quote:

Originally posted by WandringRebel:

quote:

Originally posted by DavidDeb:

quote:

Originally posted by WandringRebel:

quote:

Originally posted by DavidDeb:
Certainly not a good pull, but probably consistent with what Topps paid to acquire it; 1.50$. Those amounts don't inspire a load of creativity...that's the bad side of the market.

The pay rate is known up front. If you don't like it or don't think it's enough to justify decent work THEN TURN THE JOB DOWN!

My comment wasn't on the decision about working on an official set or not Laura; but about getting paid for the work done in term of effort and time invested in each artwork. Each artist weights the goods and bads while making such a decision and there is certainly the exposure advantage, but in my opinion, the payment per card doesn't justify the hours of work needed to create something that would satify most collectors.

My comment doesn't just apply to official sets. If you don't feel that you're being given enough compensation for your work then don't agree to whatever art job it is you're being asked to do.

if artists would based their decision to work for an official set only on the compensation per card, no one would...No one worth themselves for a few bucks on hours of work. Artists do it by interest and love in a particular show/movie, for the exposure given and 'return cards'. Even with a 0$ compensation, there would still be about the same interest from artists, but that doesn't mean that the compensation per card is ok and fair.

The sketch is basically unacceptable. It serves no purpose, it is therefore pointless. The worst thing is I have loads of Shum sketches thrown in my box of useless sketches, along with my monkey sketches.

There is only one type of person to blame for the frequency of these sketches and that's the people who buy these products. I am afraid I am one of those people.

there is a reaction to every action. for instance...

pence (just one example) puts forth a lot of effort in his $1.50 pack-inserted sketches.
collectors reward him (indirectly) by paying big bucks for commissions.
shum spends ten seconds and produces a piece of ****.
collectors will NOT pay shum for commissions.

so artists have the choice and collectors also have choices.

but i do agree that Topps is at least 50% to blame for allowing **** sketches like shum's and a few others to be in the product at all.

quote:

Originally posted by DavidDeb:

quote:

Originally posted by WandringRebel:

quote:

Originally posted by DavidDeb:

quote:

Originally posted by WandringRebel:

quote:

Originally posted by DavidDeb:
Certainly not a good pull, but probably consistent with what Topps paid to acquire it; 1.50$. Those amounts don't inspire a load of creativity...that's the bad side of the market.

The pay rate is known up front. If you don't like it or don't think it's enough to justify decent work THEN TURN THE JOB DOWN!

My comment wasn't on the decision about working on an official set or not Laura; but about getting paid for the work done in term of effort and time invested in each artwork. Each artist weights the goods and bads while making such a decision and there is certainly the exposure advantage, but in my opinion, the payment per card doesn't justify the hours of work needed to create something that would satify most collectors.

My comment doesn't just apply to official sets. If you don't feel that you're being given enough compensation for your work then don't agree to whatever art job it is you're being asked to do.

if artists would based their decision to work for an official set only on the compensation per card, no one would...No one worth themselves for a few bucks on hours of work. Artists do it by interest and love in a particular show/movie, for the exposure given and 'return cards'. Even with a 0$ compensation, there would still be about the same interest from artists, but that doesn't mean that the compensation per card is ok and fair.

I'm not saying anything is fair but if you agree to something take the time to do it right. Take some pride in your work or don't do anything!

quote:

Originally posted by WandringRebel:

quote:

Originally posted by DavidDeb:

quote:

Originally posted by WandringRebel:

quote:

Originally posted by DavidDeb:

quote:

Originally posted by WandringRebel:

quote:

Originally posted by DavidDeb:
Certainly not a good pull, but probably consistent with what Topps paid to acquire it; 1.50$. Those amounts don't inspire a load of creativity...that's the bad side of the market.

The pay rate is known up front. If you don't like it or don't think it's enough to justify decent work THEN TURN THE JOB DOWN!

My comment wasn't on the decision about working on an official set or not Laura; but about getting paid for the work done in term of effort and time invested in each artwork. Each artist weights the goods and bads while making such a decision and there is certainly the exposure advantage, but in my opinion, the payment per card doesn't justify the hours of work needed to create something that would satify most collectors.

My comment doesn't just apply to official sets. If you don't feel that you're being given enough compensation for your work then don't agree to whatever art job it is you're being asked to do.

if artists would based their decision to work for an official set only on the compensation per card, no one would...No one worth themselves for a few bucks on hours of work. Artists do it by interest and love in a particular show/movie, for the exposure given and 'return cards'. Even with a 0$ compensation, there would still be about the same interest from artists, but that doesn't mean that the compensation per card is ok and fair.

I'm not saying anything is fair but if you agree to something take the time to do it right. Take some pride in your work or don't do anything!

yes, indeed, I'm right with you. You do it right or you don't.

If anyone has ever checked out Howard's website, he has more of a simplistic cartoony style. It's just what he does.

But to play devil's advocate.

If you pull a Howard Shum sketch, why are you mad?

Are you mad because you can't flip the sketch card to pay for the box?

If so, shame on you because you know the risk of pulling inserts, non-sport, sport, vintage, high end, there is a risk. That's why there are odds on the package.

Are you mad because you wanted a killer piece of art for your own personal collection and it's not something that fits?

For the hundred bucks or so you paid for the box, you could have easily commissioned a PSC, or commissioned a return card on official stock from your favorite artist on the set. The odds of you pulling the exact card from an exact artist are so remote.

Contact Howard, he may be open to coloring it for you and making you happy. Who knows, maybe he will say no.

And what is unacceptable in this thread is the viciousness and general hatred directed towards someone that none of you have met. Drop him a line, maybe he will take the time to explain why he sketches the way he does.

Flip the script, if someone you didn't know was railing on you because of the way you write insurance policies, sell cars, or whatever you do for a living, what would you do? How would you react? Would you get pissy or would you take the time to talk to them about why you do what you do? Would you want the benefit of the doubt? Would you even care?

Anyways.

quote:

Originally posted by jadams:

If you pull a Howard Shum sketch, why are you mad?

If so, shame on you because you know the risk of pulling inserts, non-sport, sport, vintage, high end, there is a risk. That's why there are odds on the package.

If it were me, I'd be upset because I'd received a collectible trading card that virtually the entire hobby has determined is not collectible.

As far as it being a 'gamble' or 'risk,' I really hate that response. It feels like a cop out. No one is denying that there are 'better' and 'worse' cards to pull when you are opening packs, and that of course depend on who is opening the pack. The point is nearly always that a particular piece, or group of pieces is strongly disliked by the target market.

In my eyes this is typical work from Shum, which is what Topps must have expected when they commissioned him. If there is a complaint to be made it would be with Topps as the artist has produced what they are known to produce.

Jon

quote:

Originally posted by webjon:

quote:

Originally posted by jadams:

If you pull a Howard Shum sketch, why are you mad?

If so, shame on you because you know the risk of pulling inserts, non-sport, sport, vintage, high end, there is a risk. That's why there are odds on the package.

If it were me, I'd be upset because I'd received a collectible trading card that virtually the entire hobby has determined is not collectible.

As far as it being a 'gamble' or 'risk,' I really hate that response. It feels like a cop out. No one is denying that there are 'better' and 'worse' cards to pull when you are opening packs, and that of course depend on who is opening the pack. The point is nearly always that a particular piece, or group of pieces is strongly disliked by the target market.

In my eyes this is typical work from Shum, which is what Topps must have expected when they commissioned him. If there is a complaint to be made it would be with Topps as the artist has produced what they are known to produce.

Jon

But it's not just sketch cards. It's all trading cards. I'm a huge Texas Rangers homer. I know better than to purchase a pack of Topps Triple Threads hoping to pull the card I want. With my luck, I'd pull a Paul O'Neil autograph or something else I don't collect. So, I look at the LCS to see if they have what I want. Or I look on eBay.

I understand there is no reward without risk. I understand everyone want's to pull a bad *** piece of art that is super duper collectible and worth a ton of cash if they want to flip it. I get it. But the harsh reality is that the super duper cards are limited and there are boxes to sell. And the companies have to sell these boxes to have money for the next set. So they market the hell out of the "big" sketches on the sell sheets, and hope to sell out and get ready for the next set.

I'm not saying it's right or wrong, it's just the way it is.

I see both sides of the issue.
That is why I sort of go in expecting to get a so-so sketch in my box and am pleasantly surprised when I get a spectatular one. I also make my decision to buy a more expensive box on factors other than a sketch card.

It does make me happy to know though that I, a totally untrained, untalented non-artist, am able to draw better than someone who got paid (aka a professional) for their artwork.

quote:

Originally posted by jadams:

quote:

Originally posted by webjon:

quote:

Originally posted by jadams:

If you pull a Howard Shum sketch, why are you mad?

If so, shame on you because you know the risk of pulling inserts, non-sport, sport, vintage, high end, there is a risk. That's why there are odds on the package.

If it were me, I'd be upset because I'd received a collectible trading card that virtually the entire hobby has determined is not collectible.

As far as it being a 'gamble' or 'risk,' I really hate that response. It feels like a cop out. No one is denying that there are 'better' and 'worse' cards to pull when you are opening packs, and that of course depend on who is opening the pack. The point is nearly always that a particular piece, or group of pieces is strongly disliked by the target market.

In my eyes this is typical work from Shum, which is what Topps must have expected when they commissioned him. If there is a complaint to be made it would be with Topps as the artist has produced what they are known to produce.

Jon

But it's not just sketch cards. It's all trading cards. I'm a huge Texas Rangers homer. I know better than to purchase a pack of Topps Triple Threads hoping to pull the card I want. With my luck, I'd pull a Paul O'Neil autograph or something else I don't collect. So, I look at the LCS to see if they have what I want. Or I look on eBay.

I understand there is no reward without risk. I understand everyone want's to pull a bad *** piece of art that is super duper collectible and worth a ton of cash if they want to flip it. I get it. But the harsh reality is that the super duper cards are limited and there are boxes to sell. And the companies have to sell these boxes to have money for the next set. So they market the hell out of the "big" sketches on the sell sheets, and hope to sell out and get ready for the next set.

I'm not saying it's right or wrong, it's just the way it is.

It sort of is 'just sketch cards,' though. In your example at least Paul O'Neil has something to do with baseball. The complaint isn't about a background characters autograph.

In this example Shum is just some guy they hired -- he has nothing to do with Star Wars at all and no reason to be included in the set other than the fact that he is an artist that was hired.

I think that's a big part of the frustration. . .

I have no problem with saying, "It's the luck of the draw", but I think where people are getting irked is the fact that this is supposed to be a high end product, which they paid close to $100 per box.
I would expect the lower end sketches to be significantly superior to those found within normal Topps products. Since it appears they didn't shellout a whole lot of money for autographs as a number of those used were leftover stickers and the patches were manufactured just for this set, Topps didn't spend a lot of coin throwing this set together.
If it took paying the artists a higher fee for better quality sketches then they should have done so. This is afterall their flagship product.

Alright, let me break this down simply for you all:

Topps is the ONLY holder of the Star Wars license issued for producing trading cards. Every sketch passes through their fingers for approval BEFORE being seeded into packs. Therefore, someone at Topps (intern or janitor perhaps) looked at the stack of Shum "sketches", and APPROVED those cards as being worthy of the Star Wars name.

Topps hired the "artist" & Topps approved the sketch.

This tells you that Topps does not care what you think of the artist or the "sketch" they produce. How can they possibly care, after the deluge of negative mail they received from past sets where Shum and Waterhouse "sketches" were found in boxes that were only $45, only to hire the same person again for a product that's over DOUBLE the price!

Topps didn't seed bad sketches into the Star Wars 30th boxes, did they? Of course not! There would have been civil unrest in the card community!

If Rittenhouse can guarantee a color sketch in every box, there is no reason why Topps can't. And to this day, I have yet to pull a "bad" sketch from a Rittenhouse box.

Whether you're keeping it or flipping it, there is NO excuse for a poor sketch from a $100 box.

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

I agree there should be quality in a wxpensive
Box batman!!
Quite often they are line drawings! Not
A sketch-maybe a legal difference there!!
Im sure lucas if they saw some sketches
Wouls be horrified.having said that
There are some amazing sketches produced
Considering the low prices generally
Paid by some companies.

quote:

Originally posted by mintoncard:
If Rittenhouse can guarantee a color sketch in every box, there is no reason why Topps can't. And to this day, I have yet to pull a "bad" sketch from a Rittenhouse box.

quote:

Originally posted by DeathStorm:

quote:

Originally posted by mintoncard:
If Rittenhouse can guarantee a color sketch in every box, there is no reason why Topps can't. And to this day, I have yet to pull a "bad" sketch from a Rittenhouse box.

LOL! Sorry Simon. Also sorry for the Shum pull. He's one of the biggest offenders in the hobby for putting out trash sketches. Topps, UD, RA etc.. should be ashamed of putting out "sketches" like that. I know that some artist will reply saying "it is a sketch". I think that the time has some to no longer use the word "sketch". It should be replaced with art card or something along those lines. Boxes are more expensive than ever and the secondary market prices with exception to the Pernas, Acar, Glebe & other higher end artists are at an all time low. Just go and take a looked at the completed auctions on Ebay. New DC sketches selling for $15 and less. Really? No DC set in years and they can't crack $20? Pretty pathetic IMO...

If fellow collectors would wake up and unify for a set or 2. Things would change....

This is such an interesting topic...seriously, as a sketch card artist, I was fearful of seeing who was to win the award for worst card.
There is alot of great sketch card artists out there...truthfully, some great talent.
When I work on a set for a company, I truly care what fans of the card set shall find within. I take this business extremely seriously. I have found that some of my better known contemporaries do as well.
Lastly, being a card "geek" myself, I do know the joy of finding a real artistic gem in a pack/box.
I do not get paid $1.50 per sketch...but, I do know this, even if I was paid that amount, the time I spent per card would be less, but certainly, not the quality of the work.

Robert
www.aragonartstudio.com
www.RobertAragon.com

I know artist get paid little for pack inserted sketches but I've also seen the return sketches fetch hundreds on ebay. Usually top artists can get top dollars.

quote:

Originally posted by Monstoys:
This is such an interesting topic...seriously, as a sketch card artist, I was fearful of seeing who was to win the award for worst card.

Ummm... no chance it was going to be you, Robert. Your work is beautiful!

Debi,
Thanks for that sweet comment...I think, like most artists, insecurity. But, insecurity can also help ones creative output. So, it's all a blessing. Thanks again, yrs, me aka Rob

My dad and I were talking about sketches today. He is somewhat of an artist. I would think his work could make it for sketch cards, considering some that I've seen. I was thinking it would be so cool to see his work in a set. BTW, he is 89 years old. He still does some art, even after several strokes.