Futera Heritage Set
- Thread starter nazimcricket
- Start date
Congrats. The one set of cricket cards i would love to own. 
First I have heard of it Richo, and I do not believe it to be true.
No doubt there are a number of signed sets out there, in fact the first set of these I ever owned (which I still have) is signed by Miller. It is #199/500, and this set is #473.....so clearly there does not seem to be a block of sequential set numbers (ie sets #'d 401-500) that were signed.
The other reason why I doubt this is that I also bought Alan Connolly's "player" version set a couple of years ago (each player in the set was given a complimentary set to keep stamped "Player" of 500 on the back of each card in silver foil - by the way Alan Connolly is card #53/60 in the set) and with it came a letter that was sent to Connolly (and all the players in the set) along with the album. Read the 3rd to last paragraph:
There is obviously nothing stopping someone (ie Steve Wang) buying 100 of these sets upon release and knowing someone to get Miller to sign them unofficially, however Miller certainly did not officially sign 100 of the 500. Those he signed were done after the release.
nazimcricket
OzCardTrader
I agree - the pen used does look different.
First I have heard of it Richo, and I do not believe it to be true.
No doubt there are a number of signed sets out there, in fact the first set of these I ever owned (which I still have) is signed by Miller. It is #199/500, and this set is #473.....so clearly there does not seem to be a block of sequential set numbers (ie sets #'d 401-500) that were signed.
The other reason why I doubt this is that I also bought Alan Connolly's "player" version set a couple of years ago (each player in the set was given a complimentary set to keep stamped "Player" of 500 on the back of each card in silver foil - by the way Alan Connolly is card #53/60 in the set) and with it came a letter that was sent to Connolly (and all the players in the set) along with the album. Read the 3rd to last paragraph:
There is obviously nothing stopping someone (ie Steve Wang) buying 100 of these sets upon release and knowing someone to get Miller to sign them unofficially, however Miller certainly did not officially sign 100 of the 500. Those he signed were done after the release.
Thanks Brad - That's exactly what I thought but I thought I would ask your opinion as I know you have a good knowledge of the sets!
I also agree....it's the first thing I noticed
Here's the answer from Wang
Hi:
Keith Miller had not signed any card before the release. All the sets initially sold are with unsigned keith miller card. It was only after Mr. Swan Richards sold all those remain sets to another company, and that company had managed to obtain 100 signature cards from Keith Miller. Hope this sort out your confusion.
Steve
Hi:
Keith Miller had not signed any card before the release. All the sets initially sold are with unsigned keith miller card. It was only after Mr. Swan Richards sold all those remain sets to another company, and that company had managed to obtain 100 signature cards from Keith Miller. Hope this sort out your confusion.
Steve
Thanks mate....so it's an aftermarket signature!
That makes the set not in the original release format and thus less valuable as the signature is not authenticated!
What is everyones opinion on this? Very interested to read your opinion Brad
this whole set was up the klacka, but nothing wrong with just getting another blank miller and complete the set
so you have the original unsigned and signed then.
I just walked into futera and took a massive stack of unsigned cards they had in that cupboard of samples, they used to say there was only 50 samples.. hehe
so you have the original unsigned and signed then.
I just walked into futera and took a massive stack of unsigned cards they had in that cupboard of samples, they used to say there was only 50 samples.. hehe
Authenticity will always be an issue, and for that reason I don't see a set with the Miller signed as being worth any more than the unsigned version.
It might be slightly more desirable - if there was a signed version and an unsigned version for the same price side by side I'd personally go with the signed one - but I wouldn't be willing to pay a premium for the one with the Miller auto, primarily because I can't see an after market auto increasing the set's value. But in this case I don't see it hurting the set's worth either.
Had Miller signed 100 and then been to ill to sign the other 400 and the sets were marketed and released this way then or course the Miller auto increases the value, but this is not the case.......and there is no proof as to what numbered sets he signed. So for me the Miller auto is more desirable, but does not impact the value of the set in a positive nor a negative way.
It might be slightly more desirable - if there was a signed version and an unsigned version for the same price side by side I'd personally go with the signed one - but I wouldn't be willing to pay a premium for the one with the Miller auto, primarily because I can't see an after market auto increasing the set's value. But in this case I don't see it hurting the set's worth either.
Had Miller signed 100 and then been to ill to sign the other 400 and the sets were marketed and released this way then or course the Miller auto increases the value, but this is not the case.......and there is no proof as to what numbered sets he signed. So for me the Miller auto is more desirable, but does not impact the value of the set in a positive nor a negative way.
Similar threads
