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

[rats60]

Originally Posted by sirraffles

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.

[sirraffles]

Originally Posted by rats60

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

[RedsFan1941]

Bye. God bless.

[bigfanNY]

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.

[oldjudge]

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.