I'm mystified as to why so many people love extended art alters and why so many want to do them. (I'm guessing that's because it's easy.)
They do extended alters because it's easy to do, but they like doing it because it combines artistic creativity with another hobby - that's what I assume.
Anway, interesting thread. I think people like alters because it's a beautiful and unique way to pimp your deck. Showing-off your cards has always been a part of Magic, and this is just another way.
I agree that an altered card's value depends on it's quality. Awful alteration = loss in value, great alteration = gain in value, at least for quite some people.
I can also understand that some people don't like altered cards. It`s a matter of personal taste. Personally, I hate Foils and think it's stupid to spend so much more money on a Magic card with a shiny surface. Also Asian cards, wtf? Not my thing.
Case in point, my Blood Moon (attached), which is incredibly striking. On the other hand, about 90% of all alters I see on eBay have poor edging and really look like someone just drew on them, instead of looking like a real piece of art. The key, IMO, to enjoying altered cards, is to be very picky and make sure you only pick up the top tier cards.
Your alter offends me. You have stripped the original artist of credit due to them by removing their name from their work of art. You have taken someone elses work and added to it but have given zero credit to the person who created the piece. Your addition to the work isn't even original; it is completely based upon the original artists work. I can understand if you took the piece and created something completely different that is potentially based on or inspired by the original work and you so happen to not give credit to the original artist. But when you take their work and simply add a part to it, it is absolutely distasteful to take credit away from them. You literally removed the name of the person responsible for the original work. That is baffling! I can't even begin to comprehend... Just, wow.
Your alter offends me. You have stripped the original artist of credit due to them by removing their name from their work of art. You have taken someone elses work and added to it but have given zero credit to the person who created the piece. Your addition to the work isn't even original; it is completely based upon the original artists work. I can understand if you took the piece and created something completely different that is potentially based on or inspired by the original work and you so happen to not give credit to the original artist. But when you take their work and simply add a part to it, it is absolutely distasteful to take credit away from them. You literally removed the name of the person responsible for the original work. That is baffling! I can't even begin to comprehend... Just, wow.
Full ack...and then people wonder why artists (the real ones) are pissed about "the others".
People using MY stuff at work and replace my name with theirs get stomped. Big time!
Your alter offends me. You have stripped the original artist of credit due to them by removing their name from their work of art. You have taken someone elses work and added to it but have given zero credit to the person who created the piece. Your addition to the work isn't even original; it is completely based upon the original artists work. I can understand if you took the piece and created something completely different that is potentially based on or inspired by the original work and you so happen to not give credit to the original artist. But when you take their work and simply add a part to it, it is absolutely distasteful to take credit away from them. You literally removed the name of the person responsible for the original work. That is baffling! I can't even begin to comprehend... Just, wow.
He bought a card, which then became his property. He decided he wanted art on every part of it, so he had it painted that way. It's his property, he can wipe his arse with it if he wants. If the original artists are that offended, I'm sure they can stop accepting wotc's money.
Because conservative bias is a far, far worse thing. Liberal bias doesn't, statistically speaking, make people stupid. Conservative bias (or at least Fox's version of it) does.
Alters done well are fine, though I would never pay any premium whatsoever for alters. I do know that cards I've sold (like Xiahou Duns) have ended up as alters and they were ugly as sin.
Alters done well are fine, though I would never pay any premium whatsoever for alters. I do know that cards I've sold (like Xiahou Duns) have ended up as alters and they were ugly as sin.
The majority of alters are not done well.
Going to Ebay and see the alters and their prices always makes me laugh
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Signed card collector Current signed cards count (31.12.16):
Diff. signed cards: 16'451 Artist alters: 828 Beta Project: 2574/2853 Grand Total signed cards: 42'091
Then it stops being legal, regardless of what the head judge has to say.
An altered card must have the proper name, mana cost, P/T (if a creature), starting loyalty (if a PW), and must not contain 'game hints' (you cannot draw a picture of Sensei's Divining Top on Counterbalance or Dark Confidant or draw a picture of Iona, Shield of Emeria on Entomb). And then after all these the head judge still has to approve it.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Time to bring back a 5-year old sig banner. DEDICATION!
Full ack...and then people wonder why artists (the real ones) are pissed about "the others".
People using MY stuff at work and replace my name with theirs get stomped. Big time!
I'd give this post more credit if they were an actual artist who's had their card altered.
Personally, I had Mark Tendin sign a bunch of cards I bought online that were alters of his. He stopped, looked at them closely, and we had a 5 minute conversation about how great altered art cards are.
And as a professional painter, I can tell you no professional gets angry "when their name is covered up", when they sell their image to a print company such as wizards, because it's a common occurrence of the trade. I can't tell you how many times my paintings were "re-framed" by someone who commissioned them, and they cut off my flipping signature. Oh well, that's still 2k in my pocket. Feel free to wipe your butt with it. I've altered some of my cards for fun, however they just don't resell for enough to really take seriously. Besides, if I made a magic card art I would be pretty honored if other artists bought my prints, altered them, and resold them. More money in my pocket.
And finally, this thread would have more merits if people paid the exact same amount for foils as they did for non foil magic the gathering cards. Not to mention those textless FNM cards wizards made. Altered art cards are cool, (when painted well. there's a LOT of poorly painted ones online. you have to be careful!), pretty, and buying them supports local artists. Not to mention a good alter DRASTICALLY increases the value of some magic cards. I've personally traded some binder garbage for 1000X it's price due to a really great alteration.
PS: Yeah the entire anime girl thing is kind of stupid, but just take a look at the average magic player...
I'd give this post more credit if they were an actual artist who's had their card altered.
Personally, I had Mark Tendin sign a bunch of cards I bought online that were alters of his. He stopped, looked at them closely, and we had a 5 minute conversation about how great altered art cards are.
Of course some artists won't mind. Others like Ed will go ballistic...
And yet mtgsally has a thread for alters with daily updates and wotc let's you use alters in sanctioned play if the hj is ok with it. Seems like the official response to Mr. Beard from both parties was gfy. If Ed or any other artists wants to tell me what I can and can't do with my cards they are free to buy them for me. I'll take a set of beta duals, please.
Because conservative bias is a far, far worse thing. Liberal bias doesn't, statistically speaking, make people stupid. Conservative bias (or at least Fox's version of it) does.
It depends on the alter and who did the alter. Alters done by the original artist would be worth considerably more while alters done by a different artist would only be worth slightly more. Terrible alters would be considered HP if I even considered them at all.
Would people here consider signed cards as altered?
Edit: Alters done to repair a heavily damaged card (like a Blotus) are fine in my book.
And yet mtgsally has a thread for alters with daily updates and wotc let's you use alters in sanctioned play if the hj is ok with it. Seems like the official response to Mr. Beard from both parties was gfy. If Ed or any other artists wants to tell me what I can and can't do with my cards they are free to buy them for me. I'll take a set of beta duals, please.
I always enjoy having nice conversations on MTGS like these.
You do whatever you think you entitled to. Enjoy!
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Signed card collector Current signed cards count (31.12.16):
Diff. signed cards: 16'451 Artist alters: 828 Beta Project: 2574/2853 Grand Total signed cards: 42'091
I like good alters and hate signed cards. Having a card signed absolutely ruins it for me, I wouldn't trade for it at anywhere near it's full value. How do I know this guy didn't just whip out a sharpie and scribble on it himself? It's like buying signed sports memorabilia, I'm not going to just buy a random autograph from a guy on eBay.
I like good alters and hate signed cards. Having a card signed absolutely ruins it for me, I wouldn't trade for it at anywhere near it's full value. How do I know this guy didn't just whip out a sharpie and scribble on it himself? It's like buying signed sports memorabilia, I'm not going to just buy a random autograph from a guy on eBay.
That's why sending the cards to the artists themselves or standing in line to get them signed personally is the thing to do.
If you're a autograph newbie you shouldn't buy signed cards off Ebay.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Signed card collector Current signed cards count (31.12.16):
Diff. signed cards: 16'451 Artist alters: 828 Beta Project: 2574/2853 Grand Total signed cards: 42'091
From a playing standpoint I don't like alters. Often the ink/paint alters the feel enough I worry about the cards being marked even in sleeves.
If I was more into collecting (I really only collecte dragons and slivers) I might like interesting alters
I feel pretty much the same way as this guy... Ive seen some really well down paintings on cards that extend the art to a full card, and wished my real cards looked that good.
However, the cards (despite being legal in tournaments) could also easily mark a card and thus make a perfectly legal card become illegal. Furthermore, the wearing of the paint over time makes these things pretty much useless over time and literally will ruin the value of the card once it starts to look like crap--- no matter how well it was done to begin with.
However, I could see picking up a copy of a Legend if it was used as my commander in a favorite EDH deck since those are rarely if ever shuffled into my library. And if they are, you could easily proxy one in if the situation required to keep your card looking good.
But other then that... yeah, nice to look at but probably worth much less to me.. but if the markets there, you cant argue with it.
Then it stops being legal, regardless of what the head judge has to say.
An altered card must have the proper name, mana cost, P/T (if a creature), starting loyalty (if a PW), and must not contain 'game hints' (you cannot draw a picture of Sensei's Divining Top on Counterbalance or Dark Confidant or draw a picture of Iona, Shield of Emeria on Entomb). And then after all these the head judge still has to approve it.
Just going to point out the rules don't say that (besides the bit about outside notes). All they say is the card has to be recognizable. The rules never lay out any specifics and are intentionally vague and normally left up to the head judge.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
That's the remarkable thing about life. It's never so bad that it can't get worse
Calvin and Hobbes Cube Tutor
I like altered cards as long as they're well done alters and don't make the card illegal in tournaments. Then again the head judge is the final authority on all altered cards no matter what. Just make sure if you have altered cards tournament wise you have 4 surefire cards that aren't altered/legal no matter what; I wouldn't be comfortable having just 4 altered force of will's and no regular ones because if I couldn't use them in a tournament and I really wanted to play a UGx deck then I would have to borrow the cards.
Overall I'm a fan of altered cards though generally as long as they're well done. Cardkitty is quite good as is Vanwie among others.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Yawgmoth," Freyalise whispered as she set the bomb, "now you will pay for your treachery."
Just going to point out the rules don't say that (besides the bit about outside notes). All they say is the card has to be recognizable. The rules never lay out any specifics and are intentionally vague and normally left up to the head judge.
Even the bit about the drawing top on counterbalance (or Trinket Mage, etc) isn't defined in the rules as outside notes. As always, ask the head judge at whatever event you are at.
The only requirement laid out by Wizards is that the art must be recognizable. Here is a great link if you want to read more about it.
But what about the counterfeit cards? If someone alters a card, then how it is determined that the card is original or not? I am not an experienced player, so please forgive if that question was absurd.
What in gods name is up with this set? Did RnD just sit down and say "lol let's pack as many over-the-top cards as we possibly can into this one because the world ends this year anyway!"
But what about the counterfeit cards? If someone alters a card, then how it is determined that the card is original or not? I am not an experienced player, so please forgive if that question was absurd.
Generally the text boxes must be unaltered for it to remain legal, but it will be a judges decision... Basically, if you run an altered art card youre running a gamble that an opponent wont challenge it and the judge wont rule that either your card is marked (because the paint could make the card a bit thicker, or if the paint gets on the top edge of the card, it could be visually distinguishable when your decks looked at from the top, etc) or because the card cant be distinguished as the original card.
In your example, a counterfeit card would be banned because you cant tell what the original card was. However, Im sure that counterfeit cards have probably been played before at tournaments.... but Id hate to be caught winning a tournament with one in my deck, thats for sure.
I don't think I've ever seen anybody actually play with altered-art cards - to be honest I think the concept of doing so is rather silly. Altered-art cards are pieces of artwork. Do I stomp into the Lourve, grab a Mattise off the wall, plop it down on the floor, turn it sideways and yell "I'M ATTACKING YOU, PICASSO!"? What is the Power/Toughness of a "Woman with a Hat"? What about casting cost? Do I have to go grab "Louxembourg Gardens" off the wall to pay for it? It looks like it would produce G.
Altered art cards are for displaying in your binder, collectors items, pieces of artwork that you commissioned from another artist. They shouldn't even be LEGAL for tournament play, even with all these arbitrary rules you hear about like "you can't cover the text box, casting cost, name of the card, machine-printed birth certificate, proof of ownership or license plate" and so on.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"With Jace's fate finally sealed, all is right in the world of Standard."
Currently playing: WW Phyrexian Suture Soul WW UB UB Control UB
I don't think I've ever seen anybody actually play with altered-art cards - to be honest I think the concept of doing so is rather silly. Altered-art cards are pieces of artwork. Do I stomp into the Lourve, grab a Mattise off the wall, plop it down on the floor, turn it sideways and yell "I'M ATTACKING YOU, PICASSO!"? What is the Power/Toughness of a "Woman with a Hat"? What about casting cost? Do I have to go grab "Louxembourg Gardens" off the wall to pay for it? It looks like it would produce G.
Altered art cards are for displaying in your binder, collectors items, pieces of artwork that you commissioned from another artist. They shouldn't even be LEGAL for tournament play, even with all these arbitrary rules you hear about like "you can't cover the text box, casting cost, name of the card, machine-printed birth certificate, proof of ownership or license plate" and so on.
I don't think any alter artists come close to Matisse or Picasso
I'm all for playing with alters, and I think they are interesting novelties. I can't stand pop culture alters, though - Spiderman doesn't belong in the game, and as amusing as Darth Vader and Luke on 'Force of Will' is conceptually, it falls flat 10 seconds later, no matter how good the art is.
As for not seeing people play with them - go to a legacy SCG Open and you'll find people who do, or meet some new Commander players - many folks have alters in their EDH decks.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
They do extended alters because it's easy to do, but they like doing it because it combines artistic creativity with another hobby - that's what I assume.
Anway, interesting thread. I think people like alters because it's a beautiful and unique way to pimp your deck. Showing-off your cards has always been a part of Magic, and this is just another way.
I agree that an altered card's value depends on it's quality. Awful alteration = loss in value, great alteration = gain in value, at least for quite some people.
I can also understand that some people don't like altered cards. It`s a matter of personal taste. Personally, I hate Foils and think it's stupid to spend so much more money on a Magic card with a shiny surface. Also Asian cards, wtf? Not my thing.
My gallery of altered cards
Your alter offends me. You have stripped the original artist of credit due to them by removing their name from their work of art. You have taken someone elses work and added to it but have given zero credit to the person who created the piece. Your addition to the work isn't even original; it is completely based upon the original artists work. I can understand if you took the piece and created something completely different that is potentially based on or inspired by the original work and you so happen to not give credit to the original artist. But when you take their work and simply add a part to it, it is absolutely distasteful to take credit away from them. You literally removed the name of the person responsible for the original work. That is baffling! I can't even begin to comprehend... Just, wow.
Full ack...and then people wonder why artists (the real ones) are pissed about "the others".
People using MY stuff at work and replace my name with theirs get stomped. Big time!
Current signed cards count (31.12.16):
Artist alters: 828
Beta Project: 2574/2853
Grand Total signed cards: 42'091
All my stuff in a FB group
Me@WOTC
He bought a card, which then became his property. He decided he wanted art on every part of it, so he had it painted that way. It's his property, he can wipe his arse with it if he wants. If the original artists are that offended, I'm sure they can stop accepting wotc's money.
The majority of alters are not done well.
Going to Ebay and see the alters and their prices always makes me laugh
Current signed cards count (31.12.16):
Artist alters: 828
Beta Project: 2574/2853
Grand Total signed cards: 42'091
All my stuff in a FB group
Me@WOTC
Cards also with extended art (where the borders are painted over) looks nice too.
What I would like to see those who alter cards do is also rename the card and flavor text based on what they alter it to.
currently playing:
Standard
UW Control
UWB Control
UB Control
MODERN
BRGJund
X Affinity
UWR Control
LEGACY
Dredge
R Burn
UWx Miracles
EDH
BRW Kaalia
______
Quotes:
My Magic Card nicknames.
Then it stops being legal, regardless of what the head judge has to say.
An altered card must have the proper name, mana cost, P/T (if a creature), starting loyalty (if a PW), and must not contain 'game hints' (you cannot draw a picture of Sensei's Divining Top on Counterbalance or Dark Confidant or draw a picture of Iona, Shield of Emeria on Entomb). And then after all these the head judge still has to approve it.
Time to bring back a 5-year old sig banner. DEDICATION!
Currently Playing:
=Legacy=
RUUG Delver
=Modern=
BRRG LOAM
=EDH=
BGGR Karrthus
RRRX Norin
UUWW Bruna
BBBB Skithiryx
I'd give this post more credit if they were an actual artist who's had their card altered.
Personally, I had Mark Tendin sign a bunch of cards I bought online that were alters of his. He stopped, looked at them closely, and we had a 5 minute conversation about how great altered art cards are.
And as a professional painter, I can tell you no professional gets angry "when their name is covered up", when they sell their image to a print company such as wizards, because it's a common occurrence of the trade. I can't tell you how many times my paintings were "re-framed" by someone who commissioned them, and they cut off my flipping signature. Oh well, that's still 2k in my pocket. Feel free to wipe your butt with it. I've altered some of my cards for fun, however they just don't resell for enough to really take seriously. Besides, if I made a magic card art I would be pretty honored if other artists bought my prints, altered them, and resold them. More money in my pocket.
And finally, this thread would have more merits if people paid the exact same amount for foils as they did for non foil magic the gathering cards. Not to mention those textless FNM cards wizards made. Altered art cards are cool, (when painted well. there's a LOT of poorly painted ones online. you have to be careful!), pretty, and buying them supports local artists. Not to mention a good alter DRASTICALLY increases the value of some magic cards. I've personally traded some binder garbage for 1000X it's price due to a really great alteration.
PS: Yeah the entire anime girl thing is kind of stupid, but just take a look at the average magic player...
The infamous Ed Beard thread...
http://forums.mtgsalvation.com/showthread.php?t=185014
Of course some artists won't mind. Others like Ed will go ballistic...
Current signed cards count (31.12.16):
Artist alters: 828
Beta Project: 2574/2853
Grand Total signed cards: 42'091
All my stuff in a FB group
Me@WOTC
And yet mtgsally has a thread for alters with daily updates and wotc let's you use alters in sanctioned play if the hj is ok with it. Seems like the official response to Mr. Beard from both parties was gfy. If Ed or any other artists wants to tell me what I can and can't do with my cards they are free to buy them for me. I'll take a set of beta duals, please.
Would people here consider signed cards as altered?
Edit: Alters done to repair a heavily damaged card (like a Blotus) are fine in my book.
:EDH:
WR Gisela, Blade of Goldnight (HOLD/100) WR
WB Teysa, Orzhov Scion (HOLD/100) WB
I always enjoy having nice conversations on MTGS like these.
You do whatever you think you entitled to. Enjoy!
Current signed cards count (31.12.16):
Artist alters: 828
Beta Project: 2574/2853
Grand Total signed cards: 42'091
All my stuff in a FB group
Me@WOTC
http://cubetutor.com/viewcube/1959
That's why sending the cards to the artists themselves or standing in line to get them signed personally is the thing to do.
If you're a autograph newbie you shouldn't buy signed cards off Ebay.
Current signed cards count (31.12.16):
Artist alters: 828
Beta Project: 2574/2853
Grand Total signed cards: 42'091
All my stuff in a FB group
Me@WOTC
I feel pretty much the same way as this guy... Ive seen some really well down paintings on cards that extend the art to a full card, and wished my real cards looked that good.
However, the cards (despite being legal in tournaments) could also easily mark a card and thus make a perfectly legal card become illegal. Furthermore, the wearing of the paint over time makes these things pretty much useless over time and literally will ruin the value of the card once it starts to look like crap--- no matter how well it was done to begin with.
However, I could see picking up a copy of a Legend if it was used as my commander in a favorite EDH deck since those are rarely if ever shuffled into my library. And if they are, you could easily proxy one in if the situation required to keep your card looking good.
But other then that... yeah, nice to look at but probably worth much less to me.. but if the markets there, you cant argue with it.
Just going to point out the rules don't say that (besides the bit about outside notes). All they say is the card has to be recognizable. The rules never lay out any specifics and are intentionally vague and normally left up to the head judge.
Calvin and Hobbes
Cube Tutor
The farthest ill go is getting it signed, and thats only if its pete venters or ron spencer lol
Overall I'm a fan of altered cards though generally as long as they're well done. Cardkitty is quite good as is Vanwie among others.
Currently Playing:
Retired
Even the bit about the drawing top on counterbalance (or Trinket Mage, etc) isn't defined in the rules as outside notes. As always, ask the head judge at whatever event you are at.
The only requirement laid out by Wizards is that the art must be recognizable. Here is a great link if you want to read more about it.
Colt 45. Works every time...
Generally the text boxes must be unaltered for it to remain legal, but it will be a judges decision... Basically, if you run an altered art card youre running a gamble that an opponent wont challenge it and the judge wont rule that either your card is marked (because the paint could make the card a bit thicker, or if the paint gets on the top edge of the card, it could be visually distinguishable when your decks looked at from the top, etc) or because the card cant be distinguished as the original card.
In your example, a counterfeit card would be banned because you cant tell what the original card was. However, Im sure that counterfeit cards have probably been played before at tournaments.... but Id hate to be caught winning a tournament with one in my deck, thats for sure.
I don't think I've ever seen anybody actually play with altered-art cards - to be honest I think the concept of doing so is rather silly. Altered-art cards are pieces of artwork. Do I stomp into the Lourve, grab a Mattise off the wall, plop it down on the floor, turn it sideways and yell "I'M ATTACKING YOU, PICASSO!"? What is the Power/Toughness of a "Woman with a Hat"? What about casting cost? Do I have to go grab "Louxembourg Gardens" off the wall to pay for it? It looks like it would produce G.
Altered art cards are for displaying in your binder, collectors items, pieces of artwork that you commissioned from another artist. They shouldn't even be LEGAL for tournament play, even with all these arbitrary rules you hear about like "you can't cover the text box, casting cost, name of the card, machine-printed birth certificate, proof of ownership or license plate" and so on.
Currently playing:
WW Phyrexian Suture Soul WW
UB UB Control UB
I don't think any alter artists come close to Matisse or Picasso
I'm all for playing with alters, and I think they are interesting novelties. I can't stand pop culture alters, though - Spiderman doesn't belong in the game, and as amusing as Darth Vader and Luke on 'Force of Will' is conceptually, it falls flat 10 seconds later, no matter how good the art is.
As for not seeing people play with them - go to a legacy SCG Open and you'll find people who do, or meet some new Commander players - many folks have alters in their EDH decks.