I have very few card collections given my limited resources and space, but I did decide some time ago to begin collecting on-card Royals autographs. It’s been a blast so far trying to track these things down and this is the latest addition to my collection. To view the cards currently in the collection, take a look at the Gallery or the other posts in this series. I’m working on getting a legit want list together on my trade page but, in the meantime, if you have any on-card Royals autos that it looks like I don’t have, don’t hesitate to drop me a line!
Hey, remember National Chicle?
Didn’t think so.
Here’s a refresher, for those who missed it the first time around:
Yeah, so basically we were underwhelmed. Most other people were too I think. Why can’t ever all-painted set be Masterpieces? At any rate, they put these Artist’s Proof cards in there. They had the artist sign a #/10 copy of the base card. They’re what they call “incremental” hits, which means they don’t count toward your guaranteed however-many autos. But still, there’s that moment where you pull one from a pack when you think it might be an auto of your guy or a big star (like the Molitor we pulled) and then the disappointment when you realize it’s just the artist.
No knock on the artists (or, at least, not oe of the artists, including this one pictured here). It’s a hard job they do and many of them do it well. But there’s not much collectability in them. I picked this up for under $10 and probably overpaid, but I wanted to take the opportunity to pose the question of artists’ signatures on cards of players. Why do I not care about this auto? If it was a #/10 photo print or even a lithograph, we would expect it to be signed by the artist and not the subject. But cards are different in some way. I’m trying to define how they’re different- maybe you guys can help by leaving a comment with your opinion!
For now, this Greinke/Higgins is in my collection. It probably won’t survive the next culling, but I thought I’d show him off here since he’s in the playoffs and everything. Have at, collectors!
I like Chicle. It matches the art of the period it comes from pretty well. That said, I would love a set like Masterpieces. Gypsy Queen was pretty close.
As for the autographs, I think when we think of baseball cards, it matters who the player is. So any autographs on the card should be of the player. It’s conditioning, I think. Plus, most of these artists do great work, but they’re not exactly famous. If you go to a comic/sci-fi convention with artists selling prints, they’ll usually sell you a signed print for around $10. Why? Because they aren’t famous enough to be able to command $50 or more. I have a few signed prints and books from comic artists, and even with the most prestigious certification and guarantees available, I doubt I’d get my $10 back, because the artists themselves just aren’t important. Now, if Dick Perez was a part of the set, I bet his signed cards would go for a hefty sum.
The Real Person!
Author Andy acts as a real person and passed all tests against spambots. Anti-Spam by CleanTalk.
I think I would’ve preferred Chicle if they had been consistent with the artwork. Instead, having a bunch of different artists made it just seem like a mess. And I agree on the artist autos. It’s barely even a Greinke card, much less a Greinke auto. However, I will gladly pay you $10 for a signed copy of Preacher or Transmetropolitan!
The different artwork can pose a bit of a problem. Maybe they should have split each artist/style into different subsets. It would have helped explain it. Although, I wouldn’t mind a set compiling work from several different artists with different styles, but it would have to be marketed as such. In fact, that’s a great idea. I can’t wait! When is it being released?!
I still see it as a Greinke card, though it’s certainly not a Greinke auto. What gets me are those scout autographs from Bowman. Just because a guy signed Frank Thomas doesn’t mean I want his signature. Those cards drive me nuts in eBay searches.