New Helmar series--highly unusual--your thoughts?
 

Certainly not everyone is fan of modern day vintage-looking "art" cards, such as Helmar. I happen to like them but in any case--Charles has introduced a new line in past month and forgive me if I've missed any mention here. He's taking cards from his t206 lookalike series (and a few others) and dressing them up with borders made of cork and Japanese paper and more, and then enclosing them in fine plastic. I got my first one and they are very cool (if you like this sort of thing) and the cards protected and the whole thing, one imagines, "one of a kind." Yes, they are selling for a premium. Here's how he describes them, although he seems to leave out the plastic case:

--"Your exceedingly rare and beautiful art card specimen has been distinctively mounted by a trained professional here at Helmar. The art card is first cradled within a shaped slice of Portugese cork (which provides a great natural barrier to moisture). Your artisan has then selected a decorative paper from our inventory of fine Japanese papers (most hand-made) to dress the mount with style. A hand-written tag is prepared that identifies the card's identification number within the series. The rims of the frame are sealed by Japanese washi papers. Your artisan has affixed their personal label and initials to the reverse. There are often additional hand written notes and tags identifying important information about the artwork or player. Lastly, each mounting has been bound together by waxed thread or metal bullion and permanently fixed with our company's wax imprimatur. The finished size is 4" x 2.5"."

http://www.net54baseball.com/attachm...1&d=1533261605

http://www.net54baseball.com/attachm...1&d=1533261828

Thanks....
 

Greg,

Thanks for the info. I've checked out their Facebook page and am intrigued. Signed up for their email list so we will see! Thanks and yes it looks interesting!

Mike

just not a fan. not much different than the shiny new stuff that is overpriced

Was never a fan of these issues (just my opinion, and to each his own), but I like the above pictured.

I think some of them look pretty sharp. But I get turned off when I see descriptions include, "for the advanced collector".

I really like their work, most of their cards like the ones above are very nice looking. Absolutely hate the fact they are using the name of a real vintage company and would never buy anything they make because of that.

Not at all a fan. They are Broders in a different color clothing.

Design is a rip off of Topps Allen & Ginter framed minis.

Overwrought

Little in common with that Topps thlng but if you don't like, fine, I don't own share of the company.

Not that I dislike the cards, but if they distributed them like Hires in 1958, I could be a Yuengling person:)

That's a little too deep for me....

Portuguese cork, isn't all cork from Portugal? I have quite a few items imported from far off China!


I cant see it being a piece of art, and using the name of an old badeball related company just doesn't sit well with me. Probably better than Banty Red, which is just a completely made up company to sell baseball cards, but it doesn't tick any boxes of reasons, or items I collect. I cant see them holding any value, which is a secondary reason I collect. Then again a card can have 30 different 1/1 parallels and people will buy them up.

I kinda like them, I just wish they'd dial back on the hype. They're very nice fantasy pieces.

Actually, I've never seen a Topps framed mini as I don't follow Topps. The inspiration came from 19th century microscope slides (I have a small collection). The slides are wonderful and it struck me that they could be adapted for cards. I've always had a great distaste for the hideously ugly slabbed cards that ruin the beauty of the card within. For the life of me I can't imagine why any true collector would allow such a thing in their collection. Charles.

https://img.comc.com/i/Baseball/2009...&size=original
2009 Topps Allen & Ginter's - Framed Mini Autographs - [Autographed] #AGA-PH - Phil Hughes
Courtesy of COMC.com

Ok, you can see where I made the assumption from. Surprised you've never seen this type of thing. They even put real T206s in them:

https://img.comc.com/i/Baseball/1909...&size=original
1909-11 T206 - [Base] - Sweet Caporal 350 Factory No. 30 Back 2002 Topps 206 Framed Buyback #BIBE - Bill Bergen
Courtesy of COMC.com

I'm sure some buy and try to sell off as vintage to unknowing collectors. This should be posted in Modern Forum , not pre-war.

Actually cork grows in a number of different places but the best cork is from Portugal. I looked at samples from three different countries before deciding on Portuguese cork. The North African cork seemed to crumble too easily for my taste; I worried that over time it would become too brittle. French cork, at least the samples that I examined, had an odd hue.

As for the name "Helmar", it is perfect for my purposes. There are those that would complain no matter which name had been chosen, even if this seems beyond silly to me.

Importantly, Helmar does not even try to appeal to everyone because that would mean trying to appeal to the lowest common denominator. We'd have to lower the quality and ignore the discernment that we've become known for. I'll take collectors that are knowledgeable about art and history every time. We love everyone but it is interesting that our customers skew to occupations such as authors, attorneys, business owners, professors, doctors, etc.

Lastly, no one can know the future value of any collectible. I do know that when I am done we will have a body of work that will be comprehensive, of high quality, intrinsically interesting, and all the while enjoying relative scarcity. The body of work will also have the advantages of being unique for its time--we march to our own drummer. Do those that invest against the group-think do best in the end? You bet. The best part, though, is that collecting Helmar is a fun pastime. God bless. Charles

God bless you too

I have been impressed with the "Helmar issues" The problem I have with them is...I still walk around flea markets here on the East coast, and once in awhile I see someone selling one of these items. Always a similar story "I don't know anything about Sports items I sell Antique ( Whatever) I picked this up in an estate..large lot etc. Ty Cobb Cy Young Shoeless Joe is good though and I only want $100 $250..$300 etc..
I just politely say that this item was made in the past couple years not vintage. And I walk on.I know with smart phone folks can figure this stuff out pretty quick but not everybody has one.

If they are Helmar Ty Cobbs, etc., they are asking in the right price range.

Charles

would you mind including your full name in your posts. like the rules say?

Charles Mandel.

Nice looking but worthless. If you want nice pictures of players buy a book. Besides the pictures you might also learn things you didn’t know.

"I like nice looking - worthless can be negotiated." - anonymous


.

Sorry, I didn't catch your full name in the post. Like the rules say?

Personally, I don't buy books for the purty pictures but I understand that is all some people can handle. Charles Mandel

Perhaps you should purchase a few books; it might do you some good. I read books to learn about the history of the sport. These books usually include some great period pictures, which to me are preferable to your cards. As I said, your cards are nice looking, but I don’t think that they will ever have anything other than de minimis value. No God Bless for me?

Jay Miller

Sic 'em, Jay! - and 'God Bless'


How about forgetting about books and cards for a second and donate for dogs?

Jay, a very special God Bless for you.

I have published a magazine called Baseball History & Art but I lean toward the notion that there is no such thing as an expert (with the exception, perhaps, of mathematics and related fields).

I don't quite follow your preference for a picture in a book being more enjoyable than owning a card. If you have a T206 Wagner I will trade for it in exchange for a picture of Wagner in a book. They are not the same thing at all in my view but whatever pleases. Charles Mandel

Charles, there is a big difference between a vintage card and a recently created Cinderella item. If my choice is the Cinderella card or a nice photograph in a book I will always go with the book. And thank you for the blessing.

I understand that you use the word "Cinderella" as a pejorative.

Just out of curiosity I'd be interested to know exactly what the difference is. Is it because the players are retired or even deceased? You're aware that many, many examples of manufacturers including players such as this are found throughout card history. The Goudey Lajoie is just one example. Is it because the Helmar cards are not that old? They will be, and before any of us would like.

I'm definitely not referring to you here but often it is apparent that my detractors voice absolutely silly logic and approach the entire conversation with a serious chip on their shoulders. Sometimes I find it hard not to reply in kind.

I've wondered about this from time to time. These collectors act as though the mere fact that I make wonderful cards personally threatens and insults them. Newsflash: I make cards to make myself feel good, not to make anyone else feel bad. But the fact remains that some collectors respond to my cards as if they are a vague but real threat to their own collections, collections that they have invested heavily in and have painstakingly built from scratch. These collectors do not seem to understand that Helmar cards do not detract in any way from cards made in the past. Yes, my new card of Joe Schmoe might well sell for more money than your 100 year old card of Joe Schmoe...but the old Schmoe card does not suffer. I'm sorry if that makes you mad or jealous but the fact is that Helmar brings more attention to the old Schmoe card and helps support a market for it. I know for a fact that collectors that have come back through Helmar have gone on to once more purchase older cards. You're welcome.

The hobby is much smaller than it was for a lot of complicated (and not complicated) reasons. Helmar is not one of them on any level. I have gotten many, many guys that have written saying that they have started collecting again because of Helmar. Some had quit because they thought card prices had reached stupid and unreachable levels for their budgets. Most, I think, say they quit because the hobby was simply not fun anymore. I make it fun again for them and I am honored to do so. I take my small role seriously. My name is Charles Mandel and I place it here because it is the rule.

I used the term Cinderella to describe a card made to appear like a vintage card, but simply being a modern creation. In answer to your question, I have no fear that your creations will directly impact what I collect. I collect photographic cards and there is no mistaking the difference. What i do fear is that some new people to the hobby might confuse your cards with vintage cards and unknowingly purchase them. I think you could go a long way to avoid this by putting the date of their printing on the back of the card. As to comparing your cards to the Lajoie, the Lajoie was a tribute card issued as part of a set of players then currently playing. Those players received payment for their images being used on the cards. Do you pay the families of the players whose images appear on your cards?

Sure you picked it out.of the air

Politely I'd say

Go bless yourself, Isee what you've tried to do. Its thinly veiled

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.

You forgot to sign your full name. I am doubtful that you see much.

My, haven't you gotten defensive. When the only way you can make an argument is by twisting the other party's words it is probably better to fade quietly into the background. BTW, that was a long answer to simply say that you are not paying for player images.

If you look his name is in every post he makes. It is located under his ID.

I stand by my opinion in post #6. Beautiful cards but because of the very confusing name I will avoid them.

Quick tip Charles. You can put your name in the header and you don't have to sign every message. Actually unless it's contentious you really don't need to post your name, though as president of Helmar, it probably is proper when you are commenting on the cards to avoid the appearance of a conflict of interest / advertising.

Good luck.

Thank you. As for the previous poster I see what might be a name where it is suggested that I look but it has a lot of odd characters and I can't make it out.

I wasn't twisting your words at all; you have no answer. On the images I have the blessings of many of the families, all that I've had contact with. They are pleased to purchase the cards the same way everyone else does, at auction.

But perhaps I am irritable today. I came to the board earlier today to see if I could find someone to contact about a grouping of 57 T206 cards. They were offered to a Helmar collector and he wanted my opinion. They are in horrible shape. Anyway, when I logged on I found that I was being blamed for making that replica Hassan sign that is the subject of a thread or two. How irritating! How smug the accusations! Why even think of me in relation to that madness?

Of all the Old Judge cards out there, I hope that yours fade the last. Charles Mandel

I have been reading this thread and watched it turn into a good shit show. I must say, at first I actually liked some of the Helmar cards. But then Charles showed up in this thread and has acted like a pompous sarcastic child and I noticed all my appreciation for Helmar cards fade away.

Amazing how fast it has happened too. You've single handedly lost all my respect and ruined Helmar cards for me just by what you've typed in this one thread. I'm sure you'll come up with some smart response like how you don't care about one customer lost and I'm probably not the type of person who fits your customer base or something similar. Which is fine with me. Because I'm not posting this for you. I'm posting this for all the other board members to know how much of an idiot you are.

Andy Huntoon

People do that so that the name can be made out but your identity can't be easily scraped by bots. It's not that difficult to figure out.

Oh, I care about every customer. You're just not one and never intended to be one. Your virtue signaling has been noted by everyone, I'm sure, and I hope it gets you the attention that you desire. Glad to have been of service. Charles Mandel

and there it is.

I think this thread is done. Maybe we should put a Portuguese Cork in it....:)

I thought it was coming along nicely. Enjoy your day and God Bless. Charles

I read this whole post as I enjoy the look of the Helmar cards and, in response to the original post, really like the look of this card. For the record, I don't own any and never have bought any. I will say, if he is on the defensive it is because he and/or his product was being disparaged. Eric Harrington

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.
Which brings up another subject Helmar did issue a series of "art Stamps" So not only are you using a name that is associated with turn if the century baseball cards you issue Stamps that can more easily fool a novice.
You point to the Doctors, Accountants and lawyers who purchase some of these items to make nice displays. And families of players who do the same. I am sure that they do appreciate the items for the images they portray. But why not clearly date these items to reduce the chance that they will cause harm. None of the folks who buy these items for the images is going to care if they are labeled responsibility.
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.

+1. Don't own any and never have, but I really like them.

People will pay crazy prices for a Diamond Gold Foil Refractor Titanium card of a modern prospect who may never make it to his second contract in the big leagues.

I have no problem with somebody paying a premium for a modern fantasy art card of Josh Gibson or Tris Speaker, where a lot of thought and creativity actually went into the creation of it.

It's pretty easy to do a cursury search of these things to find out if they are modern or not. Considering the actual fraud going on in this hobby, as evidenced by the T206 autograph scandal going on at this moment that duped many very experienced collectors on this very board for years, I'd say this is almost the least of the hobbies worries.........

I'd consider buying a reprint of an actual vintage card before one of these. And that would only be to temporarily fill a hole in a set until I bought the real card. I don't get the appeal of a modern card made to look vintage and artificially aged. And I wouldn't do business with someone who comes here and posts with the attitude shown in this thread. It reminds me of the thread for the candiman auction.

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!

Wait til some of these start showing up signed.

: )

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




aahahahahahahahahahahahaaha!



too soon? : )

They should
 

make some "TRUMP" Helmar cards:eek:

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

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?

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.

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.

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?

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.

Is there a catalog and price guide for these cards? If not, then they're probably not going to be collected seriously.

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

Bye. God bless.

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.

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.