|
Roz
|
 |
« Reply #40 on: March 07, 2005, 02:34:06 AM » |
|
OK - this is what I propose we write (building on Dave's original post that started this thread).
Dear Artbox,
We would like to bring to your attention the concerns we have with your upcoming release of the Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's (Philosopher's) Stone Trading Card Set.
First let us mention that as collectors we have been really impressed with the quality of your two Harry Potter card sets and have spent many hours admiring and actively seeking them.
However, it is in this context that we were also very disappointed with your last release of Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban Update cards - both dealers and collectors who bought boxes and cases of the product have felt let down in many respects.
One major criticism we have had with both sets is that a good deal of Hobby boxes were "duds" i.e. there were no props, costumes, autographs or film cards in them. No other card manufacturer has so many problems with dud boxes - finding a "dud box" is very rare in Topps cards and manufacturers such as Inkworks and Rittenhouse guarantee that you will receive something in each box. At $60 per box in the US and £45 per box in the UK it is unacceptable to get one to two base sets and a few foil cards.
We also find it unnerving that there is a lack of information about the details of the sets prior to release. We appreciate that you may wish to "surprise" us, but when dealers and collectors are putting out a great deal of money upfront, it seems better to have some reliable information on insert cards and ratios from an accountable source. Perhaps such information could be published on your website? Many other successful card manufacturers work this way -- for example take a look at Inkworks (www.inkworks.com) and Rittenhouse's (www.scifihobby.com) websites. You will see that they publish pictures and insert ratios for all their cards, well in advance of a release (a month or more), along with some indication of how many cases will be produced and the rarity of the autographs.
We encourage you, as other card companies do - to let the customers know what to expect.
Would this be too much to ask given how much money we've already spent on your products and intend to spend in the future?
Yours,
The Undersigned Please let me know asap what you would change/ add / take away etc as the site is ready as soon as we have the text. Please be aware that this will be the main letter but there is room for invididual comments when you sign. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Anna
|
|
« Reply #41 on: March 07, 2005, 02:43:49 AM » |
|
It looks good to me!  Anybody else with any comments? |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Sharon
|
|
« Reply #42 on: March 07, 2005, 02:46:03 AM » |
|
Definately a two thumbs up!
How is it going to be sent? Are we all going to copy it and Email it to Artbox on mass?
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Roz
|
|
« Reply #43 on: March 07, 2005, 03:20:19 AM » |
|
Hey Sharon, Mark (MakTheYak on here - and the guy who's comics are on the front page of this website - www.theyakshack.co.uk) has built a site - this letter will be at the top (I'll put it up tomorrow morning so that the American Members and Australian Members will have had time to look at it and approve it - and underneath you will be able to "sign" it. I'll post the link and invite signees sometime around tomorrow lunchtime  Nice to have you on board  |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Sharon
|
|
« Reply #44 on: March 07, 2005, 03:25:36 AM » |
|
After my two dud first boxes I really want a better set. Are you going to leave the signing part on for a few days? On a slightly selfish note I am not actually on the internet and am just 'borrowing' my brothers PC so I cannot always get on every night. No probs if it has to go off straight away. I understand we are running out of time. Thanks to you and Mark for taking the time to do this. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Roz
|
|
« Reply #45 on: March 07, 2005, 03:27:03 AM » |
|
Not at all - I think we ought to leave it up a while - at least 3 days before we send it off to the powers that be - after all Artbox do have 3 sets lined up for this year so it's not just the Sorcerers (phooo) stone that we care about - I do know a lot of people skipping it and moving on to saving for Goblet |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Morningangel-Iola
|
|
« Reply #46 on: March 07, 2005, 03:32:52 AM » |
|
Here here I think might actaully buy a box of Goblet  |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
kbmum
|
|
« Reply #47 on: March 07, 2005, 03:46:33 AM » |
|
This is fine, Roz. It expresses our concerns, and hopefully will elicit a response from Artbox.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nienna
|
|
« Reply #49 on: March 07, 2005, 04:11:34 AM » |
|
Yup! Hit's the spot in all the right places Roz.  I feel a bit odd signing this petition as I didn't buy any boxes/cases of these cards - but I do feel very strongly for those of you who did, because I know how much you've all spent on these sets, how rubbish the insert collation has been for them and how disappointed most of you have been as a result of this. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Roz
|
|
« Reply #50 on: March 07, 2005, 04:42:12 AM » |
|
Don't worry about that Jules, the point is we are all at various levels of the chain - artbox sell to dealers who part break down and part sell sealed product - at which stage you choose to buy is up to you |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
samwise16
|
|
« Reply #51 on: March 07, 2005, 04:48:35 AM » |
|
nice stuff, i'm up for squigling a little signiture at the bottom of that |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Nienna
|
|
« Reply #52 on: March 07, 2005, 04:56:03 AM » |
|
Good man good man .... nice to see you back on here Ben, it's been very quiet without ya mate! You're quite right of course Roz, I hadn't thought of it like that. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Trey
|
|
« Reply #53 on: March 07, 2005, 04:58:58 AM » |
|
I will definately put my name to it great work |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Brilliant Snape.... once again you've put your keen and penetrating mind to the task and as usual come to the wrong conclusion!!
|
|
|
|
Roz
|
|
« Reply #54 on: March 07, 2005, 05:00:25 AM » |
|
author=Trey link=board=23;threadid=1478;start=40#msg18950 Great work
Ahhh you aint seen nothing yet Mark's done the hard work with the site itself |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: March 07, 2005, 04:22:33 PM by Roz »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
blackcat20
|
|
« Reply #55 on: March 07, 2005, 02:23:25 PM » |
|
Well, Id be more than happy to put my name to that letter |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
kbmum
|
|
« Reply #56 on: March 07, 2005, 06:46:33 PM » |
|
Anna brought this up in another thread: Should we also address the collation problem? Some cases didn't have autos, props, or creature cards. Some boxes had no inserts, but tons of foils.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Roz
|
|
« Reply #57 on: March 07, 2005, 06:47:56 PM » |
|
I did consider it - but I thought that if boxes were missing things then it would lead to the fact that cases were too - but I agree maybe we need to express it more clearly - can you think of a way?
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
kbmum
|
|
« Reply #58 on: March 07, 2005, 08:06:05 PM » |
|
Maybe a paragraph like this?
The collation problems extended to the cases. There were far too many cases that contained no autographs or no props. While we can understand that this will happen occasionally, and not every box or case will have inserts exactly meeting the specified odds, it was far too prevalent for collectors to ignore.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Anna
|
|
« Reply #59 on: March 07, 2005, 08:48:31 PM » |
|
Maybe a paragraph like this?
The collation problems extended to the cases. There were far too many cases that contained no autographs or no props. While we can understand that this will happen occasionally, and not every box or case will have inserts exactly meeting the specified odds, it was far too prevalent for collectors to ignore.
I think this paragraph is well worded and would fit into the letter nicely between paragraphs 4 and 5. What does everyone else think? |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
