the card for me. At least with full-bleeds it is easier to ignore what is on the back.

The worst offender for me though is A182 that is signed by Kenneth Tsang but has a picture of Vincent Wong. I brought this up at the time of release on the RA message boards but people were adamantly defending that the image was of Tsang! *sigh*

There are a lot of uncorrected errors because card manufacturers print only once in the modern age. Years ago they would catch errors and correct some while still in the printing process. That's when you got two versions of a card, error and corrected. Sometimes there were multiple versions, like with the Billy Ripken FF Fleer card. These days I think calling any card an error card because of mismatched pictures or titles is pointless, maybe just a sloppy card would be better.

And why would Kenneth Tsang autograph a card that had the wrong person on it? I would have been highly insulted and would have told RA to come back when they had me on it.

In RA's Star Trek Aliens, Jeri Ryan autographed a card that mislabeled her Seven of Nine character as being in The Next Generation, instead of Voyager. People thought that was wrong, and it was, but at least it was her photo.

And without benefit of any corrected card, that's how it all stays.

"X"

Many thanks for the updated list. I must admit I had not realised that Rittenhouse had released cards with errors until it was mentioned in your correspondence with Raven for which I thank you both.

Personally I will amend my own personal list to include your comments regarding the errors whilst retaining the listing as actually recorded on the card itself.

regards

John

quote:

Originally posted by Raven:

And why would Kenneth Tsang autograph a card that had the wrong person on it?

Perhaps because RA said "sign the cards or we don't send you a check." or maybe Tsang thought it was funny. It could be that his ego wasn't so big that he really cared very much.

quote:

Originally posted by Bill Mullins:

quote:

Originally posted by Raven:

And why would Kenneth Tsang autograph a card that had the wrong person on it?

Perhaps because RA said "sign the cards or we don't send you a check." or maybe Tsang thought it was funny. It could be that his ego wasn't so big that he really cared very much.

Not a matter of ego, just common courtesy really, plus the idea that RA should make the card properly. If it was for the money, I would have printed "NOT ME" with my signature.

But I looked up the cards and actors and I can see why it was not picked up by most.

Tsang has 3 Bond autograph cards so far. A8 comes from the small list of signers for the DAD 2002 series. He also had one released with Autograph & Relics. I own both and they are exactly the same picture, cropped differently.

I don't have the A182 40th Style card that X determined is a different actor. I do see the photos of that card on eBay and even trying to use the zoom lens it is very hard to get a clear view. The 40th Style photo is pretty small, he is not wearing a hat and is facing in a different direction than in the picture on the other 2 cards. Tsang has 2 molds on his face and I can't find them on A182.

However if you look up Vincent Wong UK actor, not to be confused with Vincent Wong Hong Kong actor (younger man), or Victor Wong (who I know from other movies and also has a resemble to Tsang), there is a photo that looks like the one on the card in question.

But to be honest, if it weren't for X bringing this matter up, I doubt I would see it either.

On the left Kenneth Tsang, and on the right Vincent Wong:



Tsang has flabby cheeks, loose neck, several moles, large bags under his eyes and grey hair (and never takes his hat off in the film!). Wong has jet black hair, a wider nose with flared nostrils, and a much more gaunt appearance with more pronounced cheekbones.
I'm sorry, and I don't wish to sound a pedant, but as someone with eyesight I really can't fathom how it is difficult to tell two completely different men apart.

A sloppy error on RA's part and denial on the part of any collectors who refuse to see the obvious. The Tsang 40th auto card needs a do-over and sadly Wong has passed away so no card from him.

I understand and can see what you are saying but i think your average person may have to look twice before seeing it. At a casual glance they do look very similer.

Sure maybe a very casual glance but to me it is like saying Pierce Brosnan and Jereon Krabbe look similar because they both have long faces and dark hair.

You're right X, the photo on A182 is the wrong actor, but you blew up their pictures and put them side by side. You did not show the cards.

A182 40th Style has a very small photo, which is obviously not from the same frame taken by the other two correct cards.

Instead of saying everyone should see what you do, why not say I am an expert on Bond films who can pick up what others can't?

I didn't post the cards because RA works with images that are then made into cards.

Collectors shouldn't have to be so 'expert' and I can quite believe many collectors have A182 and are none the wiser. But I do expect the manufacturer to get it right, Steve at RA is a Bond fan afterall.

I had absolutely no idea any of the autograph cards had names and faces mixed up. That is very interesting. I am now way behind on the Bond autos, although I lucked out and pulled a Brosnan from a James Bond 2014 Archives box I bought for a sale price of $45, filling one of the many holes in my binder.

quote:

Originally posted by cardaddict:
I had absolutely no idea any of the autograph cards had names and faces mixed up. That is very interesting. I am now way behind on the Bond autos, although I lucked out and pulled a Brosnan from a James Bond 2014 Archives box I bought for a sale price of $45, filling one of the many holes in my binder.

EXCELLENT pull card addict. I would be thrilled to pull a Brosnan auto, let alone from a single box that cheap.

I've still got my eyes peeled for a Brosnan auto from Classics 2016 featuring a decent signature from him, but most I have seen so far have been quite sloppy.

Would be interested to see the signature on your card! His autos from Archives 2014 generally seemed much more consistent.

I'm trying to post a picture of the Brosnan card but Photobucket refuses to upload my photo. I think it may be because I can not get a good enough internet connection from AT&T. I'll keep trying though.

I still need 14 autograph cards to complete the 2014 Bond set. And a lot of the side sets cards too.

Finally, after many tries, it uploaded:

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

The thing that got me was the fact that Kenneth Tsang signed the 40th anniv auto cards, RA may have made the mistake with the different actor image but Tsang must have known it wasn't his photo on the cards ? anyway, I have my correct colonel Moon full bleed so it's all ok
RA keep messing up the Samantha Bond auto's, she has signed several times and have nearly always missed the right image for the right film, as a full bleed film theme collector the last Brosnan was annoying, they first listed it as world is not enough, then changed it to studio pose, so it doesn't go in the world is not enough theme packs, which would have left the Brosnan only needing Die another day to complete.
and with the next set, I really hope if Lea Seydoux as signed they'll be nice enough to give her to full bleed collectors, still waiting for berenice marlohe after how long ? the pain.