What If Bowman issued a '42 Play Ball Set...Sets that never were

[rhettyeakley]

Apparently Phil didn't like my question which I felt was a valid one.

His response to me...


First, you are, indeed a buzzkill...and a rather confrontational one. A simple "hey, that's neat...looks like a shit-ton of work" or just move on. BUT, since you asked, I pay thousands of dollars to license images, use public domain images and, also own thousands of pre 1960 images--including nearly 700 original Conlons. I am a vintage negative collector. You putting "set" in quotes speaks volumes of your level of tolerance for anything you cannot comprehend.

How about "Hey, Phil, how do you handle the licensing on these? How does that work?" in a private message--or even in the thread?
You didn't ask that, because you aren't actually interested in the information or response--only to be a "buzzkill".

Frankly, many estates absolutely love the cards and have them in their possession. There is one fellow that I will not include in any sets as he requested it due to the "tobacco and ale" moniker. I respected that. As far as estates having any say on an image I license and don't retail, not much to talk about there.

The second remark about Play Ball actually doing a '42 set is interesting and more on point. I'm sure he thought about it...he probably thought about a lot of things. At the end of the day--he didn't do a '42.



I am actually not very confrontational on this board and help out other collectors & board members whenever I have a chance and simply asked a question about the use of the images of those players who have estates that protect the images of the players. I know Topps for example has exclusive rights with certain long retired (and deceased) players to produce cards of them.