Paint also changes the weight / thickness of cards so if they don't alter it anymore than normal paint I gotta say they probly have a pretty cool gimmick going.
Its my understanding that the foil is opaque so they have no need to erase any portion of the original card, just to cut out the foil sticker with an exacto and apply it to the card face. If I remember right the foil paper is already a sticker which makes the process pretty easy and can work with almost any inkjet printer.
Paint also changes the weight / thickness of cards so if they don't alter it anymore than normal paint I gotta say they probly have a pretty cool gimmick going.
But if you read through this thread, it changes the thickness and stiffness of the card quite a lot.
Paint also changes the weight / thickness of cards so if they don't alter it anymore than normal paint I gotta say they probly have a pretty cool gimmick going.
It does alter the card more than regular acrylic paint does. A lot more. Unless it's a really terrible painted card.
prolly depends on the type of foil film they are using, i have seen some extremely thin types of this foil which would add far less thickness to the card than acrylics. i would have to see one in person i guess.
Its my understanding that the foil is opaque so they have no need to erase any portion of the original card, just to cut out the foil sticker with an exacto and apply it to the card face. If I remember right the foil paper is already a sticker which makes the process pretty easy and can work with almost any inkjet printer, which is the reason he is using a sealant as any water would ruin the alter otherwise.
They still turn out looking pretty neat looking, but theres no way card like that vess should be going for that high when the cutting job is so incredibly poor.
Are you familiar with the process? I've been playing around with different materials and methods, trying to figure out exactly how these are made, but I haven't succeed yet. I would love to have someone post some sort of walkthrough, because I can't find it anywhere else. All I'm talking about is what kind of products to purchase (What brand is this foil paper and where do you get it?) and a quick explanation. It also looks like Bristol knows how to do this as well. Thank you!!
Oops - forgot I had already replied to this thread (sorry mods).
I actually purchased 2 of these just to see what they are like. The single sided one is very similar to a foil in terms of the slight change in stiffness and thickness of the card. I can't imagine that, even with practice, I could tell the difference between a normal card, foil, acrylic alter, or one of these.
That said, you can probably tell the difference if you practiced by touching the face of the card. That's because there are lower and higher portions where the foil layer was cut.
The double sided card is too different in weight and feel.
All of that being said I've changed my mind on the alters overall. I can see why people would not want them being used in a tournament. However, I think that foils and acrylics could cause 80% as much opportunity for foul play. If you're going to ban these alters you might as well ban acrylic alters and foils.
Just a side thing - I've noticed while shuffling that having a single or a few white bordered cards mixed in with black bordered is extremely noticeable if you were to glance into the shuffle even for a split second. I'm not good enough (or care enough honestly) to try to cheat in this way but in a high stakes situation I could see that being important as well.
How come nobody has taken this guy down yet? I recognise at least 3/4 of the artwork used as shamelessly ripped off deviantart.
So he just prints other people's artwork on shiny foilstickers and sells it on ebay and nobody seems to care?
He must be stopped!
He has permission to use any of the art he's using. I believe he's paying royalties to the original artists.
I'm going to make an (apparently) unpopular comment here.
As a judge, I have, and will continue to, allowed these in tournaments.
I have tried to find the card in a deck; I cannot.
I have looked for a difference in a sleeve to a normal card; I see none.
Sure, there's a minute weight difference. But if someone is trying to gauge the weight of the top card of his library, there's obviously something wrong. That would be about the equivalent of just peeking at the corner of it.
The ONLY time I have been able to ascertain the location of the card is when it's on the bottom of the library, and only by picking the library up and feeling the bottom card, also extraordinarily suspicious in itself.
I would recommend double-sleeving to use the card. But I would, in almost all cases, allow it in my tournaments, as long as the art was similar or recognizable (such as in the case of a Liliana).
EDIT: Someone mentioned that white-bordered cards are just as easy to cheat with, and he's absolutely right. I play with white-bordered lands in my all-foil Legacy deck, partly to annoy elitists who complain I have $0.01 lands in my $1600 deck, and partly because it makes searching for Fetchlands REALLY easy. If I wanted to cheat (which I obviously wouldn't), it would be far easier to do with white-bordered cards than these.
Also, the Graveborn foils are actually *thicker* than these. I've checked. And those are tournament legal, so...
In GP Indiapolis, legacy, Steve Argyle was in attendance selling the Liliana of the Veiled Altered Prints he commissioned. The head judge at the event approved them for play. Read into that however you wish.
BTW, sadly, I bumped into my MtG fan art that is attached "digital altered" foil card on Tumblr. This art stolen from deviantART or Pixiv, I assumed.
I was upset very much because the owner got this "altered card" by trade.
Then, I found many "Altered Print" cards on ebay, some attached my friends' MTG fanart without permission.
Honesty, I was disappointed at people's worse side in fandom for a while...even I would like to see ppl's good side.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Sorry for my poor English.
From Japan with love \('-'*)
No, that's a different dude. This guy takes the art at photoshops it and makes it slightly different. Different person, different eBay seller. He took argyles alter and sexed it up.
In terms of cards taken, I find it hard to believe he stole his art considering that each artist is printed on the card. They get commissions. You guys are saying xx stole x, how about you link to said deviantart? The card?
Because it seems like people feel the need to go on a crusade after someone says "a witch!!"
I am highly suspicious towards these alters. Who can tell me that it really is the card they tell me it is? Nobody. They could just erase a foil Island and print a Jace2 on it with alternate art. What's stopping them?
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
The alters you see online are made without their permission and violate theirs and wizards copyrights."
Act first, ask later?
You're looking for what you want to believe. All they're saying is that the other folks selling these that are using alt art, do not have permission to do so. They never once mention that the alters they sell are violating copyrights.
I am highly suspicious towards these alters. Who can tell me that it really is the card they tell me it is? Nobody. They could just erase a foil Island and print a Jace2 on it with alternate art. What's stopping them?
That's illegal. FWIW, a foil alter* is no different in WOTC's eyes than a painted alter. If anything but this were true, you wouldn't see them continuing to be sold.
*Using the original card art or altered original card art, using the original card, and being able to prove it.
That's illegal. FWIW, a foil alter* is no different in WOTC's eyes than a painted alter. If anything but this were true, you wouldn't see them continuing to be sold.
*Using the original card art or altered original card art, using the original card, and being able to prove it.
So, what you're saying is that we take their word for it. Of course it's illegal. That's exactly my point. We cannot check that they produce altered Jace2 / Tarmogoyfs / Moats / Abysses or P9 based on Islands or foil Islands...
This whole process smells fishy and I cannot be 100% sure that I was ripped off when I buy a card...That's why I would never buy something like this.
So, I got one of these "altered print" cards before the guy started selling them for crazy money, back when he first started selling these cards. It was a Counterspell.
This card was not foil, but from what I can tell, this card looks like it got a dose of acetate (smells like it, too), leaving the card name, casting cost, and text box. The art was then inserted over the blank area. It could be a proxy/fake, but this card at least looks legit. Still, I would not use it outside of casual play.
I was not horribly impressed. It's okay, and I got it for cheap (thankfully). Because of the acetate wash, the card smells heavily like wood varnish. And for what it's worth, I'm fairly sure the art was lifted off of Deviant Art.
The foil cards, though, look very... suspicious. My advice is buyer beware.
So, what you're saying is that we take their word for it. Of course it's illegal. That's exactly my point. We cannot check that they produce altered Jace2 / Tarmogoyfs / Moats / Abysses or P9 based on Islands or foil Islands...
This whole process smells fishy and I cannot be 100% sure that I was ripped off when I buy a card...That's why I would never buy something like this.
I can tell the difference immediately between a home print and a WOTC print.
To your point, if any of those cards listed are listed for a fraction of the original cost, walk away.
Look for the hybrid cards. Foil over a non-foil card.
I have a friend who has four Mana Leak from this guy.
Look really cool and just picking them up I don't think you could feel the difference.
Judge has allowed him to use them at LGS tournaments, but that is obviously a judge-by-judge basis I would think.
It's okay. You will never persuade me. I also dislike 'real' alters done by anyone but the original artist (or Richard Garfield). Giving money to people that paint over the border of a Magic card and sign the card as if they did one hell of a job is crazy im IMHO.
While I see that there some VERY talented people out there that do alters (Poxy or Sandreline come to mind) I find it wrong to deface the original art. If those guys did work for WOTC I'd be their first customer to order a shipload of alters and sigs from them...
If an original artist sold self made (!!!) alters of his/her cards I might be tempted to buy some cards of theirs. But until then I stick to the real alters and be happy with them.
And if I ever encounter anybody playing something that looks like a digital alter I'd ALWAYS get the judge...
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
Markers-- You seem to lack well...anything approaching rationality. For starters fake cards are so easy to spot that its not even funny, Wizards uses special equipment to make their cards, and making something that "looks real" is incredibly difficult to do, even for people with absolutely no experience identifying a fake card made by someone with normal at home equipment is incredibly easy. Its not a matter of how you can tell the difference, its a matter of how could you possibly not be able to tell.
As for the "only the original artist with his art on printed on the card should be allowed to do alters thing" That is just flat out Text Removed. Do you also think that reprints should never get new art by a different artist? This is seriously such asinine crap that it baffles me a rational human being could ever think up such thing.
As for digital alters vs hand painted ones, the legality of the card is not based upon the medium used to alter it, calling a judge because you don't like a particular artists medium and method, and for no other legitimate reason, just shows you to be acting in an unsportsman like manner, and would get you immediately DQ'd from any event I was judging.
As per forum rules please avoid using Inappropriate language. Word removed. Warning issued.
-Mobo
Markers-- You seem to lack well...anything approaching rationality. For starters fake cards are so easy to spot that its not even funny, Wizards uses special equipment to make their cards, and making something that "looks real" is incredibly difficult to do, even for people with absolutely no experience identifying a fake card made by someone with normal at home equipment is incredibly easy. Its not a matter of how you can tell the difference, its a matter of how could you possibly not be able to tell.
As for the "only the original artist with his art on printed on the card should be allowed to do alters thing" That is just flat out Text Removed. Do you also think that reprints should never get new art by a different artist? This is seriously such asinine crap that it baffles me a rational human being could ever think up such thing.
Why is it Text Removed? In my opinion the original artist was contracted to illustrate a game card. And in my opinion he/she should be the only one that alters the picture. What's the connection between the no-name-alterers who defce cards by the truckload with the game? Nothing...I say it again: If they're talented they should get contracts from WOTC and get some real Magic cards done...
As for digital alters vs hand painted ones, the legality of the card is not based upon the medium used to alter it, calling a judge because you don't like a particular artists medium and method, and for no other legitimate reason, just shows you to be acting in an unsportsman like manner, and would get you immediately DQ'd from any event I was judging.
I doubt you could dq someone from calling the judge when digital alters are played but if you think you can that's fine for me as well....
Fishing for game wins via bad judge calls falls under the category of unsportsman like conduct, and is grounds for a DQ. Its no different then calling a judge for any other completely unjustified reason in an attempt to manipulate for a game win.
He may have been contracted to do so, but that doesn't change the fact that anyone else should be able to do whatever they want to the cards they bought. Saying that only the original artists is allowed to draw wolverine on a force of will so outside the realm of reasonable thought that it is difficult to construe an individual who would consider such a thing to be valid. Sure alterations made by the original artist might have a little bit of extra neat factor, but that doesn't change the fact that many people are able to make cards that are far better looking then what the original confines of the printed cards, or the original artist themselves, could ever hope to accomplish. How or by who a final product is made DOES NOT MATTER, all that matters is the final product of the work, if it looks awesome and people like it, and are willing to spend money for it, who are you to say they shouldn't be able to, because you prefer things a little different?
Fishing for game wins via bad judge calls falls under the category of unsportsman like conduct, and is grounds for a DQ. Its no different then calling a judge for any other completely unjustified reason in an attempt to manipulate for a game win.
How is suspecting that the opponent is playing with fake Magic cards unsportman like conduct? Get real..
He may have been contracted to do so, but that doesn't change the fact that anyone else should be able to do whatever they want to the cards they bought. Saying that only the original artists is allowed to draw wolverine on a force of will so outside the realm of reasonable thought that it is difficult to construe an individual who would consider such a thing to be valid. Sure alterations made by the original artist might have a little bit of extra neat factor, but that doesn't change the fact that many people are able to make cards that are far better looking then what the original confines of the printed cards, or the original artist themselves, could ever hope to accomplish. How or by who a final product is made DOES NOT MATTER, all that matters is the final product of the work, if it looks awesome and people like it, and are willing to spend money for it, who are you to say they shouldn't be able to, because you prefer things a little different?
Sure, people owning Magic cards can do whatever they want. They can burn their cards, play with them or do whatever they want.
But changing the card and then selling it for profit is just wrong. It might not be wrong legally (though I am not quite sure) but I find it wrong on moral level. And I won't support something like that.
For me it's about the same as if someone who owns a piece of art gets some no name to "improve" the picture...The result is the same....
This is all true.
But if you read through this thread, it changes the thickness and stiffness of the card quite a lot.
RRR Buy some of my art! Prints! RRR
It does alter the card more than regular acrylic paint does. A lot more. Unless it's a really terrible painted card.
My 630 Card Powered Cube
My Article - "Cube Design Philosophy"
My Article - "Mana Short: A study in limited resource management."
My 49th Set (P)review - Discusses my top 20 Cube cards from MKM!
Are you familiar with the process? I've been playing around with different materials and methods, trying to figure out exactly how these are made, but I haven't succeed yet. I would love to have someone post some sort of walkthrough, because I can't find it anywhere else. All I'm talking about is what kind of products to purchase (What brand is this foil paper and where do you get it?) and a quick explanation. It also looks like Bristol knows how to do this as well. Thank you!!
I actually purchased 2 of these just to see what they are like. The single sided one is very similar to a foil in terms of the slight change in stiffness and thickness of the card. I can't imagine that, even with practice, I could tell the difference between a normal card, foil, acrylic alter, or one of these.
That said, you can probably tell the difference if you practiced by touching the face of the card. That's because there are lower and higher portions where the foil layer was cut.
The double sided card is too different in weight and feel.
All of that being said I've changed my mind on the alters overall. I can see why people would not want them being used in a tournament. However, I think that foils and acrylics could cause 80% as much opportunity for foul play. If you're going to ban these alters you might as well ban acrylic alters and foils.
Just a side thing - I've noticed while shuffling that having a single or a few white bordered cards mixed in with black bordered is extremely noticeable if you were to glance into the shuffle even for a split second. I'm not good enough (or care enough honestly) to try to cheat in this way but in a high stakes situation I could see that being important as well.
He has permission to use any of the art he's using. I believe he's paying royalties to the original artists.
My art blog
Claims:
The kicker variant in WWK will be "Kicker without a kicked effect." - proven wrong Jan 2010 : 2 wrongs
Decks:
:symu::symb: Bloodchief Ascension - Modern
:symb::symr: Rakdos, the Defiler - EDH
:symu::symb::symw: Sharuum the Hegemon - EDH
:symw::symu::symb: Zur the Enchanter - EDH
As a judge, I have, and will continue to, allowed these in tournaments.
I have tried to find the card in a deck; I cannot.
I have looked for a difference in a sleeve to a normal card; I see none.
Sure, there's a minute weight difference. But if someone is trying to gauge the weight of the top card of his library, there's obviously something wrong. That would be about the equivalent of just peeking at the corner of it.
The ONLY time I have been able to ascertain the location of the card is when it's on the bottom of the library, and only by picking the library up and feeling the bottom card, also extraordinarily suspicious in itself.
I would recommend double-sleeving to use the card. But I would, in almost all cases, allow it in my tournaments, as long as the art was similar or recognizable (such as in the case of a Liliana).
EDIT: Someone mentioned that white-bordered cards are just as easy to cheat with, and he's absolutely right. I play with white-bordered lands in my all-foil Legacy deck, partly to annoy elitists who complain I have $0.01 lands in my $1600 deck, and partly because it makes searching for Fetchlands REALLY easy. If I wanted to cheat (which I obviously wouldn't), it would be far easier to do with white-bordered cards than these.
Also, the Graveborn foils are actually *thicker* than these. I've checked. And those are tournament legal, so...
My art blog
Claims:
The kicker variant in WWK will be "Kicker without a kicked effect." - proven wrong Jan 2010 : 2 wrongs
Decks:
:symu::symb: Bloodchief Ascension - Modern
:symb::symr: Rakdos, the Defiler - EDH
:symu::symb::symw: Sharuum the Hegemon - EDH
:symw::symu::symb: Zur the Enchanter - EDH
Check out my sales
My Trading Thread
I was upset very much because the owner got this "altered card" by trade.
Then, I found many "Altered Print" cards on ebay, some attached my friends' MTG fanart without permission.
Honesty, I was disappointed at people's worse side in fandom for a while...even I would like to see ppl's good side.
From Japan with love \('-'*)
In terms of cards taken, I find it hard to believe he stole his art considering that each artist is printed on the card. They get commissions. You guys are saying xx stole x, how about you link to said deviantart? The card?
Because it seems like people feel the need to go on a crusade after someone says "a witch!!"
I really want Ajani Vengeant sleeves. And foil planeswalkers. Check my trade thread!
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
You're looking for what you want to believe. All they're saying is that the other folks selling these that are using alt art, do not have permission to do so. They never once mention that the alters they sell are violating copyrights.
That's illegal. FWIW, a foil alter* is no different in WOTC's eyes than a painted alter. If anything but this were true, you wouldn't see them continuing to be sold.
*Using the original card art or altered original card art, using the original card, and being able to prove it.
So, what you're saying is that we take their word for it. Of course it's illegal. That's exactly my point. We cannot check that they produce altered Jace2 / Tarmogoyfs / Moats / Abysses or P9 based on Islands or foil Islands...
This whole process smells fishy and I cannot be 100% sure that I was ripped off when I buy a card...That's why I would never buy something like this.
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
This card was not foil, but from what I can tell, this card looks like it got a dose of acetate (smells like it, too), leaving the card name, casting cost, and text box. The art was then inserted over the blank area. It could be a proxy/fake, but this card at least looks legit. Still, I would not use it outside of casual play.
I was not horribly impressed. It's okay, and I got it for cheap (thankfully). Because of the acetate wash, the card smells heavily like wood varnish. And for what it's worth, I'm fairly sure the art was lifted off of Deviant Art.
The foil cards, though, look very... suspicious. My advice is buyer beware.
I can tell the difference immediately between a home print and a WOTC print.
To your point, if any of those cards listed are listed for a fraction of the original cost, walk away.
Look for the hybrid cards. Foil over a non-foil card.
Look really cool and just picking them up I don't think you could feel the difference.
Judge has allowed him to use them at LGS tournaments, but that is obviously a judge-by-judge basis I would think.
That's super for you. I can't and I am certain 99% of the potential buyers are on the same page as me.
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
What would you like to know so you can spot them?
It's okay. You will never persuade me. I also dislike 'real' alters done by anyone but the original artist (or Richard Garfield). Giving money to people that paint over the border of a Magic card and sign the card as if they did one hell of a job is crazy im IMHO.
While I see that there some VERY talented people out there that do alters (Poxy or Sandreline come to mind) I find it wrong to deface the original art. If those guys did work for WOTC I'd be their first customer to order a shipload of alters and sigs from them...
If an original artist sold self made (!!!) alters of his/her cards I might be tempted to buy some cards of theirs. But until then I stick to the real alters and be happy with them.
And if I ever encounter anybody playing something that looks like a digital alter I'd ALWAYS get the judge...
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
As for the "only the original artist with his art on printed on the card should be allowed to do alters thing" That is just flat out Text Removed. Do you also think that reprints should never get new art by a different artist? This is seriously such asinine crap that it baffles me a rational human being could ever think up such thing.
As for digital alters vs hand painted ones, the legality of the card is not based upon the medium used to alter it, calling a judge because you don't like a particular artists medium and method, and for no other legitimate reason, just shows you to be acting in an unsportsman like manner, and would get you immediately DQ'd from any event I was judging.
As per forum rules please avoid using Inappropriate language. Word removed. Warning issued.
-Mobo
If you say so...
Why is it Text Removed? In my opinion the original artist was contracted to illustrate a game card. And in my opinion he/she should be the only one that alters the picture. What's the connection between the no-name-alterers who defce cards by the truckload with the game? Nothing...I say it again: If they're talented they should get contracts from WOTC and get some real Magic cards done...
I doubt you could dq someone from calling the judge when digital alters are played but if you think you can that's fine for me as well....
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 may have been contracted to do so, but that doesn't change the fact that anyone else should be able to do whatever they want to the cards they bought. Saying that only the original artists is allowed to draw wolverine on a force of will so outside the realm of reasonable thought that it is difficult to construe an individual who would consider such a thing to be valid. Sure alterations made by the original artist might have a little bit of extra neat factor, but that doesn't change the fact that many people are able to make cards that are far better looking then what the original confines of the printed cards, or the original artist themselves, could ever hope to accomplish. How or by who a final product is made DOES NOT MATTER, all that matters is the final product of the work, if it looks awesome and people like it, and are willing to spend money for it, who are you to say they shouldn't be able to, because you prefer things a little different?
How is suspecting that the opponent is playing with fake Magic cards unsportman like conduct? Get real..
Sure, people owning Magic cards can do whatever they want. They can burn their cards, play with them or do whatever they want.
But changing the card and then selling it for profit is just wrong. It might not be wrong legally (though I am not quite sure) but I find it wrong on moral level. And I won't support something like that.
For me it's about the same as if someone who owns a piece of art gets some no name to "improve" the picture...The result is the same....
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