Quote:
Originally Posted by bnorth
Some of us like silly cheap reprints.  I applaud retro_girl82 for selling/listing them for exactly what they are. For me the bad part is people that sell them as authentic.
|
That's a grey area to me. Sure, this seller is being transparent, but that doesn't keep her from being a part of the problem. She's just the first rung in the ladder. "It's not up to me what other people do with these items!" never played well with me.
I'm sure someone's follow-up will be, "How do you feel about reprint cards if that's the case?", and you'd have me painted into a corner because at their most innocent points as pure,
properly marked reprints, I think they're great for anyone to be able to afford a set of cards which may otherwise be unattainable. The obvious response would be that it's the exact same situation with reprint autographs. While that can't be denied, it doesn't mean I have to feel the same way about it as I do reprint cards. As someone who has long been primarily involved with autographs, reprint autographs naturally bother me more than cards. It doesn't make my feelings right or wrong; that's just how they are. Furthermore, how often does anyone see a properly labeled reprint autograph? Practically never. And this very case at hand proves that anybody at any level just may be fooled, even by something as comedic and contrived as these particular envelopes.
I suppose my absolute bottom line is that all reproductions should be properly and rather boldly marked in multiple areas that may not be the most aesthetically pleasing, but geared toward the best effort for deterring removal. While that will never stop, at least make it more difficult for the criminals. In the case of these envelopes, have a few small "REPRINT" marks printed diagonally across the signatures and in a few places on the envelope. It might not look pretty, but I'd rest easier.