The Yak Shack Forum

Ui, that's a surprise. Way too expensive for me, but maybe for someone who likes unique cards.  ::)

http://cgi.ebay.com/Harry-Potter-GoF-Costume-C14-Igor-Karkaroff-Blue-RARE_W0QQitemZ6242900584QQcategoryZ73570QQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem

The seller writes -

"One Of Only 2 Known Of Examples Of This Card.Be One Of Only 2 People To Have A COMPLETE Master Set!"

I know this argument has been made before here several times....but does anyone really believe that a varient such as this is necessary for a complete master set?  Considering the card, which can normally be purchased for under 15$, is being sold as a one of a kind at over 400$! :o :o :o
I can see why the seller is attempting to make a unique spin to sell the card, but for the collectors sake, it just seems like folly.

Also, can anyone figure out what part of his costume this swatch comes from?  Every part of his costume looks snow white to me ???.

I have been chatting with Richard/Card_Vault about this - and we have no idea how there can be a blue bit of the costume  ??? it looks all white, I think he's been investigating with Artbox. But it's certainly an interesting find :)

The only 2 I have heard of were both in UK boxes, just a lucky co-incidence I guess.

Could it possibly be his belt?  Perhaps Artbox aquired the entire costume and then used as much of it as possible?

But then I would assume that more blue variants would be popping up.

I just saw this one too!!  :o
I tried for the last one on  :ebay: but was outbid!!
He's offering this one for almost 3 times what the other sold for!!  :o

Didn't you see the the deleted scene which will be on the DVD? When Karkaroff steals a dark blue Beauxbatons Dress and puts it under his white costume.  ::)

Okay, i have no idea where it's from.  ;D  ;D   8)

 :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

You can't take it seriously of course. I was laughing when reading this, a nice idea.  ;D  Everyone knows what a Master Set is. You don't need every variation for it, not with the props (of course not) and not with the costumes. In my opinion a nice and funny joke, nothing more. Only a fool would think "Hey, i need it so badly for my Master Set". But it's unique and we know a few people who love unique cards. Me included.  8)

I always thought that it was a mistake from Artbox, but thats only my opinion.
I think it looks like a Beauxbatons costume! :-\


*raises hand*  I may fall in that category!!  ::)

Blimey, that's a heck of a lot of money for that card!! :o

Loved the idea of Karkaroff stealing a dark blue Beauxbatons dress to wear under his white costume!!! :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

Yeah ... reckon I'm another who likes unique cards too Jackie! ;) :)

Jackie I totally agree, IMO it was another costume placed in error.  With a card #'d that high I don't think it would even be possible (again IMO) to not see more turn up if it wasn't a mistake.  Even with the Krum costume that had much debate over the brown swatch variant we have probably seen at least 50 and that is a lower #'d card.

Probably is just a mistake on artboxes card (though, with his white overcoat thingy being ankle length, the character could be wearing blue pants, and we'd never know...)

I also agree !!!! This just looks like an Artbox error card and should be treated as so..anybody saving Artbox error cards for a side hobby should jump on this one pronto !!!!...but $400 what is he thinking ????? I know one hell of a huge profit

Do I detect GREEN dragons? It is obvious from the picture on the card that the belt is BLUE. Or am I color blind?

John I am assuming you are kidding ;)  Right :-\  If not one of us is color blind.

To be fair I think it's nice to see something *really* different out there. Lots of things we call 'variants' these days are not so special, think back to the Fizzing Whizbees PoAU variants, they were so few and far between that only around 3 came on ebay within 3 months of release. They were really special.

Well if its a legit variant then I will agree with you Roz, but if it is a mistake on the costume inserted in the card I think that changes things. Especially considering the description.  I don't see anywhere that states it could be an error card. 

So depending on your point of view it is either creative advertising or possilby misleading a buyer.  We are all "fairly" knowledgable with HP sets and thanks to the price guide ballpark value of a card.  I just hope this is someone who thought about this and decided they felt it qualified as a rare card or variant for a master set, and didn't buy based on the listing description feeling it was FOR SURE a Karkaroff costume with only a couple worldwide.  If the later was the case is that really fair for them?

Someone should ask Artbox.

Sara, Here is Roz's post earlier in the thread.  Which is why I posed the previous question.  If he has not had an answer from Artbox confirming it is a variant and not a mistake.  So what is the responsibility of an individual seller when they are listing a card like this?  I am sure he knows that it may be a mistake on the card.  I wouldn't have any problem with it if he would have stated in the auction it MIGHT not be a Karkaroff costume at all.

Thing is I am not sure this could ever be classified as a mistake as opposed to a variant.  The card was produced by Artbox and has not been tampered with by a third party ie someone hasn't split open the card and put in a different swatch.  I really don't think the seller needed to warn the buying public that it may not be a piece of Karkaroff costume because as far as he is concerned it was pulled straight from a pack, from a box sealed by Artbox.

If we go down these lines then every card could have the potential of being a 'mistake' ie the Angelina auto cards.  The signatures are so different that it could be easy to believe they were not signed by the same person.  We have to trust Artbox that these were signed by the actress herself.

Don't get me wrong, I think this could well be a piece of material from the Beauxbatons costume but since it is a card Artbox produced I do think it is a valid variant.  Not that I would have paid that kind money for it, even if I could have afforded it. And I certainly don't think this is necessary for a master set. :)

Maybe Artbox doesn't know for sure :-\  The odd thing is, the first one we saw, I thought for sure it was a mistake card, but now that there is another one, I am not so sure. Maybe we will see more ???

Well to me it looks like the belt ???

The best way to find out is to compare the Karkaroff card and a blue Beaubatons card to see if it's the same material.  I would assume that a belt would be some sort of leather.  The one on the card picture looks black to me.  :-\  Does anyone know the seller or buyer?

That's what I would think!! The belt in the picture doesn't look anything like the swatch to me!  ???  I also think it looks black and a bit "rougher" than the swatch piece!  :-\

So who's going to go watch the movie again to verify!!  ::) :rofl:

I will this Thursday!  ;D  Anybody have another question so I can look for the answer in the movie?

Well, if a "costume" is defined as a complete set of clothing, like a uniform, then the belt, hat, trousers, shirt, cape, utility belt, leggings, etc. would all qualify as parts of the "costume". Now, if the card had said Karkaroffs TUNIC ( and it was all WHITE) and something blue showed up on the card then I would look for some clarification..

The only costume I can think of that might be an example is Hermiones from POA.  They used her pink sweatshirt for one costume and tan pants for another.  I can't think of an example that used multiple pieces of an outfit and didn't classify it as two seperate costumes. 

Inkworks has used many complete costumes in Alias for seperate cards.  Here is a list from one of the season card sets:
  10 PIECEWORKS™ CARDS - ONE PER BOX!
o Cowboy Hat worn by Jennifer Garner
o Cowboy Pants worn by Jennifer Garner
o Cowboy Shirt worn by Jennifer Garner
o Geisha outfit worn by Jennifer Garner
o Sport Coat worn by Victor Garber
o Camouflage shirt worn by Michael Vartan
o Camouflage pants worn by Michael Vartan
o Jacket worn by Lena Olin
o Pants worn by Lena Olin
o Top worn by Lena Olin

All the pieces were of an outfit were used for different ones. 

Just thought of another example from Artbox CATCF:
Charlies sweater and Charlies pants were seperate cards although it was an outfit. :-\

I have one  ;D  Can you see if you can spot Roger (Fleur's date).  I swear that bloke was never in the film and just fancied signing some cards  :rofl:

I know why you didn't see him!! YOU BLINKED!!!  :rofl: :rofl:
The only time he was in the movie, from what I remember, is when the champions were first entering the Ball with their dates.
This is funny!! When I first was opening my cases of GOF and I pulled his auto, I sat for several minutes thinking to myself, "Who is this guy?"  ::)

There is one card with two variations -- the POAU Lupin "shirt" x/834.  There's a gray swatch from his shirt and a black swatch from his jacket/cloak.

http://www.theyakshack.co.uk/tradingcards/index.php?page=viewcard&card=98

Of course, there is a question about the gray swatch.  I don't think it was a costume.  It was a prop.  It's the shirt that's in the wardrobe Lupin closes with his wand just before leaving Hogwarts.  The shirt he's seen wearing for most of the movie is gray, but it has stripes of different colors.

HUMMMM!! Interesting point!! I never notice!! I thought it was the shirt he was wearing under the black jacket/coat. I'll have to take a closer look now!! It's amazing on how we all watch the HP movies: first time around is to see the movie; any time after that is to find our swatches/variants!!  ::)  :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

But you're right about the two different variations within one card!! Didn't think of that one!

I think the key with the lupin grey and black swatches are there are certainly enough of both out there to make it a legit variant or mistake.  Versus the 2 occurances of this card.

I agree! I'm still thinking that this swatch is a mistake!!  :-\

"Thing is I am not sure this could ever be classified as a mistake as opposed to a variant.  The card was produced by Artbox and has not been tampered with by a third party ie someone hasn't split open the card and put in a different swatch.  I really don't think the seller needed to warn the buying public that it may not be a piece of Karkaroff costume because as far as he is concerned it was pulled straight from a pack, from a box sealed by Artbox.

If we go down these lines then every card could have the potential of being a 'mistake' ie the Angelina auto cards.  The signatures are so different that it could be easy to believe they were not signed by the same person.  We have to trust Artbox that these were signed by the actress herself.

Don't get me wrong, I think this could well be a piece of material from the Beauxbatons costume but since it is a card Artbox produced I do think it is a valid variant.  Not that I would have paid that kind money for it, even if I could have afforded it. And I certainly don't think this is necessary for a master set"


Interesting. The costume cards are generally produced by a third party (in other words, Mike Simon is sitting there placing swatches on the boards to make the cards) and mistakes can, and often do happen. Making the declaration that because it slipped by Artbox's ever vigilant controls makes it a Variant, rather than a mistake, or error is interesting logic. I would still call it an error and politely point it out to Artbox so that they can improve their error checking process. {Still, she wonders evilly, can she get away with not replacing any of the mistake cards that slip past us from time to time ;) }

I received an email from Artbox that they are investigating this, but believe it to be an error.

I think the point I was trying to make, although maybe not very clearly, is that the seller had no reason to list this as an error card.  He pulled it from pack and therefore had no reason to believe it was anything other than was listed on the back.  It was suggested earlier in this thread that the seller should have put in the listing that this could be an error card, my point was why should he.  I do accept that errors will happen - we are all human beings.  I was simply expressing my opinion that the seller had done nothing wrong, not making any type of declaration about Artbox.  I apologise if this is how you have understood my posting.

Joanna you say that people send back mistake cards to you for replacement.  Can I ask if these are actually where the wrong swatch has gone in the wrong card or are they damaged cards?  I have to say if I pulled say a Fizzing Whizzbees with a piece of pear tree leaf or Dervish and Bangs bag I would most definitely keep it.  You can call it a variant or call it an error but I would call it unique.  But then again I like unsigned auto cards  :)

I think all of us would keep an error card with a Pear Tree Leaf in it :rofl:

"Joanna you say that people send back mistake cards to you for replacement.  Can I ask if these are actually where the wrong swatch has gone in the wrong card or are they damaged cards?"

Absolutely. All the time. They send back cards with typos looking for corrected cards. And yes, in the rare instance, there has been the odd card with the wrong swatch and they send them back too. Generally, our collectors send back anything that they think is defective (damaged, broken, incorrect, missing, smudged - anything you can think of and things you probably can't).

And, I try my best to replace them, or find cards that are more perfect than the ones sent back. I cannot begin to tell you how many cards have come back that I simply cannot find the problem (sometimes I think my eyes are going bad) :) but I still try to do my best.

Yeah, it's BLACK,  but if you "sell" a story long enough people will believe anything. Cases in point are the "stories" that politicians tell.  :rofl: