NonSports Forum

Net54baseball.com
Welcome to Net54baseball.com. These forums are devoted to both Pre- and Post- war baseball cards and vintage memorabilia, as well as other sports. There is a separate section for Buying, Selling and Trading - the B/S/T area!! If you write anything concerning a person or company your full name needs to be in your post or obtainable from it. . Contact the moderator at leon@net54baseball.com should you have any questions or concerns. When you click on links to eBay on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network. Enjoy!
Net54baseball.com
Net54baseball.com
ebay GSB
T206s on eBay
Babe Ruth Cards on eBay
t206 Ty Cobb on eBay
Ty Cobb Cards on eBay
Lou Gehrig Cards on eBay
Baseball T201-T217 on eBay
Baseball E90-E107 on eBay
T205 Cards on eBay
Baseball Postcards on eBay
Goudey Cards on eBay
Baseball Memorabilia on eBay
Baseball Exhibit Cards on eBay
Baseball Strip Cards on eBay
Baseball Baking Cards on eBay
Sporting News Cards on eBay
Play Ball Cards on eBay
Joe DiMaggio Cards on eBay
Mickey Mantle Cards on eBay
Bowman 1951-1955 on eBay
Football Cards on eBay

Go Back   Net54baseball.com Forums > Net54baseball Main Forum - WWII & Older Baseball Cards > Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #51  
Old 11-29-2018, 11:03 AM
t206fix's Avatar
t206fix t206fix is offline
Tony Davis
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Washington
Posts: 1,184
Default

Love the Helmar issue for many reasons - but the best: Charles prints Moses Yellowhorse cards. I happened to have two with different backs as noted below. Kicking my self for not picking up the third one listed that just ended a few nights ago. My son asked for help with his homework 3 minutes before auction closed, and I forgot to bump my bid. The great thing about it is that there may or may not be more. I'll just have to keep looking. Kind of makes it fun. Like when I was a kid looking for a Wally Joyner RC in packs of Topps. Now it's just on ebay instead of shopping at the Piggly Wiggly.

Keep up the great work Charles! Beautiful product!
Attached Images
File Type: jpg helmar yellow.jpg (72.4 KB, 155 views)
File Type: jpg polarnight.jpg (74.1 KB, 151 views)
File Type: jpg t206yellow.jpg (73.0 KB, 150 views)
File Type: jpg yellowhorse cj.jpg (75.6 KB, 155 views)
Reply With Quote
  #52  
Old 11-29-2018, 11:03 AM
Shoeless Moe Shoeless Moe is offline
Paul Gruszka aka P Diddy, Cambo, Fluke, Jagr, PG13, Bon Jokey, Paulie Walnuts
Pa.ul Grus.zka
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Over by there
Posts: 4,691
Default

Wait til some of these start showing up signed.

: )
Reply With Quote
  #53  
Old 11-29-2018, 11:05 AM
Shoeless Moe Shoeless Moe is offline
Paul Gruszka aka P Diddy, Cambo, Fluke, Jagr, PG13, Bon Jokey, Paulie Walnuts
Pa.ul Grus.zka
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Over by there
Posts: 4,691
Default

..................and authenticated!




aahahahahahahahahahahahaaha!



too soon? : )

Last edited by Shoeless Moe; 11-29-2018 at 11:53 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #54  
Old 11-29-2018, 11:06 AM
mrvster mrvster is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 4,294
Default They should

make some "TRUMP" Helmar cards
Reply With Quote
  #55  
Old 11-29-2018, 12:01 PM
sirraffles sirraffles is offline
Charles Mandel
member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Detroit
Posts: 75
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bigfanNY View Post
Charles:
instead of responding to my post and the fact that you know that the items you produce are used to decieve. You come back and say that "if They are Helmar Ty cobbs they are in the right price range". Well you know that statement is a lie. A quick search on Ebay brings up a couple Helmar Ty Cobb Stamps selling for $13.

So my point is you knowingly produce items that you know can and have been used in the past to cause harm to people. On top of that you come here and Lie. So no matter how you spin it you make a living producing items used to defraud individuals. You could easily reduce that chance but have chosen not to.
If you could detail one lie that I've said I would be grateful for the opportunity to clarify. You are just looking for a fight and that is pointless. The great irony, to me at least, is that I made the Art Stamp series in response to criticisms from this board saying that my cards were selling for "too much money". I thought that making a series that was less expensive would be welcomed but now it seems the lower prices on that series are being used as evidence that I am somehow a liar. If you were non-biased you would have mentioned that the average price on, for example, my Ty Cobb Imperial Cabinet #66 is $188.42 and the other Imperial Cobbs are somewhat lower but average at least $125. The high prices range from $331 to $405 for that series. Twenty copies of the Helmar E145 sold for an average price of $125 each. The average price for my Helmar-L3 Cobb #133 (retired for some time now) was $200.98 and #2 (similarly retired) was $221.42. And so on and on. A Helmar-T206 Cobb (mounted) sold July 31 for $472. If you see one of these cards the next time you are at your flea market I think that you should snap them up. Charles Mandel
Reply With Quote
  #56  
Old 11-29-2018, 12:09 PM
rats60's Avatar
rats60 rats60 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Posts: 2,898
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sirraffles View Post
Is your question of royalties supposed to be your zinger? The ultimate test of what is and what is not a card? Laughable. If you collect early photographic cards then you already know that virtually every one of the cards in your early collection did not pay royalties. Will you now get rid of them? We'll have to consider them illegitimate and I'm sure that you'd like to be consistent in your philosophy. Sadly they are fading into nothingness anyway. I wonder what a blank Cinderella card will sell for? In my case the families of the players are among the best customers that I have. Literally hundreds of family members have Helmar cards and consider them heirlooms. Regarding Lajoie: the fact also remains that he was retired, probably not paid, and was a "Cinderella" card as per your own tortured logic. It will come as a disappointment to many that it, along with thousands of others from the early days until the present, are not real cards. Your fear of new people buying Helmar cards and somehow being swindled is silly at best. Our cards often sell for more than vintage anyway. You make a decisive error if you are conflating our cards with reprints. I agree that reprints are a danger. Better that we all just look at nice pictures in books. Charles Mandel.
What is your evidence? We know as early as 1909 that ATC was signing players to contracts and paying them for images. Honus Wagner famously refused to sign a contract resulting in his card being pulled from production. Many sets from this era are missing the biggest names in the game (no t207 Ty Cobb, no t204 Christy Mathewson, etc.). If there was no need to pay players for their images, then why weren't they included in every set? Goudeys, Delongs, Diamond Stars and Play Balls all carry copyrights. Again, why wasn't Babe Ruth (and the other big stars) included in every set if you didn't need to pay to use his image? We know that the 1949 Leaf set signed players to individual contracts, resulting in confusion over the year the cards were released. We know that in the 50s, Topps and Bowman fought to sign players in their sets. So, at least since 1909, it has been a standard that card companies get the rights to players images when issuing cards.

In the 1980s, a photographer named Broder issued a set of unlicensed cards resulting in a wave of other unlicensed cards. This resulted in a lot of controversy and resulted in many card show promoters banning the sale of these cards by dealers setting up at their shows. So, for ~30 years the hobby has recognized the issues with unlicensed cards. So again, what is your evidence that "virtually every card in your collection" is unlicensed?
Reply With Quote
  #57  
Old 11-29-2018, 01:07 PM
sirraffles sirraffles is offline
Charles Mandel
member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Detroit
Posts: 75
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rats60 View Post
What is your evidence? We know as early as 1909 that ATC was signing players to contracts and paying them for images. Honus Wagner famously refused to sign a contract resulting in his card being pulled from production. Many sets from this era are missing the biggest names in the game (no t207 Ty Cobb, no t204 Christy Mathewson, etc.). If there was no need to pay players for their images, then why weren't they included in every set? Goudeys, Delongs, Diamond Stars and Play Balls all carry copyrights. Again, why wasn't Babe Ruth (and the other big stars) included in every set if you didn't need to pay to use his image? We know that the 1949 Leaf set signed players to individual contracts, resulting in confusion over the year the cards were released. We know that in the 50s, Topps and Bowman fought to sign players in their sets. So, at least since 1909, it has been a standard that card companies get the rights to players images when issuing cards.

In the 1980s, a photographer named Broder [snip] So again, what is your evidence that "virtually every card in your collection" is unlicensed?
Your post is a long one. The original poster that complained about licensing collects 19th century photo cards. There is no evidence that any of those players received royalties. In fact, I doubt anybody here believes that they did. So that was his complaint and that is obviously problematic for him as he had just defined his own collection as being "Cinderella" cards (which he apparently despises). At this unhappy turn of self-inflicted events he complained that I had twisted his words. A small scuffle.

As for Wagner ... Wagner T206 had nothing in the slightest to do with my argument. However, I'll still mention that the story is just unproven speculation and I would think that many on this board are conflicted as to whether or not it is true. As far as I know, no endorsement contracts have been found for any of the big sets of the era, let alone (almost?) all of the small, regional sets that people like. That should lean us toward believing there was little to no licensing in effect unless otherwise proven. Please correct me if I am uninformed on the existence of card endorsement contracts. Even if they exist, however, it doesn't alter my point that many, perhaps even most, early cards did not bother with endorsements.

Per your point that Goudey, etc., carried copyrights: While I would lean toward the assumption that the Goudey brand paid an endorsement fee I personally do not know this for a fact. It seems unlikely that they paid Lajoie. In any case, a copyright mark was meant to guard against other manufacturers using the art and marks of the producer and had nothing at all do with their agreements (or lack thereof) with the players.

In any event, licensing has historically had nothing to do with defining whether a piece of printed matter is a card or not. To me, it is a silly question but interesting to see how logic gets tortured when arguing whether an object is a "legit card" or not.
Reply With Quote
  #58  
Old 11-29-2018, 01:32 PM
rats60's Avatar
rats60 rats60 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Posts: 2,898
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sirraffles View Post
Your post is a long one. The original poster that complained about licensing collects 19th century photo cards. There is no evidence that any of those players received royalties. In fact, I doubt anybody here believes that they did. So that was his complaint and that is obviously problematic for him as he had just defined his own collection as being "Cinderella" cards (which he apparently despises). At this unhappy turn of self-inflicted events he complained that I had twisted his words. A small scuffle.

As for Wagner ... Wagner T206 had nothing in the slightest to do with my argument. However, I'll still mention that the story is just unproven speculation and I would think that many on this board are conflicted as to whether or not it is true. As far as I know, no endorsement contracts have been found for any of the big sets of the era, let alone (almost?) all of the small, regional sets that people like. That should lean us toward believing there was little to no licensing in effect unless otherwise proven. Please correct me if I am uninformed on the existence of card endorsement contracts. Even if they exist, however, it doesn't alter my point that many, perhaps even most, early cards did not bother with endorsements.

Per your point that Goudey, etc., carried copyrights: While I would lean toward the assumption that the Goudey brand paid an endorsement fee I personally do not know this for a fact. It seems unlikely that they paid Lajoie. In any case, a copyright mark was meant to guard against other manufacturers using the art and marks of the producer and had nothing at all do with their agreements (or lack thereof) with the players.

In any event, licensing has historically had nothing to do with defining whether a piece of printed matter is a card or not. To me, it is a silly question but interesting to see how logic gets tortured when arguing whether an object is a "legit card" or not.
Honus Wagner said it was true. What other evidence do you need? Are you saying that he was lying? Why then wasn't Wagner in every tobacco set if his permission wasn't needed? We also have a letter from John Gruber saying that he was given a contract by ATC to have Wagner to sign. Is he lying too? What are their motivations to lie about ATC wanting to pay Wagner to sign a licensing deal?

Why wasn't Ruth in the 34 Goudey set if his permission wasn't needed? Why would Goudey not pay Lajoie and print his his card and not pay Ruth and not print his card on the same 34 Goudey sheet? It makes no sense. Ruth was the biggest name in the game. Every company would have printed cards of him in every set if they weren't paying for player's rights. Common sense says that these companies only made cards of players who they had rights to.

Actually licensing historically has had a lot to do with what is considered a card. Certainly over the last 30 years. I have been at baseball card shows where dealers have been kicked out or told to remove items from their tables because they weren't licensed. You are making the claims that these cards were not licensed, it is up to you to prove your claims or at least present some evidence. You have given none.
Reply With Quote
  #59  
Old 11-29-2018, 01:56 PM
sirraffles sirraffles is offline
Charles Mandel
member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Detroit
Posts: 75
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rats60 View Post
Honus Wagner said it was true. What other evidence do you need? Are you saying that he was lying? Why then wasn't Wagner in every tobacco set if his permission wasn't needed? We also have a letter from John Gruber saying that he was given a contract by ATC to have Wagner to sign. Is he lying too? What are their motivations to lie about ATC wanting to pay Wagner to sign a licensing deal?

Why wasn't Ruth in the 34 Goudey set if his permission wasn't needed? Why would Goudey not pay Lajoie and print his his card and not pay Ruth and not print his card on the same 34 Goudey sheet? It makes no sense. Ruth was the biggest name in the game. Every company would have printed cards of him in every set if they weren't paying for player's rights. Common sense says that these companies only made cards of players who they had rights to.

Actually licensing historically has had a lot to do with what is considered a card. Certainly over the last 30 years. I have been at baseball card shows where dealers have been kicked out or told to remove items from their tables because they weren't licensed. You are making the claims that these cards were not licensed, it is up to you to prove your claims or at least present some evidence. You have given none.
You are growing tiresome. I've said the Wagner story had nothing to do with my argument, whatever the case was in 1909. Apparently you were able to ask him personally about this. See if you can get him to sign a few things for me. I also said that I assumed Goudey did have endorsement contracts (though I suspect that they did not have one for Lajoie). First learn what a copyright is and then we can discuss further.
Reply With Quote
  #60  
Old 11-29-2018, 02:20 PM
bigfanNY bigfanNY is offline
Jonathan Sterling
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: NJ
Posts: 2,110
Default

Charles anybody reading your post can decide for themselves when you say that "Helmar Brewing Ty Cobbs selling for $100 to $300 are in the right range is a lie. As I said a quick search of ebay shows a number of your Ty Cobbs selling for $13 to $15 dollars well below the range you say is fair. I understand you make a living justifying doing things you know are wrong. And clearly you have no remorse or compassion for those hurt by what you do. But when you say something that you know not to be true, What exactly would you want me to call that?
For Clarification I am referring to the small Helmar Cobbs and other 1910 era Hall of Famers on T205 and T206 cards and art stamp etc. that show up in flea markets marked up from the $13 to $25 they sold for and real people get hurt.
And yes when you go so far as to produce sets similar to those issued by Helmar Tobacco Like Leathers and Cabinets and Art Stamps. You make it easy for folks to use your products to defraud others.
To be really specific you have an Ed Delahanty T206 card up for auction on your site. That card has clearly been artificially aged. In fact it is damaged. If it is art why damage it why round corners?
I am not looking for a fight just saying you know WHAT YOU DO HURTS PEOPLE YOU COULD PRINT DATES ETC. TO HELP STOP THAT BUT YOU DON'T. if its art then date it like many artists that sign and date their pices. The only people who would stop buying your stuff are the crooks would that be so bad?
Reply With Quote
  #61  
Old 11-29-2018, 02:27 PM
rats60's Avatar
rats60 rats60 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Posts: 2,898
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sirraffles View Post
You are growing tiresome. I've said the Wagner story had nothing to do with my argument, whatever the case was in 1909. Apparently you were able to ask him personally about this. See if you can get him to sign a few things for me. I also said that I assumed Goudey did have endorsement contracts (though I suspect that they did not have one for Lajoie). First learn what a copyright is and then we can discuss further.
So you have no evidence of your claims and you are just stating your opinion? Got it. Common sense would be that professional baseball players who were paid to play a game would also expect compensation for their photos used to sell a company's product.
Reply With Quote
  #62  
Old 11-29-2018, 02:33 PM
SetBuilder SetBuilder is offline
Manny
Banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Key Biscayne, FL
Posts: 611
Default

Is there a catalog and price guide for these cards? If not, then they're probably not going to be collected seriously.
Reply With Quote
  #63  
Old 11-29-2018, 02:44 PM
sirraffles sirraffles is offline
Charles Mandel
member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Detroit
Posts: 75
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rats60 View Post
So you have no evidence of your claims and you are just stating your opinion? Got it. Common sense would be that professional baseball players who were paid to play a game would also expect compensation for their photos used to sell a company's product.
Whatever. The first legal case regarding baseball endorsements seems to have been (by my memory) in 1952. There are a number of subsequent cases with conflicting decisions on major points. We could discuss this at great length but it would be me educating you and you can do that work yourself. I don't mean to be rude but I don't have the time. Again, none of this deflates my original position that many of the sets and promotions did not have endorsement contracts in place. None of that really reflects on what I do, anyway.

After thinking about it for, oh, ten seconds, I've decided not to respond to this thread any longer. I have a beautiful life filled with great people and things to do, just as you have. The negative tone here doesn't serve either of us. Best, Charles Mandel
Reply With Quote
  #64  
Old 11-29-2018, 03:20 PM
RedsFan1941 RedsFan1941 is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2016
Posts: 1,207
Default

Bye. God bless.
Reply With Quote
  #65  
Old 11-29-2018, 03:54 PM
bigfanNY bigfanNY is offline
Jonathan Sterling
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: NJ
Posts: 2,110
Default

Negative Tone??? It was Charlie who came here to spout on how the families of old ball players benefit from his work. And of course it is nice for some players families to have inexpensive mementos of Granddad or Great Granddad. But paying royalties??? That sort of benefit seems to belong to Charlie alone.
What about his comments on Turn of the century photographic cards like Old Judges lone Jacks G&B gum, Hess, Just So, etc. He wishes they fade away but hopes our fade last.
Charlie asked me for a specific example of where he lied and I provided it. I also provided specific examples of items he produces that are created to deceive and provide no markings to help those who come across his wares for the first time.
He was a really nice man I will miss him.
Someone posted compared to the rash of Forged T206 cards Charlie was small potatoes. Maybe but All forms of deceit can and do hurt people and should be called out.
Reply With Quote
  #66  
Old 11-29-2018, 04:10 PM
oldjudge's Avatar
oldjudge oldjudge is offline
j'a'y mi.ll.e.r
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: The Bronx
Posts: 5,353
Default

Charles: The following is the definition that I used for a Cinderella card. No where do I state that paying for the right to the player’s image is a criteria. I simply asked if you pay royalties for the images and you indicated that you do not.

“I used the term Cinderella to describe a card made to appear like a vintage card, but simply being a modern creation.”

Obviously, Old Judge cards do not fit my definition (or anyone else’s for that matter) of a Cinderella card. As to whether Goodwin & Company paid to use the player’s images I don’t know with certainty. However, the fact that Cap Anson, the game’s biggest star, did not appear in the set until 1888 makes me believe that he would not agree to allow Goodwin to use his image. This was probably an issue of money.
Reply With Quote
Reply



Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Helmar ORIGINAL Art: Your thoughts? GregMitch34 Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions 6 12-10-2015 01:58 PM
Post your unusual/historic World Series pieces. Archive Net54baseball Sports (Primarily) Vintage Memorabilia Forum incl. Game Used 12 03-07-2009 09:31 AM


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 12:08 PM.


ebay GSB