Helmar Discussion and Debate Here

[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 Recently I think we've been doing some good work (images of unpublished work attached).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.

[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

[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]

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.

[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).

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.