quote:

Originally posted by Raven:
In terms of market value a Gleeson autograph does beat a Gambon, but this Gleeson never existed, so the Gambon variant has to win.

quote:

Originally posted by Gringott:
To be sure, those of differing viewpoints on this issue are taking one possible definition of what the word 'comparable" means and running with it. I can agree that the Gambon and Gleeson are comparable in terms of their stature on the HP movie series and yet I can also agree they aren't comparable when Artbox autograph market value is the prime consideration.

quote:

Originally posted by Gringott:
On a related point however, justice delayed is justice denied. It always has been. It always will be. My gripe with Artbox wouldn't be the Gambon for Gleeson exchange but rather the amount of time it took them to begin sorting out this ignominious affair.

quote:

Originally posted by kbmum:
From what I've heard, Artbox first tried to negotiate on its own with Gleeson. That didn't work. Warner Bros. became involved. That didn't work. Artbox then had to find a new signer, come up with a new design for the card and get WB's approval. Should it have taken three years? No. But, who's at fault, Artbox or WB? The big sticking point with all of the HP cards for quite a few years has been WB's slow approval process, one that became slower and more difficult with each release. Some of the HP releases were late not because of Artbox, but because WB took so long approving all of the cards.

quote:

Originally posted by X:

quote:

Originally posted by Gringott:
To be sure, those of differing viewpoints on this issue are taking one possible definition of what the word 'comparable" means and running with it. I can agree that the Gambon and Gleeson are comparable in terms of their stature on the HP movie series and yet I can also agree they aren't comparable when Artbox autograph market value is the prime consideration.

quote:

I don't think anybody would disagree with you that in terms of current market value, they don't compare so well. However I think is is unreasonable to expect any card company use market value as their 'prime consideration' when offering a replacement, because it is forever fluctuating. I.e. what value do they put on the card? The value of a Gleeson GOF card when the redemption card came out 3 years ago or the value of a Gleeson GOF card today? If a Gleeson fetches $500 today does that mean an Emma Watson card would be a more suitable replacement? I'd say a replacement of that sort would be a far more unreasonable expectation.

Artbox's prime considerations would likely be ease at which they could provide a suitable replacement (i.e. get a decent actor to sign enough for them); the comparable price of getting said replacement to sign for them (I'm sure they want to keep costs down); significance of character in the film series; stature of actor in their profession.

True, trading card values are in constant flux, however if memory serves me there are adequate sources by which to determine a cards approximate CURRENT value. To be fair, if Artbox can also determine the intial approximate value of the card, it would then be easy to find a middle ground between the two.

As far as comparable values then, while Watson would be a bit unreasonable, there's NO reason that the Gleeson could not be replaced with the Gambon autograph AND something additional given the moderate disparity AND the three+ year wait for collectors who pulled or otherwise obtained and mailed in redemptions.

quote:

Originally posted by Gringott:
On a related point however, justice delayed is justice denied. It always has been. It always will be. My gripe with Artbox wouldn't be the Gambon for Gleeson exchange but rather the amount of time it took them to begin sorting out this ignominious affair.

Given that Gambon is clearly such a willing signer one wonders why it would take Artbox so long to get this Gleeson fiasco sorted out.

quote:

Originally posted by Gringott:
From whom did you hear this in regards to Warner Brothers slow process of approval? What I once heard, directly from an Artbox employee on the phone, was that they believed it was "probable the cards sent to Gleeson were lost in the mail". This was back in late 2008. When I pressed them about a year later all I got was, "we're not sure where the cards are".