Two things about the checklist.

Ben Whislaw can not be autograph A284 as listed. That number belongs to Daniela Bianchi in Bond Archive 2016. He could be A294, as I still have that number as being opened.

The other thing is that I don't see the Connery cut signature card mentioned on the checklist or on the buy page right now. It was never on the first product page as far as I saw. So is it coming out or not?

quote:

Originally posted by Raven:
Two things about the checklist.

Ben Whislaw can not be autograph A284 as listed. That number belongs to Daniela Bianchi in Bond Archive 2016. He could be A294, as I still have that number as being opened.

The other thing is that I don't see the Connery cut signature card mentioned on the checklist or on the buy page right now. It was never on the first product page as far as I saw. So is it coming out or not?

Its on the buy page,click on more when looking at buying a case and it states about 18 cases gets the cut yada yada yada

24 Expansion cards at (1:box) is crazy, bye bye Bond cards.

quote:

Originally posted by 007bondcards:
Its on the buy page,click on more when looking at buying a case and it states about 18 cases gets the cut yada yada yada

Thanks, I found it the first time, but couldn't for the life of me remember how I got there.

You would think that as release date approaches RA would have done a bit more to advertise this cut. I know that they probably made very few and they will all go to the mega buyers/dealers, but it is kind of a big deal. Just for the sake of publicity, wouldn't it be smart to make its existence known on more than a link within a link?

quote:

Originally posted by Raven:
...Just for the sake of publicity, wouldn't it be smart to make its existence known on more than a link within a link?

The card is an Archive Box exclusive, so only large dealers/distributors can get it, and they are probably well aware of it through their own ordering processes. Whether you regard it as 'part of the set' seems like a similar situation as exclusive 'dealer promos'.

quote:

Originally posted by WOMBLE:

quote:

Originally posted by Raven:
...Just for the sake of publicity, wouldn't it be smart to make its existence known on more than a link within a link?

The card is an Archive Box exclusive, so only large dealers/distributors can get it, and they are probably well aware of it through their own ordering processes. Whether you regard it as 'part of the set' seems like a similar situation as exclusive 'dealer promos'.

No, its not part of the set. I have no doubt that whatever handful of Connery cuts may have been produced are already spoken for because, unlike some other lackluster dealer promos, it is a big deal to have his autograph on a licensed Bond card, even when it's created in this fashion.

Just because 99% of Bond card collectors won't be able to the Connery cut to their collections does not change that fact that card is very much a part of this set. What other set does it belong to?

As usual there are some cards I am very much looking forward to trying to get, but overall nothing is jumping out at me (except for Dench and Lee). Connery is this set's show-stopper but if it's so unobtainable, it's almost a moot point.

- I'll be very happy to finish the base sets for each of Brosnan's films.
- Definitely want the AVTAK throwback set but am surprised at how few cards for each throwback set this time.
- Not that fussed about the revamped relics/costumes these days (and where are the costumes from SPECTRE?)
- Still don't like the mirror cards and not fussed on the metal posters due to them being repeated imagery.
- I have always really enjoyed the expansion card concept but due to culling my collection I will only be going after the 6 Bond Girls Are Forever and Villains cards. Disappointed to still not be getting the expansions for Skyfall & SPECTRE for the 40th Anniversary set.

The auto list has a very heavy focus on repeats, but hey, at least there are lots of good names. Probably being too harsh. We've got 6 cards from half the people to have played James Bond, the new Q, 2 Moneypenny's. Huge names in Judi Dench, Christopher Lee, Halle Berry, Bianchi and Seydoux. Plenty of other decent vintage names above the bit-parters as well, Richard Kiel being a nice card to see 3 years after he passed.

Only 6 definite wants for me: Judi Dench (a new full-bleed at last!), Christopher Lee (price permitting), Caroline Bliss, Lawrence Makoare (at last!), Claude-Oliver Rudolph, and very happy to have even just one more WOB card (and a very good one) from Naomie Harris.

Interested in a few others that I missed in previous releases, but depends on the pictures used: Dave Bautista, Lea Seydoux, Jane Seymour, Berenice Marlohe, Rory Kinnear, Britt Ekland, Rachel Grant, Mathieu Alamric, Alessandro Cremona.

quote:

Originally posted by X:
- I have always really enjoyed the expansion card concept but due to culling my collection I will only be going after the 6 Bond Girls Are Forever and Villains cards.

I doubt a card dealer would want to split a complete set of 24 expansion cards up, but it is inevitable singles will turn up for auction, so good luck with that.

quote:

Originally posted by WOMBLE:

quote:

Originally posted by X:
- I have always really enjoyed the expansion card concept but due to culling my collection I will only be going after the 6 Bond Girls Are Forever and Villains cards.

I doubt a card dealer would want to split a complete set of 24 expansion cards up, but it is inevitable singles will turn up for auction, so good luck with that.

Bad collation can have it's uses!

quote:

Originally posted by X:

quote:

Originally posted by WOMBLE:

quote:

Originally posted by X:
- I have always really enjoyed the expansion card concept but due to culling my collection I will only be going after the 6 Bond Girls Are Forever and Villains cards.

I doubt a card dealer would want to split a complete set of 24 expansion cards up, but it is inevitable singles will turn up for auction, so good luck with that.

Bad collation can have it's uses!

This does look like a all in project, the expansions are 24 to collect and one in twenty four packs, that's only half of them in a case, and with 53 autos, 3 costume autos, 24 expansion, 15 relic,20 metal, plus throwbacks 1 in 9 it would have been better going for an archive box rather than a case, a case isn't going to come no where near.

It was listed elsewhere that these were the autos missing from prior sets :

A155, A223, 224, 225, 267, 283, 291, 294, 297, WA48, WA54, WA56


So it looks like we're getting here A155, A223 to A225, A267 and WA54.

Where are the others ?

quote:

Originally posted by X:
Just because 99% of Bond card collectors won't be able to the Connery cut to their collections does not change that fact that card is very much a part of this set. What other set does it belong to?

As usual there are some cards I am very much looking forward to trying to get, but overall nothing is jumping out at me (except for Dench and Lee). Connery is this set's show-stopper but if it's so unobtainable, it's almost a moot point.

It is a moot point, so why conclude that the set is incomplete without that card, when in the next breathe its acknowledged that next to no one will have it? Why not just say that the cut exists on its own?

All modern trading cards are being made with artificial collectability built in. Rarity is created by the card manufacturers, that is a given, but some premium hits are more created than others.

Stickers autographs for instance result in cards that are more created than their on-card autograph counterparts. I say that because stickers can be used in any product, at any time, in any single or multiple combination. The on-card autograph at least has to be held as a card until it is released in something. There is more of a connection to the signer, who at the very least had to touch the card at some point.

Now with the cut signature, there really is zero connection with the signer. Indeed the best use of cut signatures is probably to acquire verifiable autographs of deceased persons. The signers, living or dead, never touch the card or any sticker for the card. They signed something totally different, who knows when, that requires some third-party authentication before it can be turned into a card that might just as well be released on its own worth.

Isn't that what Razor did with cuts a few years ago? Just make a product that had cut signature cards of people with no relationship to each other? Certainly no one talks of completing something like that.

I'm not against cut signature cards as an idea, especially for deceased parties. I believe they have there place when used properly and its fun to have something unique in your collection. However my own opinion is that they are not part of any set. They may be released in association with a particular set, but unless they are produced in sufficient numbers and distributed in such a way that more than 1%ers can get their hands on them, why call them necessary cards for master sets?

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

quote:

Originally posted by David R:
It was listed elsewhere that these were the autos missing from prior sets :

A155, A223, 224, 225, 267, 283, 291, 294, 297, WA48, WA54, WA56


So it looks like we're getting here A155, A223 to A225, A267 and WA54.

Where are the others ?

Funny you should ask, as I just finished trying to update my listing.

To the best of my knowledge only 4 sequence numbered cards are still missing.

For the 40th set, A291 and A294 are opened. The numbering currently ends at A298, but there is a problem with card #284.

RA has checklisted Daniela Bianchi as A283 in last year's Archive and records Ben Whislaw as A284 in the 2017 Archive. I have the Bianchi and it is printed as card A284. So it looks like they are not correcting it and that perhaps another card has a duplicate number.

For Woman of Bond, the numbering currently ends at WA58. The unassigned numbers are WA48 and WA56.

The other two you listed as missing will be in this coming set as well. WA48 is Naomi Harris and A297 is a repeat George Roubkek as a different role, Gemini Astronaut.

So that should be it, missing A291, A294, WA48 and WA56, unless somebody has anything different on their list.

Cards A283 and A284 remain confused, but Bianchi is definitely made as A284, I have it. So if Whishaw is also made as A284, there may not actually have been an A283 made. I guess we won't know until other people start seeing and reporting the numbers for both cards.

What did you meany by "another card has a duplicate number"

Do you mean something other than the 283/284 confusion, or are there other Bond autos by RA in which 2 have the same number ?

No, I did not mean there are any other duplicate numbers at all. I meant that there are still 2 other unassigned A# cards. This is the situation and I don't know the right answer until the Whishaw comes out.

RA has Bianchi listed as A283. This is incorrect because I got the card last year and my card is A284. However RA never changed its checklist number, so A283 is still carrying her name.

Now RA is listing this new Whishaw as A284, which I know for a fact is the number on her actual card.

So you can imagine only a couple of possibilities. Either they have mistakenly printed 2 cards with the same number, or the new Whishaw is really not A284, but one of the other open numbers, or that there are variants of the Bianchi cards that carry both A283 and A284.

I consider the variants idea to be very unlikely. So it might just be that A283 was supposed to be Bianchi and the card was not printed right. However RA should adjust the checklist to show a A284a and a A284b, if that is the case, and A283 will just remain open forever.

We aren't really going to know for certain what number Whishaw has until the card shows up. The Bianchi is already out, so other collectors can confirm its numbering, besides me. That would resolve the idea of any variant, which I seriously doubt would be the case, but it would be good to know for sure.

I was discussing with a dealer today how much the Connery auto might go for. Considering that on the 2016 Star Trek set, the cut Pike and Oliver autos (limited to 12-13) went for $ 5,000 to 7,500, and if the Connery auto is limited to 20 or less, can we expect to see Star Trek like prices ?

This set will be very easy for me since I am not doing it. I've had enough already.

quote:

Originally posted by David R:
I was discussing with a dealer today how much the Connery auto might go for. Considering that on the 2016 Star Trek set, the cut Pike and Oliver autos (limited to 12-13) went for $ 5,000 to 7,500, and if the Connery auto is limited to 20 or less, can we expect to see Star Trek like prices ?

I thought the 3 Star Trek cuts, Jill Ireland was the 3rd one, sold for insane prices, but they were not all in that over $5000 range. The #1 cards went big and the early ones. I can't try to explain it except that some Star Trek card collectors have money to burn.

Assuming the Connery cuts are numbered, #1 and #7 will go huge. The rest depends on how many are made, but I really think that dealers who are buying enough for the archive box know who this card is going to sell to already. In terms of importance, Connery is much more iconic to Bond than Hunter was to Star Trek. Any big time Bond collector is going to want it.

If they are as committed as Star Trek remains to be seen, but I think so.

Also, BIG DIFFERENCE, those Trek cuts could be pulled. You could make a killing if you found one. Nobody is finding the Connery cut, you need the cost of 18 cases to get that archive box and the cut. By that standard alone, the asking price should be much higher.

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

I think someone did the math on the boxes and cases, and said that they thought that meant if an Archive Box was 1 per 18 cases, then maybe there would be 18-19 Connery cards ?

I could be wrong on that

Dave, a dealer told me that he intended to charge approximately $ 4,000 for the Archive Box