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

[familytoad]

While I haven't acquired any of these gems (yet), I think these Banty Red cards are simply terrific. An outstanding aesthetic product!!

[Tripredacus]

TCMA released a 1942 Play Ball set in 1983.
https://www.tcdb.com/ViewSet.cfm/sid...1942-Play-Ball

[Phil68]

Originally Posted by Tripredacus

TCMA released a 1942 Play Ball set in 1983.
https://www.tcdb.com/ViewSet.cfm/sid...1942-Play-Ball

Those are...interesting. No. Ours is different. It's all original--a 54-card set...here's a scatter of the cards...
I tried like 10 times to upload a 3-card panel and it simply wouldn't work.
This forum is great, but glitches when sharing pictures is definitely a shortcoming.

[Phil68]

Here is a sample of front and back of a card..I use the EXACT same method of posting both images...one comes up fine. The York card comes up like a postage stamp no matter what I do

[rhettyeakley]

Not to be a buzzkill or anything but do you have permission to use the images of players like Ted Williams and Joe DiMaggio? The estates of many of the players in your "set" would be a bit upset at your use of their images if you didn't have permission to do so.

Also there is thought that Gum Inc actually did produce cards into 1942 and that is why some 1941 Play Ball cards can be found with and without 1941 copyrights on the first series cards, and potentially making the second series cards a 1942 production.

[Orioles1954]

I think these are pretty cool cards. Definitely not something I would buy but I do like the aesthetic. Are there licensing/likeness issues?

[Phil68]

Originally Posted by Orioles1954

I think these are pretty cool cards. Definitely not something I would buy but I do like the aesthetic. Are there licensing/likeness issues?

Hello!
Yes, there are some issues. Nothing money doesn't solve. Luckily, I own thousands of pre-1960s negatives as I am an avid collector for the past 30 years. Hundreds of original Conlon large formats as well--my favorites.
In addition, I use public domain images and many are out of copyright to begin with. I license roughly 6k worth of images each year to use in various projects. That's what eats up all my sales revenue. Of course, I get to keep my cards!
In the end, I have only one guy that doesn't want to be in any sets that have the "Tobacco & Ale" moniker. He suffered from the use of tobacco and I certainly respect that position. The coolest thing is the commissioned work the families request. 1-3 requests a month and it's great to build those relationships with family members. Typically grandsons.
Keep in mind...the populations of my cards--to date--have never reached 9 of any one card. The average population is just under 3. They sell for a few bucks--occasionally more--but it's not a mass-produced retail product.
People may view them differently if they were.

Another thing to note is, they're hand made and, with the exception of the '42s, our only b/w set, the images are hand-painted and there are few laws governing custom artwork. They are mounted to substrates from the approximate decade they represent--which I love. I think I'm the only guy that matters to, Lol.

I'm glad you like them. If you'd like to know more, just drop me a line.

[topcat61]

Originally Posted by rhettyeakley

Not to be a buzzkill or anything but do you have permission to use the images of players like Ted Williams and Joe DiMaggio? The estates of many of the players in your "set" would be a bit upset at your use of their images if you didn't have permission to do so.

Also there is thought that Gum Inc actually did produce cards into 1942 and that is why some 1941 Play Ball cards can be found with and without 1941 copyrights on the first series cards, and potentially making the second series cards a 1942 production.

It depends on what state he's in. For instance, I live in Massachusetts where the right of publicity is murky at best. Some states it is clearly defined and others there are no rights of publicity after the person has died.

Anyway, I like the idea that this could invoke younger generations to get interested in Baseball and collect cards. I wouldve loved to have seen what Gum, Inc had in the works for other sports stars in Football, Golf, Boxing and Tennis, especially if they were sticking to their 1941 models. I always wondered if they had some mock-ups stashed away at the printer or George Moll's Ad Agency or something? This is pretty neat.

[Phil68]

Originally Posted by topcat61

It depends on what state he's in. For instance, I live in Massachusetts where the right of publicity is murky at best. Some states it is clearly defined and others there are no rights of publicity after the person has died.

Anyway, I like the idea that this could invoke younger generations to get interested in Baseball and collect cards. I wouldve loved to have seen what Gum, Inc had in the works for other sports stars in Football, Golf, Boxing and Tennis, especially if they were sticking to their 1941 models. I always wondered if they had some mock-ups stashed away at the printer or George Moll's Ad Agency or something? This is pretty neat.

You are well informed.
You also "get" the idea here. Imagination and fantasy are huge components that draw us to collecting, in general. I am actually hoping there are some other guys here that have some sets or singles that they have made with ORIGINAL designs with a year assigned.
That's what I wanted to draw out in the thread.

[Phil68]

Originally Posted by familytoad

While I haven't acquired any of these gems (yet), I think these Banty Red cards are simply terrific. An outstanding aesthetic product!!

You are so kind! Thank you!