quote:

Originally posted by WOMBLE:
Ten SPECTRE Metal trading cards (1:144 packs, numbered to 150 each), eight 007 Double-Sided (Hero/Villain) Mirror cards (1:144 packs) and ten James Bond Relic cards (1:96 packs, numbered to 200 each).

The SPECTRE cards look nice, but at (1:144 packs) they are pointless.

I'm not sure I'd say "pointless", they do look very nice. Well, I always liked the sharp skeleton mask promotional posters. Rarer than I would like however.

Then again I look at the recent Trek:TNG Portfolio metal cards that were 4 times rarer than these cards will be and those were had for under just under £20 each at release. Do I want to pay £200 for a 10 card chase set? No. Then again, I'd rather pay that for rare cool looking cards than some repeat autos for the same money, or costume relic cards that don't really do it for me. Besides, I've got the patience to chase them down individually. Me or my wallet don't have to have them all at once.

Not being an RA fanboy on that one, but if they want to shake up the chase formula, that's their prerogative. I guess not many of us are used to paying significant sums of money for chase cards these days.

Hopefully I'll hate the Mirror cards and that will save me some money!

I do wonder why they have gone with a new costume/relic design though. Did they think the already decent relic design could be bettered?(I think they have actually). Did they want a new way to offer similar costumes we have already had? (The cynic in me says yes). I do think they are a nice clean looking design but I'm still very happy with the very first Craig tuxedo card CC7 from the 2006 Casino Royale preview set. Do I need another version...?

I would however get excited to see some costume cards from the older (non-Craig) films. This set is called Classics afterall!

quote:

Originally posted by X:
I would however get excited to see some costume cards from the older (non-Craig) films. This set is called Classics after all!

According to the checklist, the relic cards are from Casino Royale, Quantum of Solace and Skyfall.

I have bought plenty of the Rittenhouse's previous releases, but I am not planning on buying any of this one.

RA needs to shake up Bond. These sets within a set have not done it. These ultra limited chase sets have not done it. If anything, judging by the comments of long term Bond card collectors, those strategies have done more to turn them away than encourage buying.

It is very hard to fault RA on repeat signers when the ground has been so extensively covered. Only new Bond movies are going to produce many new signers, the few remaining big hold outs seem determined not to join in. RA is picking up ones where it can.

I have always thought that costume or material cards have no flavor unless there was something unique about the swatches. Multiple one color swatch cards are just multiply boring. Prop cards could be interesting, but not when its of a canvas bag or a parachute. That looks like the same thing as a costume card.

RA needs to try to infuse Bond with some of the things it did for Star Trek 50th Anniversary, a title that suffers from the same problem of overwork. The current set has limited sketches and even rarer cut signatures of deceased guest stars. I am frankly amazed at the prices realized for both the sketches and cuts, but it is driving the sale of product. If that means that more people are breaking product and the other premium hits and chase sets are cheaper, I don't see the problem. More collectors will be able to afford them and fewer will feel left out of products that are too rich for their blood.

There may be reasons why RA can't put sketches in Bond, like licensing restrictions, but how about printing plates? Or signed printing plates? Certifiable cut signatures should be available someplace, even for Connery. The Bond sets are really good looking and well done, it's just that overkill has set in and the box/case prices only go one way. Something needs to be done to make it a hot product instead of warmed left overs.

quote:

Originally posted by Raven:
It is very hard to fault RA on repeat signers when the ground has been so extensively covered. Only new Bond movies are going to produce many new signers, the few remaining big hold outs seem determined not to join in. RA is picking up ones where it can.

I have always thought that costume or material cards have no flavor unless there was something unique about the swatches. Multiple one color swatch cards are just multiply boring. Prop cards could be interesting, but not when its of a canvas bag or a parachute. That looks like the same thing as a costume card.

I don't mind new signers at all as I just pick and chose what I like, and I enjoy a chance at better images or names I have missed. I just meant I'm excited to see these Spectre poster cards and would take them over a repeat sig I already have. New is new.

I am not the biggest costume card collector (only have about 15 from Bond) but I think you're being a bit unfair to this kind of card. It could have been any colour but the CC1 card of Connnery's Tux from Dr. No is just plain black and is one cool card.

Daniel Craig's Day of the Dead skeleton costume, hat and mask recently sold at auction for just under £100k. I would LOVE a costume card for that outfit and plain old black would do me. A piece of the movie is a piece of the movie.

quote:

Originally posted by Raven:
RA needs to shake up Bond. These sets within a set have not done it. These ultra limited chase sets have not done it. If anything, judging by the comments of long term Bond card collectors, those strategies have done more to turn them away than encourage buying.

As a Bond fan who enjoys the entire series I do not understand the ire these "sets within sets" cause. At all. Since 1962, there have NEVER been full card sets released by ANY company for: Dr. No, From Russia With Love, Goldfinger, You Only Live Twice, Diamonds Are Forever, Live And Let Die, The Man With The Golden Gun, The Spy Who Loved Me, For Your Eyes Only, Octopus*y, The Living Daylights or Licence To Kill... That's 12 movies that have had no coverage beyond scant imagery in compilation sets.

Coincidentally I was having a look through some binders and sets today that I have decided to move on... the Quotable Bond, Dangerous Liaisons, Heroes & Villains, Bond In Motion, Mission Logs, and they left me a bit flat. I have my old Eclipse sets, my Connoisseur Collection from Inkworks, and the wonderful 40th Anniversary and Women in Motion sets from Rittenhouse. Beyond them, how many more compilation sets do I need? I was sick to death of compilation sets and think RA's decision to finally properly cover the old movies for the first time in history is one of the best decisions they have ever made.

If Bond fans have a problem with new material I honestly don't know what to say to that. If the sets are too hard to chase etc. I see far more value in a 70-90 card whole-movie chase set than two of these new metal cards in Classics for the same money. Weren't collectors previously complaining base and chase were not 'worth enough'?

quote:

Originally posted by Raven:
RA needs to try to infuse Bond with some of the things it did for Star Trek 50th Anniversary, a title that suffers from the same problem of overwork. The current set has limited sketches and even rarer cut signatures of deceased guest stars. I am frankly amazed at the prices realized for both the sketches and cuts, but it is driving the sale of product. If that means that more people are breaking product and the other premium hits and chase sets are cheaper, I don't see the problem. More collectors will be able to afford them and fewer will feel left out of products that are too rich for their blood.

The 'problem' is the expense and existence of uber rare cards that remain out of reach for 99% of collectors.

I really take issue with this bit of your argument simply because it contradicts itself. You say collectors are turned off by the expense and difficulty in collecting 'expensive' large movie plot chase sets for the older movies, or limited chase cards, but sketches that cost a fortune and cut signatures so rare they cost thousands(!) will be less alienating to collectors?

quote:

Originally posted by Raven:
There may be reasons why RA can't put sketches in Bond, like licensing restrictions, but how about printing plates? Or signed printing plates? Certifiable cut signatures should be available someplace, even for Connery. The Bond sets are really good looking and well done, it's just that overkill has set in and the box/case prices only go one way. Something needs to be done to make it a hot product instead of warmed left overs.

I can happily live without Bond sketches because apart from accurate likenesses (which not every artist is capable of), I don't think the films lend themselves to this type of card as much as sci-fi products that features aliens and starships etc. I do think printing plates are pretty neat and would accept them. I hate signed printing plates because I think they lack visual appeal but some enjoy them so why not include them if going down the printing plate route.

I don't want to regret saying it, because I would not be able to afford them, but I do quite like the idea of cut signatures for deceased names like:
Joseph Wiseman (Dr. No), John Kitzmiller (Quarrel), Jack Lord (original Felix Leiter), Lotte Lenya (Rosa Klebb), Robert Shaw (Red Grant), Gert Frobe (Goldfinger), Harold Sakata (Oddjob), Adolfo Celi (Largo), Tetsurō Tamba (Tiger Tanaka), Donald Plesance, Telly Savalas, Charles Gray (the Blofelds),and Louis Jordan (Kamal Khan).

But I am dead against cut sigs from living actors like Connery. Maybe he will never sign, but until he pops his clogs, cut sigs from him would be like RA admitting defeat. If you release cut cards of the living, what incentive has the manufacturer to keep chasing live on-card sigs from those people when they are still with us?

X, I do like a good debate, but in your post I think you have misunderstood a couple of things I said, or maybe my post was unclear.

You said "I don't mind new signers at all". Well nobody does really, except perhaps when it turns out to be the no-name holding the tent pole. It was the repeat signers you minded and would rather pay the same money on a cool chase set. I was just giving RA credit for being so through that repeat signers are really the only majority it can get unless it is a new Bond movie.

As for your not understanding those people who don't like the set within a set, that is your preference, but I get it. If you are like me and don't want to complete those alternative sets the 4 or more cards that you find in a box are useless, as is that one gold numbered card. Should you be of a mind to collect the sets within a set, you are probably not going to be able to do it unless you buy that set from a dealer, which means extra money spent. If you want to hunt them down individually, you still have to pay for them. Its one thing to save for one or even two Bond sets per year, but a completest has to now save for six sets a year. And some people are not satisfied with half measures, they would rather quit altogether. I don't agree with that way of thinking myself, but that's how some people view it and that's all that matters to them.

Now as for that contradictory statement that you take issue with, good, because I did not say what you seem to think I said. To you the "problem" may be the expense and existence of uber rare cards that remain out of the reach for 99% of collectors, but that is not the "problem" I was speaking about.

I could care less about a $7,000 cut signature card, the same way that I could care less about a $150,000 car. All the power to those who want them and can afford them, but neither one would be worth it to me. Sure I'll take the money, but not the collectible. And just because someone can't have the 1 or 2 most expensive hits in a set is no reason not to get the rest of the set if you really like it. Again some people may feel that way, but realistically when can anyone afford everything they want?

No, what I was talking about is that many dealers are breaking lots of new Star Trek product and collectors are buying larger than normal quantities of the Star Trek 50th Anniversary because the sketches and cuts are going so well and they are looking for them. So some other collectors seem to think that it's a "problem" because the base set and many of the autographs are being discounted since so much is being opened. My point was that the lower prices are not a "problem" for me because I can buy more autographs and I see affordable cards as a good thing for the hobby in general. It is the unaffordable cards and products that are driving people away, even though I just shake my head and happily let those products go to whoever wants them without feeling deprived of anything. If people chasing those cards, make the other premium cards cheaper for me and everyone else, Whoppie!

As for costume cards, another matter of opinion. Some people can't understand what I see in having someone's autograph. I can't see why anyone wants a bit of cloth from an article of clothing that may or may not have been worn by an actor, maybe on screen and maybe only as a duplicate outfit. It would not matter to me if it were Bond's black tuxedo or his white knickers. A one color swatch looks exactly the same as every other one color swatch to me. I only like costume cards when they also have an autograph or when there is something distinct about it. That's just my preference.

Finally, and sorry this is taking up too much space, I would love it if they had actor likeness sketches in Bond and cut signatures. I do agree that a cut signature of a living person should never be the first choice over getting a signed card, but there are cases where it is appropriate because it won't happen any other way. Instead of saying it admits defeat, why not the opposite? If Connery were to see that his signature appears as a cut whether he liked it or not, it might move him to accept an offer to sign himself. Yeah, that won't happen I know, but it's fun to say and a few Connery cuts would certainly get collectors going alright.

Just me rambling, hope it makes some sense.

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

We keep talking about repeat autos like they are not even new cards. Unlike where RA have pretty much exhausted their Trek TOS design, so have had to launch the silver series and the black bordered cards, there are loads of Bond names who have signed but have not yet been released on the 3 Bond auto styles yet. Maybe to master set collectors repeats are a bit boring but to people who only buy 40th / Women of Bond / Full-Bleed cards, there is still a lot more to look forward to, even without Connery etc.

I totally get that compiling the movie chase sets from boxes is challenging. But when has it not been? When do you not have to go to the secondary market to pick up what you are missing? And I remember saying this the last couple of sets... I can get a throwback set for the price of a single box when it would take well over a case (with perfect collation) to put it together. Collectors do have options if they don't want to break the bank. This hobby is no longer about the collector who wants a box or two, and hasn't been for a long time.

You might not care about the $7k cut signature, but if it was Sean Connery I'm pretty certain most collectors would definitely care. I think most would want that and most would not be able to afford that. How are unobtainable (but desirable) cut sigs less frustrating than far more obtainable large chase sets I'm hearing are not very desirable?
I do not follow your logic at all on this one. If people are upset they can't complete chase sets how will they feel when they can't pull the super rare cards? You could buy 10 cases and still not pull one of these Trek cuts. Enough people are already upset about incentive cards and archive box exclusives being too hard to get.

I don't know what to think of all the Trek 50th business. Yes its great to pick up autos etc. cheaper than what we think they should be, but it feels like product is being dumped. Ultimately I'm not sure that is great for the hobby in the long run if the value of what is in boxes and cases is lowered because speculators/ripper-flippers chase the big-ticket items and undercut each other on everything else.

I kind of feel like we are saying the exact same things, but drawing different conclusions.

I don't think that there is anything wrong with repeat signers in Bond, especially because there are all the styles you mentioned. I'm not sure how many Bond card collectors confine themselves to only one autograph style, but the 40th and FB collectors never seem satisfied with the mix they get. There always needs to be new signers to keep it fresh and that is getting hard here.

The throwback sets do have to be picked up through the secondary market, unless you want to make a quest out of it. Whether or not it breaks the bank kind of depends on the size on your bank, doesn't it? You need to pick up the base set and all throwbacks for those who desire to be whole.

I keep reading that this hobby is no longer about the collector who wants to collect a box or two? It's a popular statement. What exactly does that mean? Do you need to buy a case or two or three? Do you need to hope that enough product is broken and sold at a price you can afford so that you can pick up full sets and packaged deals? Are you supposed to confine yourself to only one title, when you buy five or six titles? Why exactly shouldn't I buy a box or two, make the set, take a chance on pulling a big hit and then pick up what I want from the usual suspects? There was a time when my box or two might have totaled 50 boxes a year on many different titles, not counting the individual card buys, but apparently that does not qualify for me to be a well regarded customer by "the Hobby". Sorry, I disagree with that. You won't have a hobby if you think you should design for the top 5% and the other 95% are just small potatoes. That 95% is spending way more than you think and can't be replaced. Disrespecting the solid, long time collector was the death knell for sports cards, so why would non-sport want to repeat history? OK, that's a bit dramatic, but box buyers spend too much money, too often to keep getting insulted.

I do care about those expensive cut signatures, I would love to pull one. I would sell it immediately.

I don't see the conflict in my logic as you put it. I recognize that some collectors see red over expensive cards and very limited chase sets that keep them from completing their sets. It is a valid argument for keeping down the short prints, but as long as they are seeded you at least have a shot at it. Those very rare cuts are driving sales just because people are hoping to find them. However incentives and archive exclusives are different because you have no shot unless you pay the price. Those cards are not designed with the collector in mind, they are meant to compensate dealers and indeed many dealers say they need the income they generate to make up for unprofitable products. I don't doubt it.

Finally there is the notion that cheap cards automatically means that the product is being dumped. Well if sealed product is being discounted off of retail value and sealed boxes and cases are being sold below retail or even wholesale cost sometimes, then it is certainly being dumped. However if speculators/ripper-flippers, whatever you want to call them, and the general collectors are opening those boxes and cases to chase after the big ticket items and then selling off everything else cheaply, I would argue that you can't call that dumping. The product is selling through, the retail prices are being realized. Those big ticket items in Star Trek, cuts and sketches, are selling large. What is being discounted is the base sets and other less important autographs and hits, but that's on the secondary market because these boxes/cases have been busted in greater numbers, often by people who intend to sell rather than keep. And what is the damage? Long term value? The cards are winding up in the hands of collectors. Most collectors want these cards because they like them. If they can't buy them to begin with, they have no long term value anyway. So now they at least own the cards. Pricing cards at reasonable values is not a bad thing, it is not dumping. Just the opposite if you believe that there is room for that price to move upward because it was not sold at the highest value it will ever obtain, as so many cards are now.

All just a matter of opinion and it depends on your own habits. I try to see all sides and there is no one, right answer. Food for thought maybe.

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

As a person who has collected EVERY Inkworks and Rittenhouse Bond set, and who has master sets of all, aside from the foil parallels on the Bond sets of the last 2-3 years, I will say this:

I hope that they NEVER do what they did on the last Star Trek set, make autos, cut or otherwise, limited to 10-30 in existence, which will cost thousands to obtain

That will be the ultimate turn off for me !

quote:

Originally posted by David R:
....I hope that they NEVER do what they did on the last Star Trek set, make autos, cut or otherwise, limited to 10-30 in existence, which will cost thousands to obtain...

If I recall correctly, they mentioned a couple of years ago, that they were not allowed to do cut signatures for Bond, and they had no intention to do sketch cards for Bond either.

So in checking the rundown on 007 CLASSICS in the current NSU, I find mention of the 6 case Dench and 9 case Craig GOLD Signature Series autograph cards that will be available for "advanced collectors", plus an 18 case archive box incentive that has an exclusive Honor Blackman autograph card. Now how many copies of those cards do you think there are? Less than 30? Those short prints are already in Bond sets, the production number is just not stated.

And I guess I have something new to argue about with that term "advanced collector", which has less to do with actually being a knowledgeable, advanced collector and everything to do with spending a great deal of money that may or may not be very wise.

Advanced Collector.

Based on all this lot i think i must be advancing backwards.

Raven, at the risk on banging on further, we're not saying the same things at all.

You would love to pull an expensive cut signature so you could sell it.

I would love to pull an expensive (Bond) cut signature because I am a lifelong Bond and Bond card collector. I would appreciate the card and would be grateful I had lucked out pulling something so rare I could never afford to buy.

I'm sorry but what you're saying does not sound like a balanced opinion that takes into consideration the majority of collectors. Quite the opposite. So I would rather not have them.


Besides that, I feel I should clarify my comment about box buyers because reading back what I said earlier: "This hobby is no longer about the collector who wants a box or two," sounds quite elitist and is not what I intended at all. Especially as I had to give up Bond master sets a good while ago due to the expense.

I think the hobby is about every collector of every budget. I have stated repeatedly over the years on Card Talk that people need not let the completest mentality break them. I don't believe in cutting off your nose to spite your face: we have the option to pick and choose the cards we really want if we can't afford them all, or if you are prepared to wait, you CAN get lucky and find great deals on the cards you think you may never find. The recent Disney Treasures sketch in the best eBay finds thread (won for $24!) is an amazing example of that.
(*I do think however that cut signatures worth thousands are an extreme end of the scale though that will leave 99.9% of collectors out in the cold).

I was just trying to say, that for a long time now, it has been the case that a couple boxes, of almost any title, will leave the box buyer needing to head to the secondary market so arguing about what is in a box is almost a moot point.

If people want to bust boxes gambling to hit the big cards, that's fine with me. It's not my money.
I get the thrill of the chase, I really do, having had some ace boxes myself, but now my spending is tighter I don't take those risks. For 3 boxes of this new Bond set you may come up with all low-end autos, or decent autos of people you've never heard of, or a decent big card you don't care for, plus chase cards apparently no one wants.
Well, why not spend the same money buying what you actually want outright if cost of participation is the sore point people keep talking about? These days you could get a 6-case incentive card for the price of two boxes, and you may appreciate that card a whole hell of a lot more than your potential box breaks. Which is all I was saying about these throwback Bond sets. If you want them, there are ways to get them without breaking the bank.

For this set, for less than the price of two boxes (including shipping) my dealer is sorting me the base set, the complete Licence To Kill throwback set, the binder with P3 promo, P1 promo, a common auto of my choice and the case topper.
I think that is bang on for the money and I get a complete set of two of my top 5 Bond movies, promos I love to collect, the binder I always pick up (and can be expensive on its own), a case incentive and at least one auto I KNOW I will like even if it isn't rare.
Sure I have missed out on the chance of pulling the Brosnan auto I really want from this set, but for the same money I probably wouldn't have pulled it anyway!

I just wish people would look at the glass half full, than half empty for a change. But cut signatures for me would be like RA throwing the glass against the wall.

And I still say the other inserts on Trek are almost being dumped. The big breakers need to recoup their outlay spent chasing the cuts and sketches. You can say the collectors are setting the true value, but its also true that lots of sellers will sell most stuff for almost anything at auction. That in turn skews the market because these dealers give collectors absolutely no reason to pay any more because they have flooded the market. Great if you are a buyer at the time of release though.

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

quote:

Originally posted by Raven:
So in checking the rundown on 007 CLASSICS in the current NSU, I find mention of the 6 case Dench and 9 case Craig GOLD Signature Series autograph cards that will be available for "advanced collectors", plus an 18 case archive box incentive that has an exclusive Honor Blackman autograph card. Now how many copies of those cards do you think there are? Less than 30? Those short prints are already in Bond sets, the production number is just not stated.

There have always been stupidly rare Bond auto cards but where RA have something of a get-out-of-jail card is that they give you options if you can't afford a specific card. These Dench, Craig and Blackman cards will be expensive and hard to get, but if collectors want a signed card from any of those 3 actors, RA have given us PLENTY from them already, and probably more in future. Meaning the newer versions have lower prices out the gate and(to a point) depress the values of the older versions. A cut sig is in no way comparable IMO because the supply is miniscule.

quote:

....If people want to bust boxes gambling to hit the big cards, that's fine with me. It's not my money.
I get the thrill of the chase, I really do, having had some ace boxes myself, but now my spending is tighter I don't take those risks. For 3 boxes of this new Bond set you may come up with all low-end autos, or decent autos of people you've never heard of, or a decent big card you don't care for, plus chase cards apparently no one wants....

'X' Something to think about - If you were guaranteed of getting one of the autographs pictured on the Rittenhouse site would that tempt you into buying a display box?
http://www.scifihobby.com/prod...esbond/2016classics/

quote:

Originally posted by X:
Raven, at the risk on banging on further, we're not saying the same things at all.

You would love to pull an expensive cut signature so you could sell it.

I would love to pull an expensive (Bond) cut signature because I am a lifelong Bond and Bond card collector. I would appreciate the card and would be grateful I had lucked out pulling something so rare I could never afford to buy.

I'm sorry but what you're saying does not sound like a balanced opinion that takes into consideration the majority of collectors. Quite the opposite. So I would rather not have them.

And I still say the other inserts on Trek are almost being dumped. The big breakers need to recoup their outlay spent chasing the cuts and sketches. You can say the collectors are setting the true value, but its also true that lots of sellers will sell most stuff for almost anything at auction. That in turn skews the market because these dealers give collectors absolutely no reason to pay any more because they have flooded the market. Great if you are a buyer at the time of release though.

Yeah we could to keep this up for awhile, at the risk of annoying everyone else.

But I can't help but feel that you are not hearing what I am saying because you have a different idea of what you think I'm saying.

The Star Trek cuts are the extreme example of what this hobby has come to, they are not the norm. It seems to bother you, or you at least think it contradictory, for me to say I would love to pull one, to sell it. That just seems like common sense to me. I am trying not to judge people, I am trying not to question a market that says anything is worth what it sells for. All I am saying is that a cut signature card of Susan Oliver, a deceased actress who is not generally well known, is not worth thousands of dollars to me. I said the same thing in the Star Trek thread, I am very surprised at its value. Should I find it, which I won't, I would gladly sell it to any collector for that price, or even a lesser price.

Now I know you have sold many Bond autograph cards yourself, including the Christopher Lee, because you said so on these boards. I don't question why you as a committed Bond collector sold them, even though I myself would not have parted with that particular card. I would assume it was because the money seemed better than the cards at the time. Well why is my saying I would sell a rare and expensive card that I don't believe in any different than that? It isn't, common sense says I would rather have the money in that case.

As for the bit about the dumping, I thought I explained my position as best I could. I am not chasing big cards, it's just a matter of luck. I only buy cards I like and expect to keep. If dealers and speculators are busting more product looking for those big cards and the secondary market is subsequently selling other hits that I am now able to pick up in greater numbers than normal because they cost less, how is that not a bonus for me and for a majority of other collectors. The sealed product is not being dumped, box prices might even rise over all. The boxes will sell through and collectors will be able to afford most of the cards, not all, but most. I really don't know how to explain it any other way, if more collectors can buy more cards that's what you want. It's supposed to be a fun hobby, not something that gets people envious or aggravated or insecure or broke.

quote:

Originally posted by David R:
As a person who has collected EVERY Inkworks and Rittenhouse Bond set, and who has master sets of all, aside from the foil parallels on the Bond sets of the last 2-3 years, I will say this:

I hope that they NEVER do what they did on the last Star Trek set, make autos, cut or otherwise, limited to 10-30 in existence, which will cost thousands to obtain

That will be the ultimate turn off for me !

Same goes for me,if they would put sketches of countrysides like they do for Game of Thrones it would turn me completly off,even a likeness of ***** Galore would do nothing for the collecting urge.Cut signatures is the worst idea since it just fuels the single box buyer wanting to get rich with hitting and flipping,there is no collecting feeling there at all,its open the pack ,pause,ohhh look what i pulled,then how fast can you flip the card.Being a Bond fan i would keep the card but no way would i encourage Rittenhouse to even bother with the idea.Dont even bother getting me started with printing plates,they are the most bland ugly thing that really has zero appeal to me.
These chase sets within the set can be had for 20.00 most of the time,in fact in most cases the shipping cost more then the set itself so why is it everytime there is another release we hear the same stories on how hard they are to complete or come by.Sure if you buy 1 box and get 4 cards and it may be a bit of a challenge to get the other 86 cards but hey dont buy the box for 80.00 buy the set for 20.00,buy the base set for 2.00 but then i can see the problem of the rip and flip person not getting a chance to hit gold hmmmmm.

I understand Susan Oliver (who?) is not worth $7.5k to you Raven, me neither. We are probably not the Trek fans who are upset they can't obtain these cut sigs though. I think I/we have beat the cut signature thing to death but I think it's safe to say they alienate more collectors than they please.

As for Christopher Lee... when we found out he was getting a full-bleed card, I didn't need his 40th style card anymore. I sold a card I'd owned for 10 years in an effort to streamline my collection. I think that is very different than looking for hits to flip for profit.

Womble - not sure what you're getting at because we do not have that guarantee. But of those shown I only want Brosnan and Jeffrey Wright and from the list below I'd only take 3 more names. So it would still be a gamble buying boxes to pull a card I'd really want.

quote:

Originally posted by X:
Womble - not sure what you're getting at because we do not have that guarantee. But of those shown I only want Brosnan and Jeffrey Wright and from the list below I'd only take 3 more names. So it would still be a gamble buying boxes to pull a card I'd really want.

I was wondering why Rittenhouse do not put more 'Star' autographs in their boxes and increase the price of the box to compensate, but you have answered my question.

It’s been interesting reading people’s thoughts about the direction James Bond trading cards are heading. I’ve been collecting Bond cards since 2002, i.e. since Rittenhouse took over the licence and I’ve really seen the landscape change. As said, the products as a whole have become increasingly high-end and the idea of completism, something of an impossibility due to budget and rarity. I have to admit, I miss the early days of Bond 40th and Women of Bond: the basic formula of a sharp little base set, a couple of nice chase sets, and a handful of autographs, with the odd rarer one, had everything for me! The sets were smaller and somehow more charming. Now there’s something a bit cold and mercenary about these larger sets, with all their parallel cards and different style autographs.

Still, I get why things changed, partly because of the demands of the collectors (wanting different styles of autograph, for example), partly because of the demands of dealers (rarer, more expensive cards to ensure a return on wholesale purchase). As I’ve said before on here, I’ve found the latest sets tired and uninspired. The throwbacks don’t really do it for me, particularly the black and white ones, and Rittenhouse also seems to have lost the plot a bit with the autographs. They’ve messed with the 40th anniversary autograph card design of late and have been including less-than-bit-part actor/actress autographs. In my view, this has brought down the overall quality of the autograph collection as a whole and is a real shame. With the last couple of sets, I’ve given up being a completist of Bond 40th/WOB autographs because, quite honestly, I realised I simply didn’t want an autograph card of ‘Octopussy Girl’ / Joni Flynn – WHO??? – complete with a black+white photo which jars with the rest of the collection or an autograph of Shane Rimmer signed in black when the other two hundred odd have been signed in blue. For me, collections (whether trading cards, stamps, ceramic pigs or whatever) are all about visual appeal and display appeal. When they lose that, they lose everything, in my opinion, and cease to become collectable.

As for the debate over cut autograph cards, I’m completely against them. Firstly, I find them aesthetically awful. The cuts are often taken from cheques or letters and have fragments of extra text or bank sort codes partly visible on the card. And then the cards are, of course, dominated by the huge signature, which even with the best will in the world never blend in with the rest of the card. Then there’s the over-inflated price, which takes the commercial/mercenary side to a whole new level. I really hope they don’t do the same for Bond – not even for Connery. (Btw, I still think he might one day sign. He signed hundreds of bookplates for his autobiography, so there’s obviously some arguments which will win him over and get him to sign little pieces of card. Rittenhouse just need to find the right one). I don’t think sketch cards are a good idea either. The Bond films are not caricature enough to work with sketches, in my opinion.

To end on a positive note, there’s definitely no doubt Rittenhouse has done a sterling job with the Bond licence. I’m frequently amazed with the new signers they manage to get on board – Ursula Andress, Pierce Brosnan, Halle Berry...Daniela Bianchi. Sensational work! Plus, some of the base and chase sets over the years have been truly stunning. I’ll stick with their products for sure, albeit with a more selective approach than in the past. I think there’s still territory that could be explored too, with the Bond posters, Bond cars or Bond title music singers. Who knows what we’ll see in the years to come. Fingers crossed Rittenhouse keep the licence but maybe a little more thought about keeping their products collectable wouldn’t be a bad thing.

Autographs have been added to the checklist!

http://scifihobby.com/products...cklist.cfm?SetID=327

33 autograph cards seems low for a Bond set. Maybe the list is incomplete. As it stands though I've never seriously considered buying an Archive Box before. But there are just so many autograph cards I want from this set, as well as all the relics. Depending on how much one would cost, it may be cheaper to buy an Archive Box and then sell the cards I don't need.