Helmar Discussion and Debate Here

[GregMitch34]

I know there has been some back and forth on these new art cards but it seems scattered and sporadic so I thought I try to get a central and ongoing thread where people can voice praise and concerns, which I know cover several different issues. Also post your favorite Helmars if you wish. Some may know that I have a wide collection of pre-war cards, so that's my longtime focus, but also starting to gather a few Helmars due to my interest in art, and art history, and as a photographer (and historian) myself. I simply love the aesthetics of the cards, even though not vintage, and it's good to see some spirited bidding on ebay every Tuesday. So here are some favorites of my few Helmars, but join in the discussion or post your own beauties.

The Babe (in 3D)
http://www.net54baseball.com/attachm...1&d=1495606280

Cobb and Frank Baker cabinets
http://www.net54baseball.com/attachm...1&d=1495606280

Smokey Joe Wood, Book garter homage
http://www.net54baseball.com/attachm...1&d=1495606280

Joe jackson on a thick post card size offering

http://www.net54baseball.com/attachm...1&d=1495606570

Alexander not lookin much like Ronnie Reagan

Earl Averill, Mel Harder and WaJo in stunning version.

[Leon]

My guess is a whole lot of us like the way they look more than we want to own or collect them. I think they are neat looking and are great as art pieces.

[bnorth]

As someone who makes custom/art items I like the looks of them. The prices some of them are getting is bat BLEEPING crazy thought. These should be $2-$5 each and $10 at the absolute most. It is not like they are making multi layered new shiny cards that require skill to make.

EDIT: I went on eBay and looked and now see several of them in the $2-$5 range. I believe those to be an excellent value for what they are.

[SAllen2556]

I've always been curious what the licensing rules are for cards like these. Would the estates of these players have any legal claim? And what about the photos they use for the cards? Can anyone just create a vintage looking Babe Ruth card and sell it on eBay....legally?

[GregMitch34]

All good points and fuel or food for thought so keep them coming. However, when you say they don't take much work -- have you ever actually held one? Except for the t206 ones, they are on thick or ultra-thick stock, with many layers, and many of them oversized. Not to mention the "distressed" look and in many cases very, very cool backs. And, for all those those who complain about holdering vs. handling cards--you can really handle these all you want. Whether they appreciate in value is another question--but again, this responds to those who complain that people are only collecting cards these days as an "investment." Where else can you buy a gorgeous "card" of Lou Gehrig as a pitcher at Columbia? And, yes, someone paid $170 for it last night....and probably doesn't care much if it plummets in value.

Then, as someone who displays art and photos around the house--the cabinet cards, at least, are great to display on shelves and mantelpieces, or you can even frame them if you wish. Haven't done that with a little, graded, t206, that's for sure....And you can also buy the original art, signed by the artist, for some of the cards, some of them also 8 X 10 in size.

Finally, there's the scarcity, with only (Charles claims) a half dozen of each card produced per year, if that. True, many may not care, but on the other hand--if you see a card you love and lose out at auction (as I did last night) you DO NOT have a chance to then go buy it at ebay but wait for it to come up again many months down the road. You'll see very, very few great cards at the BIN at ebay now--they are almost all the more mass-produced stamps and early t206 inserts he placed in products he sold a few years back. That can be frustrating--all it boosts the "scarce" appeal.

This would all be heightened if he did a "pop report" for most of the cards. He could even go further and do a VCP type "sales" records, but the pop report itself would add to the appeal, and potential value, if you care, on its own.

As for licensing--a key question. Perhaps Charles can reply here. Probably doesn't matter with vast majority of the players, long deceased, but he is also offering throwback cards for people like Hank Aaron and Willie Mays....

[rats60]

Originally Posted by SAllen2556

I've always been curious what the licensing rules are for cards like these. Would the estates of these players have any legal claim? And what about the photos they use for the cards? Can anyone just create a vintage looking Babe Ruth card and sell it on eBay....legally?

He is also using MLB logos. Panini can't use them, I would be curious how he gets away with it.

[MartyFromCANADA]

Lov'em. Great for player collectors. More Gibson's please!

martyfromcanada-t206-helmar_204_front1.jpgmartyfromcanada-t206-helmar_206_front.jpg

[Exhibitman]

My guess is that he straddles the line between permissible art use and commercial products by limiting the print run and hand distressing them.

[rats60]

Originally Posted by Exhibitman

My guess is that he straddles the line between permissible art use and commercial products by limiting the print run and hand distressing them.

Maybe it is just me, but if I am buying something of the player that I collect, I would want his family to get the royalties they are due.

[porkchops]

....

....

....

....
Several from my collection . Been enjoying Helmar cards since (series 1) snack pack days .
Ken

[GregMitch34]

Would great for Charles to weigh in here, as he has in past.

[GregMitch34]

Just the hell of it, picked up cheap off ebay this original Helmar cig box, with hinge still attached--great for storing vintage t206s an others or the new art cards....http://www.net54baseball.com/attachm...1&d=1495755752

[obcbobd]

I always thought it would be great if they would produce a set in vintage style in conjunction with the BB HOF

[sirraffles]

Late to the conversation but here I am.

I'm still here, satisfying my compulsion to make cards. Recently I think we've been doing some good work (images of unpublished work attached). Of course I can't help but notice that there is still some hesitation or even resistance to our work among members of this board. That is fine, to each his own and I would have it no other way. Personally, I think that much of this resistance will melt away when it comes to future collectors.

I would like to gently address one or two things, the first of which is related to the occasional expressions of astonishment at the prices the Helmar cards often get at auction. The fact is that I've done a really poor job of relating how much work goes into the art cards. Maybe I should do a few videos on the process from start to finish but I'm not sure that it is worth the effort. In any event, I think some people think that making these cards is no more difficult that hitting the print button and voila! Another skid of cards in the warehouse at the cost of a nickle each. Nothing could be further than the truth but, as I've said, I've really done nothing to correct this view. Oops, gotta run. Thanks, Charles Mandel Helmar

[GregMitch34]

Wow, look forward to those new cabinets, hope they are in the 8 x 10 format.

[bn2cardz]

Originally Posted by sirraffles

Late to the conversation but here I am.

I'm still here, satisfying my compulsion to make cards. Recently I think we've been doing some good work (images of unpublished work attached). Of course I can't help but notice that there is still some hesitation or even resistance to our work among members of this board. That is fine, to each his own and I would have it no other way. Personally, I think that much of this resistance will melt away when it comes to future collectors.

I would like to gently address one or two things, the first of which is related to the occasional expressions of astonishment at the prices the Helmar cards often get at auction. The fact is that I've done a really poor job of relating how much work goes into the art cards. Maybe I should do a few videos on the process from start to finish but I'm not sure that it is worth the effort. In any event, I think some people think that making these cards is no more difficult that hitting the print button and voila! Another skid of cards in the warehouse at the cost of a nickle each. Nothing could be further than the truth but, as I've said, I've really done nothing to correct this view. Oops, gotta run. Thanks, Charles Mandel Helmar

Do you own each of the original photos you use for the art?

[Snapolit1]

To each his own, as said above. Many of them are really cool looking. But to my eyes, a lot of work also goes into making a decent knock off Rolex. That doesn't make it a collector's item.

[sirraffles]

Originally Posted by Snapolit1

To each his own, as said above. Many of them are really cool looking. But to my eyes, a lot of work also goes into making a decent knock off Rolex. That doesn't make it a collector's item.

Thanks for your post. From time to time I've heard variations of your "knock off/not a collector item" position. And I've discussed this theme with detractors in the past. The nut of the issue seems to be that some collectors think that our Helmar cards detract from and lessen the value of the collections that the collectors have worked so hard to build. In that light the collectors are viewing our Helmar cards as a threat of some sort. You can recognize this mind-set in a few of the posts from over the last few years. Logically I think those collectors know that this is a silly argument but they are looking at it from a emotional view, not a logical one. I'm not referring to you by any means. Charles

[GregMitch34]

I can "swing both ways." Last night (see the May pickups thread) I bought three new Helmars--and a classic 1910 Red Sun. I go largely by aesthetics, old or new, so Helmars interest me a good deal. Could care less if they go up in value. It's funny that so many here will write, "by the card, not the holder," testify against such a focus on valuation, and then knock on Helmars. As far as I know, Charles has never promised that value will go up. Here's one of my latest, which is 3 X 6 and evokes old-time trolley ads: http://www.net54baseball.com/attachm...1&d=1496270864

[insidethewrapper]

I never had one of these cards, do they have a copyright on them such as 2017 ? I wouldn't want any dealers selling these as 100 year old cards to new collectors.

[bn2cardz]

Originally Posted by Snapolit1

To each his own, as said above. Many of them are really cool looking. But to my eyes, a lot of work also goes into making a decent knock off Rolex. That doesn't make it a collector's item.

I don't think these can be considered a "knock off" any more than Topps' Heritage cards. They use the design elements from old sets, but they are never an exact replication of the original sets. These are more like fantasy pieces, not knock offs.

I am still curious where the photos come from and if those images are owned by the artists.

[Snapolit1]

Originally Posted by sirraffles

Thanks for your post. From time to time I've heard variations of your "knock off/not a collector item" position. And I've discussed this theme with detractors in the past. The nut of the issue seems to be that some collectors think that our Helmar cards detract from and lessen the value of the collections that the collectors have worked so hard to build. In that light the collectors are viewing our Helmar cards as a threat of some sort. You can recognize this mind-set in a few of the posts from over the last few years. Logically I think those collectors know that this is a silly argument but they are looking at it from a emotional view, not a logical one. I'm not referring to you by any means. Charles

No offense taken. I just collect cards because of the genuine connection to the past. Someone held this card in their hands in 1920. Connects me to something bigger than my life. I can't feel that with a new creation of a vintage player.

[Jason19th]

All images prior to 1923 and most prior to 1964 would be in public domain and therefore copyright would not apply. The issue of trademark would be a bit trickier and the cards are probably a technical violation of trade mark. I highly doubt however that anyone would ever take action in part because I believe that you have to show some harm by the use and that would be difficult to show. I actual own the image that was used for the T206 Luis Padron and thought it was short of cool when I saw the card

[bbcard1]

Originally Posted by Jason19th

All images prior to 1923 and most prior to 1964 would be in public domain and therefore copyright would not apply. The issue of trademark would be a bit trickier and the cards are probably a technical violation of trade mark. I highly doubt however that anyone would ever take action in part because I believe that you have to show some harm by the use and that would be difficult to show. I actual own the image that was used for the T206 Luis Padron and thought it was short of cool when I saw the card

That's not necessarily true. There are some public figures, and I am sure Ruth is among them, whose images are rights managed.

[sirraffles]

I like this idea of a series done with the HOF. Charles

[GregMitch34]

Which idea?

[sirraffles]

Hi Mike. You'll find that we've discussed this aspect at great length (and to my satisfaction) in prior years. Thanks, Charles RE: selling cards to new collectors that think they are old cards

[Peter_Spaeth]

There are some very cool and well done examples of these (that Cobb is great for example, as are others in that series I just looked at) and other fantasy issues, but ultimately, to me, if it's not a period card, it's not much different than a reprint. YMMV.

[sirraffles]

Originally Posted by bn2cardz

I don't think these can be considered a "knock off" any more than Topps' Heritage cards. They use the design elements from old sets, but they are never an exact replication of the original sets. These are more like fantasy pieces, not knock offs.

I am still curious where the photos come from and if those images are owned by the artists.

I'd agree that Helmar cards cannot be considered "knock-offs" any more than Topps Heritage cards. Personally, I don't care for the "fantasy" label. I've never heard that term used in conversations about any other series that includes retired players. If Helmar cards are "fantasy", then other examples of "fantasy" cards would include the Goudey Lajoie, Connie Mack All-Stars, 1961 Fleer (not my favorite set), etc. Like you, I do prefer cards made during the time that the athlete is active.

[sirraffles]

Originally Posted by Snapolit1

No offense taken. I just collect cards because of the genuine connection to the past. Someone held this card in their hands in 1920. Connects me to something bigger than my life. I can't feel that with a new creation of a vintage player.

I understand but I'd guess that you've never actually held one of our cards in you hands. Maybe you'd be surprised. I'd humbly suggest that a great part of the reason we've had success is because collectors do feel that we provide that spark.

[rats60]

Originally Posted by sirraffles

I'd agree that Helmar cards cannot be considered "knock-offs" any more than Topps Heritage cards. Personally, I don't care for the "fantasy" label. I've never heard that term used in conversations about any other series that includes retired players. If Helmar cards are "fantasy", then other examples of "fantasy" cards would include the Goudey Lajoie, Connie Mack All-Stars, 1961 Fleer (not my favorite set), etc. Like you, I do prefer cards made during the time that the athlete is active.

The difference is that those cards are all licensed. These are like the 1986 Donruss Michael Jordan "rookie card" that was sold in the 90s.

[sirraffles]

Originally Posted by rats60

The difference is that those cards are all licensed. These are like the 1986 Donruss Michael Jordan "rookie card" that was sold in the 90s.

The arguments against art cards get narrower and narrower. They are legal, at least ours are. The card that you mention probably was not. By the way, many of the most sought after and expensive cards in the hobby were probably not licensed.

[36GoudeyMan]

Since there were no real (or abundant, relatively speaking) player-era cards of Negro League stars (and the regular fellows, too), having "cards" of Negro League players is a real treat. I don't buy the fantasy cards of players for whom real cards exist, but this subset gives us a chance to see what they might have been if they had been issued. I think its a nice tribute, in a vehicle familiar to us.

My only complaint, such as it is, concerns the aging. it seems like the aging is very similar card-to-card, and, when you have a bunch of these cards together, it looks a little too obviously maneuvered. Not all cards wear the same way or degree; some survive in better shape than others. Varying the degree of aging would give the cards more of a realistic feel especially when grouped. FWIW.

[GregMitch34]

I agree with Jeff on that. No reason for severe aging on all cards, should be variety, and sometimes too much aging is distracting--for example, no need for such extreme corner wear on all the Imperial Cabinets.

[Exhibitman]

Originally Posted by sirraffles

I understand but I'd guess that you've never actually held one of our cards in you hands. Maybe you'd be surprised. I'd humbly suggest that a great part of the reason we've had success is because collectors do feel that we provide that spark.

My pet peeve with these cards is that whoever is selling them keeps listing them in the wrong categories on eBay. I am sick of wading through hundreds of BS listings that don't match the category in which I am interested. Some moron keeps listing hundreds of these 'fantasy' or 'Broder' or 'unlicensed' or whatever baseball cards in the boxing category. It has become such a PITA that I have started reporting them to eBay (for all the good that will do).

[JustinD]

Originally Posted by sirraffles

I'd agree that Helmar cards cannot be considered "knock-offs" any more than Topps Heritage cards. Personally, I don't care for the "fantasy" label. I've never heard that term used in conversations about any other series that includes retired players. If Helmar cards are "fantasy", then other examples of "fantasy" cards would include the Goudey Lajoie, Connie Mack All-Stars, 1961 Fleer (not my favorite set), etc. Like you, I do prefer cards made during the time that the athlete is active.

...

[sirraffles]

Nice looking kid.

[sirraffles]

Originally Posted by Exhibitman

My pet peeve with these cards is that whoever is selling them keeps listing them in the wrong categories on eBay. I am sick of wading through hundreds of BS listings that don't match the category in which I am interested. Some moron keeps listing hundreds of these 'fantasy' or 'Broder' or 'unlicensed' or whatever baseball cards in the boxing category. It has become such a PITA that I have started reporting them to eBay (for all the good that will do).

Not us, my friend. Not sure who you are referring to.

[sirraffles]

Originally Posted by GregMitch34

I agree with Jeff on that. No reason for severe aging on all cards, should be variety, and sometimes too much aging is distracting--for example, no need for such extreme corner wear on all the Imperial Cabinets.

We probably could use a little more variety in the distressing. More nicks and cuts, etc. Variety in toning, though we've been changing that up. I'll address more variety as we go forward.

Yes, too much aging can be distracting. But that thought goes against variety in aging. I like having some really beat up, even if they bring me less money.

[bn2cardz]

Originally Posted by sirraffles

I'd agree that Helmar cards cannot be considered "knock-offs" any more than Topps Heritage cards. Personally, I don't care for the "fantasy" label. I've never heard that term used in conversations about any other series that includes retired players. If Helmar cards are "fantasy", then other examples of "fantasy" cards would include the Goudey Lajoie, Connie Mack All-Stars, 1961 Fleer (not my favorite set), etc. Like you, I do prefer cards made during the time that the athlete is active.

I did say "more like fantasy pieces", as far as if they actually are is more a question of semantics.

As far as the cards you included in your comparison like the Connie Mack All-Stars and the 1961 Fleer set, those are tribute sets. The Connie Mack cards specifically state "All-Time All Star", thus making them a tribute to what were considered all the best players to that point. There was nothing about those sets to make them appear to be older or from an era they weren't from. Talking about the players in past tense and giving a history of their playing time. The 1934 "1933" Lajoie is a single card that was distributed 1 year later by the same manufacturer to fill a hole in the set.

"Fantasy Piece" as I define it are "what if" cards, either licensed or not. For me it is about making a card look like the original with era appropriate players that for whatever reason weren't used on the card. The cards you make resemble (down to the distressing) older sets and as you have stated in your own thread in search of a copy writer "We use language consistent with the period (phrases, idioms, etc.). Rereading a few of the period backs from the relevant series should get you in the mood." This is all indicative of what I would categorize as a "fantasy piece".

There is nothing wrong with this being labeled "fantasy pieces". As people said they wish that certain players, especially those from the Negro Leagues, would have been included in these sets. The label isn't going to dictate my interest in your cards.

[sirraffles]

Originally Posted by bn2cardz

I did say "more like fantasy pieces", as far as if they actually are is more a question of semantics.

As far as the cards you included in your comparison like the Connie Mack All-Stars and the 1961 Fleer set, those are tribute sets. The Connie Mack cards specifically state "All-Time All Star", thus making them a tribute to what were considered all the best players to that point. There was nothing about those sets to make them appear to be older or from an era they weren't from. Talking about the players in past tense and giving a history of their playing time. The 1934 "1933" Lajoie is a single card that was distributed 1 year later by the same manufacturer to fill a hole in the set.

"Fantasy Piece" as I define it are "what if" cards, either licensed or not. For me it is about making a card look like the original with era appropriate players that for whatever reason weren't used on the card. The cards you make resemble (down to the distressing) older sets and as you have stated in your own thread in search of a copy writer "We use language consistent with the period (phrases, idioms, etc.). Rereading a few of the period backs from the relevant series should get you in the mood." This is all indicative of what I would categorize as a "fantasy piece".

There is nothing wrong with this being labeled "fantasy pieces". As people said they wish that certain players, especially those from the Negro Leagues, would have been included in these sets. The label isn't going to dictate my interest in your cards.

I'm not outraged at the term "fantasy", I just don't think that it fits well for what we are doing. The term "tribute" is nicer and closer to our intentions. I like that.

True, the cards mentioned were not distressed but you are moving the goalpost. I was replying to a post about players appearing in sets after they had retired, and whether those cards would also be considered "fantasies". No big deal.

[bn2cardz]

Originally Posted by sirraffles

I'm not outraged at the term "fantasy", I just don't think that it fits well for what we are doing. The term "tribute" is nicer and closer to our intentions. I like that.

True, the cards mentioned were not distressed but you are moving the goalpost. I was replying to a post about players appearing in sets after they had retired, and whether those cards would also be considered "fantasies". No big deal.

I am not moving the "goal posts" that to me defines part of the fantasy. They weren't really distressed in everyday use so even that plays into why I would term them as fantasy pieces. I would like to emphasize, this isn't me stating they are worth less or using the term to degrade the pieces, but rather where my thinking comes from when I term them as such. I would consider some of the pieces Topps has released in conjunction with their topps206 and topps205 sets a fantasy piece as well. I am a relative nobody in this hobby so the way I term them, at the end of the day, only matters to me.

[Exhibitman]

Originally Posted by sirraffles

Not us, my friend. Not sure who you are referring to.

Some cockroach who posts under the name "oak-vault". He posts these stupid cards with pennies in them, fake zeenuts, and lately a ton of Helmar stamp cards (so forgive the confusion).



it appears that my complaints are working as most of the junk has been removed from the category.

As for these tribute cards or whatever, I buy them from time to time, primarily when they depict a boxer not on other cards at the time



and I've bid on some of the fantasy cards of the sort under discussion here, so I have no inherent bias against them, just a dislike for wasting my time on them when they are misclassified.

[Leon]

+1 It would be nice if ebay cracked down on the true junk.

Originally Posted by Exhibitman

Some cockroach who posts under the name "oak-vault". He posts these stupid cards with pennies in them, fake zeenuts, and lately a ton of Helmar stamp cards (so forgive the confusion).



it appears that my complaints are working as most of the junk has been removed from the category.

As for these tribute cards or whatever, I buy them from time to time, primarily when they depict a boxer not on other cards at the time



and I've bid on some of the fantasy cards of the sort under discussion here, so I have no inherent bias against them, just a dislike for wasting my time on them when they are misclassified.

[sirraffles]

Originally Posted by Leon

+1 It would be nice if ebay cracked down on the true junk.

Not everyone shares the same eye. Probably better to tailor searches to taste.

[Leon]

I agree, we all have a different eye for different things. No argument there. But, Eye or not it would be nice to have an "originals only" category for those of us that would prefer it.

Originally Posted by sirraffles

Not everyone shares the same eye. Probably better to tailor searches to taste.

[ty_cobb]

Im usually an 'originals only collector , but I've seen the Helmar cards with some different art, and I can see the two perspectives of the debate. I consider the cards more of an 'art piece' than a card, but thats just me. I do have a a Helmar Gandil and he resides by an original W series Jackson in my display

[Exhibitman]

Not searches. Categories. At least put them into the right sports.

[GregMitch34]

Just to keep this going, here's my latest Helmar--Babe hurling for Providence. And I have a few other new ones. But: I also bought a pricy Ruth strip card this week, and won a (real) 1912 Giants postcard at auction. So this collecting CAN co-exist!

http://www.net54baseball.com/attachm...1&d=1497734360

[luciobar1980]

That’s sweet.

Originally Posted by GregMitch34

Just to keep this going, here's my latest Helmar--Babe hurling for Providence. And I have a few other new ones. But: I also bought a pricy Ruth strip card this week, and won a (real) 1912 Giants postcard at auction. So this collecting CAN co-exist!

http://www.net54baseball.com/attachm...1&d=1497734360