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

[rats60]

Originally Posted by sirraffles

Your post is a long one. The original poster that complained about licensing collects 19th century photo cards. There is no evidence that any of those players received royalties. In fact, I doubt anybody here believes that they did. So that was his complaint and that is obviously problematic for him as he had just defined his own collection as being "Cinderella" cards (which he apparently despises). At this unhappy turn of self-inflicted events he complained that I had twisted his words. A small scuffle.

As for Wagner ... Wagner T206 had nothing in the slightest to do with my argument. However, I'll still mention that the story is just unproven speculation and I would think that many on this board are conflicted as to whether or not it is true. As far as I know, no endorsement contracts have been found for any of the big sets of the era, let alone (almost?) all of the small, regional sets that people like. That should lean us toward believing there was little to no licensing in effect unless otherwise proven. Please correct me if I am uninformed on the existence of card endorsement contracts. Even if they exist, however, it doesn't alter my point that many, perhaps even most, early cards did not bother with endorsements.

Per your point that Goudey, etc., carried copyrights: While I would lean toward the assumption that the Goudey brand paid an endorsement fee I personally do not know this for a fact. It seems unlikely that they paid Lajoie. In any case, a copyright mark was meant to guard against other manufacturers using the art and marks of the producer and had nothing at all do with their agreements (or lack thereof) with the players.

In any event, licensing has historically had nothing to do with defining whether a piece of printed matter is a card or not. To me, it is a silly question but interesting to see how logic gets tortured when arguing whether an object is a "legit card" or not.

Honus Wagner said it was true. What other evidence do you need? Are you saying that he was lying? Why then wasn't Wagner in every tobacco set if his permission wasn't needed? We also have a letter from John Gruber saying that he was given a contract by ATC to have Wagner to sign. Is he lying too? What are their motivations to lie about ATC wanting to pay Wagner to sign a licensing deal?

Why wasn't Ruth in the 34 Goudey set if his permission wasn't needed? Why would Goudey not pay Lajoie and print his his card and not pay Ruth and not print his card on the same 34 Goudey sheet? It makes no sense. Ruth was the biggest name in the game. Every company would have printed cards of him in every set if they weren't paying for player's rights. Common sense says that these companies only made cards of players who they had rights to.

Actually licensing historically has had a lot to do with what is considered a card. Certainly over the last 30 years. I have been at baseball card shows where dealers have been kicked out or told to remove items from their tables because they weren't licensed. You are making the claims that these cards were not licensed, it is up to you to prove your claims or at least present some evidence. You have given none.

[sirraffles]

Originally Posted by rats60

Honus Wagner said it was true. What other evidence do you need? Are you saying that he was lying? Why then wasn't Wagner in every tobacco set if his permission wasn't needed? We also have a letter from John Gruber saying that he was given a contract by ATC to have Wagner to sign. Is he lying too? What are their motivations to lie about ATC wanting to pay Wagner to sign a licensing deal?

Why wasn't Ruth in the 34 Goudey set if his permission wasn't needed? Why would Goudey not pay Lajoie and print his his card and not pay Ruth and not print his card on the same 34 Goudey sheet? It makes no sense. Ruth was the biggest name in the game. Every company would have printed cards of him in every set if they weren't paying for player's rights. Common sense says that these companies only made cards of players who they had rights to.

Actually licensing historically has had a lot to do with what is considered a card. Certainly over the last 30 years. I have been at baseball card shows where dealers have been kicked out or told to remove items from their tables because they weren't licensed. You are making the claims that these cards were not licensed, it is up to you to prove your claims or at least present some evidence. You have given none.

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.

[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.

[bigfanNY]

Charles anybody reading your post can decide for themselves when you say that "Helmar Brewing Ty Cobbs selling for $100 to $300 are in the right range is a lie. As I said a quick search of ebay shows a number of your Ty Cobbs selling for $13 to $15 dollars well below the range you say is fair. I understand you make a living justifying doing things you know are wrong. And clearly you have no remorse or compassion for those hurt by what you do. But when you say something that you know not to be true, What exactly would you want me to call that?
For Clarification I am referring to the small Helmar Cobbs and other 1910 era Hall of Famers on T205 and T206 cards and art stamp etc. that show up in flea markets marked up from the $13 to $25 they sold for and real people get hurt.
And yes when you go so far as to produce sets similar to those issued by Helmar Tobacco Like Leathers and Cabinets and Art Stamps. You make it easy for folks to use your products to defraud others.
To be really specific you have an Ed Delahanty T206 card up for auction on your site. That card has clearly been artificially aged. In fact it is damaged. If it is art why damage it why round corners?
I am not looking for a fight just saying you know WHAT YOU DO HURTS PEOPLE YOU COULD PRINT DATES ETC. TO HELP STOP THAT BUT YOU DON'T. if its art then date it like many artists that sign and date their pices. The only people who would stop buying your stuff are the crooks would that be so bad?

[SetBuilder]

Is there a catalog and price guide for these cards? If not, then they're probably not going to be collected seriously.