Helmar Discussion and Debate Here

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.