quote:

Originally posted by piko:
I was under the impression that the Redemption card verified the authenticity of the signature card
even though they had the company guarantee on the card
When I started to collect Trading Cards there was only a couple of Australian companies doing Sports cards sets as Signature cards were only available by redemption if you pulled a redemption card
1 you filled it in , sent it into the company and after the mandatory wait you received back .
1 Your hole punched redemption card
2 A signed certificate of authenticity card
3 The signature card.
All with the same #
most cards or all cards were advertised for sale as a set of the three cards
This also went with Bonus or special offer special cards that were also issued as extras or incentives
So to me a redemption card is as important to have with the card it is assigned too
No redemption no authencity..
If a card that is listed as having a redemption card is sold without it there should be at least a %40 less asking price that is why I dont go for Signature cards without redemption cards if they have to be redeemed. I dont think that there should be any difference wether wich one is inserted both are part of and should be included in the set.
I have a number of various Inkworks redemption cards and I think that the pictures or scenes on them are actually quiet a standout in the set.

Not all companies return the redemption card with the redeemed card.

With Topps you redeem online so there is no voided card, just the one you scratched off the area to get the code.

Many of the Inkworks cards came in the Ink Vault products and are authentic. The certificate of authenticity is actually the back of the card, not the redemption.

Ed

quote:

Originally posted by X:

It makes no difference to me whether anyone else deems a redemption card part of their set, particularly as I am a big advocate of collecting ONLY what you value and I do not consider myself a completest anymore.
I still think it is faulty logic though when people say something, like a redemption card, is not part of the set because they personally see no value in it, especially when that opinion seems to ignore how it was distributed in the first place, and its intrinsic qualities as a collectible item itself.


Complete is complete. Everything else is preference or delusion.

The Master set can rage on for ever but (to me) the redemption card (if returned or scratched off) AND the redeemed card would be part of that set and go hand in hand.

quote:

Originally posted by piko:
I was under the impression that the Redemption card verified the authenticity of the signature card
even though they had the company guarantee on the card
When I started to collect Trading Cards there was only a couple of Australian companies doing Sports cards sets as Signature cards were only available by redemption if you pulled a redemption card
1 you filled it in , sent it into the company and after the mandatory wait you received back .
1 Your hole punched redemption card
2 A signed certificate of authenticity card
3 The signature card.
All with the same #
most cards or all cards were advertised for sale as a set of the three cards
This also went with Bonus or special offer special cards that were also issued as extras or incentives
So to me a redemption card is as important to have with the card it is assigned too
No redemption no authencity..
If a card that is listed as having a redemption card is sold without it there should be at least a %40 less asking price that is why I dont go for Signature cards without redemption cards if they have to be redeemed. I dont think that there should be any difference wether wich one is inserted both are part of and should be included in the set.
I have a number of various Inkworks redemption cards and I think that the pictures or scenes on them are actually quiet a standout in the set.

Like Ed said, I think the manufacturers would deem their wording on the autograph card back as certification enough.

I do have an X-Men the Movie promo card signed by Ian McKellen, all of which were hand-numbered and released through Dynamic Forces. Those did come with a matching numbered card-sized certificate, which I think is neat, and I would never buy that auto/promo without the matching certificate that verifies it's authenticity. But that is an unusual card.

I still see some Inkworks auto cards being sold with their redeemed redemption card, but nearly all come without. How do you arrive at the auto card being worth 40% less without the redemption?
I would say the auto or pieceworks is worth what it is worth, and the redemption is an extra, if you're lucky. But the redemption would also have some value on it's own if sold separately.

I agree some redemption card images make them decent additions to anyone's collection for that reason alone.

quote:

Originally posted by hammer:
The Master set can rage on for ever but (to me) the redemption card (if returned or scratched off) AND the redeemed card would be part of that set and go hand in hand.

Would you seek out a redemption card without a hole punched in it/clipped corner/scratched off?
I prefer no holes etc. but can't say I have actively chased mint versions for all the redemption cards I have.

What are you thoughts on redemption cards for some of the Harry Potter Artbox autos for example? From memory I don't think those redemption cards were returned.

I'd be curious to know if any collectors tolerate any handwriting on the card backs in the address sections.

quote:

Originally posted by X:


Take the Bond 40th Anniversary 'D' contest card, quite literally a part of that particular chase set, because who ever heard of "JAMES BON"?

I'm sure many preferred to get the master set that the complete contest set could be redeemed for, but there were only 40 of the D card, and fewer still that were not voided/had their top left corner clipped. The D card is rare, valuable, has a nice design and is appealing in a different way compared to lots of common autographs and easy to get chase cards. Sadly I do not have one.

I made my own D card as i knew i would never own one. There was an auction for one years ago so i printed off the front and back pictures, put them together and laminated them. my set now says James Bond.

i really dont know how you would expect to get a redemption card without the redeemers address on it .
As this is how it is supposed to be redeemed ,i do not know how there are some cards with no addresses on them perhaps the address is put on a note with the card.
As with the early Buffy Alias Charmed etc there are only One or Two cards in most of these sets that need redemption cards EG the Buffy sets 1 to 7 have approx 50 signature cards issued But you only have about 10 of them having to be redeemed , the rest are pack inserted.
My thought is both should be sold together if sold seperately say $100 if seperately 60/40.
I have seen sellers asking near full book price for both seperately take Supernatural Christmas set I have seen this set sold without the Incentive card and seller has said I have already sold the Incentive card seperately but still wants a high price for the set
If a card goes with a set sell it with a set
not seperately to collect a premium
Every one has their own idea on how to put their sets together and wether they want clean cards punched cards redemptions or not and I do not think in fact I know we will never get agreement on everything but that is all good as it brings out everyones ideas on how they put their collections together ,what they collect ,how they collect ,how they store ,etc we can all learn something from these posts.
Everone to his/her own ideas wether we agree or not.
My interest is basically only Inkworks cards so I cant really comment on other producers products only give my ideas.

quote:

Originally posted by wolfie:

quote:

Originally posted by X:


Take the Bond 40th Anniversary 'D' contest card, quite literally a part of that particular chase set, because who ever heard of "JAMES BON"?

I'm sure many preferred to get the master set that the complete contest set could be redeemed for, but there were only 40 of the D card, and fewer still that were not voided/had their top left corner clipped. The D card is rare, valuable, has a nice design and is appealing in a different way compared to lots of common autographs and easy to get chase cards. Sadly I do not have one.

I made my own D card as i knew i would never own one. There was an auction for one years ago so i printed off the front and back pictures, put them together and laminated them. my set now says James Bond.

Well that's one way to do it! My Page still says James Bon.

Was the one you saw an unredeemed one without the clipped corner and 'VOID' written on the back? If so do you remember what it went for?

I bid on a clipped one back in 2007 or thereabouts which I did not win (ended around £150). Since 2002 I have seen a handful of clipped ones at auction and I think 1 unredeemed version that went for $500+ as a BIN about 5 or 6 years ago.

If memory serves RA did not return these to the collectors who redeemed them but hung onto them and then distributed them as a random freebie years later. I can't recall the exact details so don't quote me on that!

quote:

Originally posted by piko:
i really dont know how you would expect to get a redemption card without the redeemers address on it .
As this is how it is supposed to be redeemed ,i do not know how there are some cards with no addresses on them perhaps the address is put on a note with the card.

Inkworks had started letting collectors include a separate note with their name and address details so that the redemption card could be returned 'clean', albeit with a hole punched in it.

I bought the sweater pieceworks card for X-Files Seasons 4&5 many years ago and it came with the redemption card, but without the hole. Either Inkworks had accidentally not punched it, or the dealer had put an unredeemed redemption card with the pieceworks card for a complete 'set'.

What they dealer had done though, was put their address details on a small sticky label and affixed that to the back of the redemption card. It wasn't all that sticky and it peeled off easily with no damage. So I ended up with the pieceworks card and mint unredemeed redemption card for the princely sum of £4.30. I would have happily twice that for a mint redemption card so was very pleased with that purchase.

When I sent in my X-Files Connections Gillian Anderson #AR-1 auto redemption to Inkworks I made the choice to write on the card because:

1) If the card was tampered with in the mail, anyone could discard my details on a separate note and claim the autograph card in their name. Slim chance of that happening but still possible.
2) I pulled the card in my only box of that product. It was a great moment I wanted my name on that redemption card. It's mine! Future resale was not a consideration.

I would be curious how much personal details affect the resale value though. I have seen clean (but punched) versions of this particular card sell for £50+ and unredeemed versions for more than that!

quote:

Originally posted by piko:
As with the early Buffy Alias Charmed etc there are only One or Two cards in most of these sets that need redemption cards EG the Buffy sets 1 to 7 have approx 50 signature cards issued But you only have about 10 of them having to be redeemed , the rest are pack inserted.
My thought is both should be sold together if sold seperately say $100 if seperately 60/40.
I have seen sellers asking near full book price for both seperately take Supernatural Christmas set I have seen this set sold without the Incentive card and seller has said I have already sold the Incentive card seperately but still wants a high price for the set
If a card goes with a set sell it with a set
not seperately to collect a premium
Every one has their own idea on how to put their sets together and wether they want clean cards punched cards redemptions or not and I do not think in fact I know we will never get agreement on everything but that is all good as it brings out everyones ideas on how they put their collections together ,what they collect ,how they collect ,how they store ,etc we can all learn something from these posts.
Everone to his/her own ideas wether we agree or not.
My interest is basically only Inkworks cards so I cant really comment on other producers products only give my ideas.

It is interesting to hear how different collectors collect.

I think it is equally valid to collect a redemption with a hole in it, as the same card without. Yes, the value should be different because one is mint and the other is not, but it's not a huge difference in reality unless you're a collector obsessed with grades.

When I bought my Women of Bond Widevision autograph set direct from Inkworks, back in the day when they disguised themselves as 'E-Cards Direct', they included clean but punched redemptions for each of the five autograph cards, which was very much appreciated. (Although they did not do the same with the The World Is Not Enough autograph set I purchased from them).

When they went bust and all their remaining inventory hit the market, quite a few of these redemption cards were floating about and I think I paid a tenner each for mint unredeemed versions. So I now have the set of 5 Women of Bond autos, a set of 5 redemptions with holes, and a set of five without!

I prefer unredeemed redemption cards but I would not chase them if the cost in doing so was insane. The UK seller mentioned already is still selling them all these years later, and some of these Women of Bond redemptions went for a couple of quid last month at auction. One went for only one bid at 80p!

At those prices I see even less of a reason not to collect them.

As regards the new wrinkle of, is a redeemed card as genuine or as valid without the attached redemption card? It certainly is. The redemption card, whether punched, written on with a complete address, or unmarked, is not necessary to support the authenticity of the redeemed card. It doesn't reduce the redeemed card's value if it is not included in the purchase. As noted, many were never sent back with the redeemed card or have been lost long ago. The redeemed card doesn't require it to be there to still be genuine and worth its value.

That doesn't mean that you are wrong in applying your own self-imposed standard to it Piko. You want that other redemption card too. You want to pay less for a redeemed card that doesn't have it included. So you say you are applying a reduction if its not there. I say you are paying a premium when it is. It all comes out in the wash as the same price. But it is your idea that you need those redemption cards, it is not a rule to prove authenticity. It's an extra layer that you might have to pay for if you really need the second card.

A final comment about master sets and the completest mentality. This hobby is not the same as it was even 10 years, certainly not 25 years. In 1995 non-sport master set builders could look around to find the most obscure cards and the most far-fetched connections possible to add more cards to their sets. The rule that a master set was literally every card ever created and distributed in every way for that particular product was accepted to make the master set achievement that much more special. And then they sliced it up even further to say that check marks were different from punch holes and slight color differences were whole groups of variants. In short, they threw in everything but the kitchen sink to make it harder and a greater challenge.

Now a days, we don't need bigger challenges to a master set. There are too many cards to count and too much money to spend if you are going to say it must be every card, in every version, in every way. If that is the standard, it's practically impossible for any mainstream, major title. If "complete is complete and everything else is preference or delusion", just give it up.

Or come to some understanding that we can all live with it as collectors without saying this is a standard that can't be met. There has to be optional cards that are extra bonuses when they are there, but not holes when they are not. Cards that are premiums when present, but not reductions when they are missing. If we are not more flexible than "complete is complete", we will always be unhappy with what we have and the point of having a hobby is to make yourself engaged and happy.

quote:

Originally posted by X:

Well that's one way to do it! My Page still says James Bon.

Was the one you saw an unredeemed one without the clipped corner and 'VOID' written on the back? If so do you remember what it went for?

The one i did was mint, not clipped, not punched, not written on. It was so long ago i can't remember what it sold for sorry.

quote:

Originally posted by wolfie:

quote:

Originally posted by X:

Well that's one way to do it! My Page still says James Bon.

Was the one you saw an unredeemed one without the clipped corner and 'VOID' written on the back? If so do you remember what it went for?

The one i did was mint, not clipped, not punched, not written on. It was so long ago i can't remember what it sold for sorry.

X

Like Wolfie I downloaded a picture of the D card so that I could print it for my collection, the one I saw was up for sale on Amazon UK around 2011 and it was not clipped or stamped or written on. It was available for some months at a price of £600 before it eventually disappeared alas I cannot remember who the dealer was but it was someone I had bought cards from.

regards

John

No worries wolfie, and thanks for the info John. I'm sure I remember seeing another unused D card from a US seller more recently than that. Of the 40 copies of this card I'd love to know how many were never redeemed.

quote:

Originally posted by Raven:
Now a days, we don't need bigger challenges to a master set. There are too many cards to count and too much money to spend if you are going to say it must be every card, in every version, in every way. If that is the standard, it's practically impossible for any mainstream, major title. If "complete is complete and everything else is preference or delusion", just give it up.

Or come to some understanding that we can all live with it as collectors without saying this is a standard that can't be met. There has to be optional cards that are extra bonuses when they are there, but not holes when they are not. Cards that are premiums when present, but not reductions when they are missing. If we are not more flexible than "complete is complete", we will always be unhappy with what we have and the point of having a hobby is to make yourself engaged and happy.

"Complete" means what it means. I don't want to go too deep but I think it is very unhealthy to distort definitions and meanings as to better align with preferences that ignore the issue... that the hobby has changed, as you've described, and some cannot accept that. It is a fact of life we cannot have everything.

I will probably never have a Bond 'D' card, clipped or otherwise, but that does not mean I should just "give it up" (collecting). wolfie and John took a different approach, neither of them have given up collecting either.

You make a very broad, sweeping generalisation that: 'If we are not more flexible than "complete is complete", we will always be unhappy with what we have,' which I strongly disagree with.

Just because there are still items I am looking for, does not make them "holes" in my collection that reduce what is present. I do not need to be "flexible", by distorting the commonly accepted definition of what a master set is, to be make myself happier about things I should enjoy collecting. Otherwise why buy these things in the first place?

I am happy and engaged with my hobby because I now buy only what I like. It's a pretty straightforward approach that leaves little room to be unhappy actually. Not collecting master sets does not change my enjoyment of my cards, but a tailored collection does not change what a master set is either.

quote:

Originally posted by X:
What constitutes a 'master set' was, for the longest time, every card made and officially released by the manufacturer for that set. I still hold by this standard.

The harder sets were to complete, and the more frustrated collectors got, the more willing they seem to bend previously (generally) agreed upon definitions of what a master set is. I think the disillusion and disappearance of collectors is some proof in itself that certain rare cards ARE part of a master set: many could not accept no longer being able to complete sets so threw in the towel completely. For those who do remain in the hobby, it is easier to deny something is not part of a set when it becomes more difficult to find or afford (as seems to be the main complaints in defining a 'master set'), but incomplete is the new normal for nearly all collectors now.

Complete is complete. Everything else is preference or delusion.

Those are your words X and you acknowledge that the hobby has changed, but you also say that old standards and old definitions must be maintained even if collectors are disillusioned and disappear.

I am not telling people to give up their card collecting and I am not saying incomplete is the new normal as you do. You miss my point. I am saying it is no longer necessary to bulk up the master set with every conceivable card or variation of a card you can think to throw in. We have moved past the time where we need tricks to add more cards to a master set. We can barely afford or find what we know is in the set as it is. Some of those cards should be recognized as optional.

Maybe the real answer is to just bury the term altogether, if it is sacrilege to suggest modification for recent and future products. Stick to it only for vintage and early modern sets because we have these rules. And we can't change the rules for new sets, even though 99% of the people can't meet them anymore and that might sour a few folks, but hey, its all incomplete anyway, right?

This is fun. It won't solve a darn thing, but at least its food for thought that doesn't involve a pandemic and delusion might not be such a bad thing sometimes.

And while I'm thinking about it, what about the Archive Box?

For many years the Archive Box used to contain every card in the set and all the hits. That was before sets and checklists got too big and too expensive.

Now recent Archive Boxes don't contain all the cards and hits. Some cards and some big hits are left out, sometimes more of them than other times. Also some extra cards not seeded in the packs can be found in the Archive Box as exclusives. RA has changed Archive Box construction because its products have changed, but they still call it an Archive Box. Now we don't know what's going to be in the Archive Box for a product until we are told.

If RA can change the rules for an Archive Box because the hobby has changed, is it not conceivable that collectors can change the rules for what makes up a master set because the hobby has changed?

And with that I rest my case. You don't have to agree, but at least I tried.

quote:

Originally posted by X:

quote:

Originally posted by hammer:
The Master set can rage on for ever but (to me) the redemption card (if returned or scratched off) AND the redeemed card would be part of that set and go hand in hand.

Would you seek out a redemption card without a hole punched in it/clipped corner/scratched off?
I prefer no holes etc. but can't say I have actively chased mint versions for all the redemption cards I have.

What are you thoughts on redemption cards for some of the Harry Potter Artbox autos for example? From memory I don't think those redemption cards were returned.

I'd be curious to know if any collectors tolerate any handwriting on the card backs in the address sections.

If you can get a mint one all the better, but I'm happy with a redeemed one. The Harry Potter redemption cards would, I suppose, be unredeemed so a nice addition but not vital as they weren't returned originally (so were never intended to be part of the set). As for handwriting on the back - I'd take that over none at all.

quote:

Originally posted by X:
No worries wolfie, and thanks for the info John. I'm sure I remember seeing another unused D card from a US seller more recently than that. Of the 40 copies of this card I'd love to know how many were never redeemed.

quote:

Originally posted by Raven:
Now a days, we don't need bigger challenges to a master set. There are too many cards to count and too much money to spend if you are going to say it must be every card, in every version, in every way. If that is the standard, it's practically impossible for any mainstream, major title. If "complete is complete and everything else is preference or delusion", just give it up.

Or come to some understanding that we can all live with it as collectors without saying this is a standard that can't be met. There has to be optional cards that are extra bonuses when they are there, but not holes when they are not. Cards that are premiums when present, but not reductions when they are missing. If we are not more flexible than "complete is complete", we will always be unhappy with what we have and the point of having a hobby is to make yourself engaged and happy.

"Complete" means what it means. I don't want to go too deep but I think it is very unhealthy to distort definitions and meanings as to better align with preferences that ignore the issue... that the hobby has changed, as you've described, and some cannot accept that. It is a fact of life we cannot have everything.

I will probably never have a Bond 'D' card, clipped or otherwise, but that does not mean I should just "give it up" (collecting). wolfie and John took a different approach, neither of them have given up collecting either.

You make a very broad, sweeping generalisation that: 'If we are not more flexible than "complete is complete", we will always be unhappy with what we have,' which I strongly disagree with.

Just because there are still items I am looking for, does not make them "holes" in my collection that reduce what is present. I do not need to be "flexible", by distorting the commonly accepted definition of what a master set is, to be make myself happier about things I should enjoy collecting. Otherwise why buy these things in the first place?

I am happy and engaged with my hobby because I now buy only what I like. It's a pretty straightforward approach that leaves little room to be unhappy actually. Not collecting master sets does not change my enjoyment of my cards, but a tailored collection does not change what a master set is either.

I have to agree - A master set is still what it has always been (agreed that sketch cards muddied the water - but one from each sketch artist always seemed reasonable). The expectations of collectors has changed and I would never expect to have master sets of any RA/Upper Deck/Topps or Crypto products now. In fact not having to chase a Master set makes the hobby more relaxing and fun - I look at chase sets that are affordable (and I like) and am happy with looking in the aftermarket for any auto's that are within range whilst trying to fill the few gaps I have in sets from a few years ago.

I certainly haven't given up without a master set to buy

quote:

Originally posted by hammer:

quote:

Originally posted by X:

quote:

Originally posted by hammer:
The Master set can rage on for ever but (to me) the redemption card (if returned or scratched off) AND the redeemed card would be part of that set and go hand in hand.

Would you seek out a redemption card without a hole punched in it/clipped corner/scratched off?
I prefer no holes etc. but can't say I have actively chased mint versions for all the redemption cards I have.

What are you thoughts on redemption cards for some of the Harry Potter Artbox autos for example? From memory I don't think those redemption cards were returned.

I'd be curious to know if any collectors tolerate any handwriting on the card backs in the address sections.

If you can get a mint one all the better, but I'm happy with a redeemed one. The Harry Potter redemption cards would, I suppose, be unredeemed so a nice addition but not vital as they weren't returned originally (so were never intended to be part of the set). As for handwriting on the back - I'd take that over none at all.

I think hand-writing on the back is the only one that would bother me, but then again I'd happily take a Bond 40th 'D' card with "VOID" scribbled on the back!

I view handwriting on a card in the same way I would view the card if it had imperfections like corner dings, creases etc. if I needed it for the set I would have it until I could replace it with something better. But then again I am used to imperfect cards because some of the cards I collect date from the late 1940's to early 1950's and they were issued stapled together in bunches of 7 or 8 cards with a paper wrapper, they also used any board that they could find because of paper shortages so it is impossible to find a perfect card and as yet I have yet to see a card without two small holes in it. I have some bunches still stapled together so at the moment the biggest problem is rust on the staple.

regards

John

I think that is what I said - I'd take it over none at all. Obviously if one then turned up without handwriting I'd buy that and sell my old one to the next collector looking for one