More crap - Ebay seller vintage reprints

[Kawika]

Originally Posted by 53Browns

Don't get me wrong. I think Helmar pieces look awesome. The reason I think they are bad for the hobby is that somewhere along the line some poor sap is going to pay big $ for one, thinking or being led to think, that it is a period piece.

I knew what I was getting into. As for the poor saps, it probably would be better if Mr. Mandel put a copyright date on the back of the card.

[Leon]

Originally Posted by Kawika

I knew what I was getting into. As for the poor saps, it probably would be better if Mr. Mandel put a copyright date on the back of the card.

We would then get to see a telltale sign (erasure) where the copyright date had been removed .

[hunterdutchess]

Originally Posted by Leon

We would then get to see a telltale sign (erasure) where the copyright date had been removed .

Most of the Helmar cards I see do not have a year on them: http://cgi.ebay.com/R319-Helmar-BIG-...ht_1153wt_1131

There is no way that every Helmar card being sold is not being bidded on by someone who thinks that it is a prewar printed item. I also like them and envy the skills the creator has but I feel that ageing them to look like they are old is misleading. You have to ask yourself if they sold them in mint condition and put 2011 on the back would they reach the dollar amounts that they are selling for? I say no.

[novakjr]

I wish everyone would quit calling these reprints. They are not reprints. Reprint would require them to be "RE"-printed by the original company or whoever owns the rights or is authorized to do so. These are flat out counterfeit. Nothing more, nothing less. Every one of these should be removed from ebay because they are NOT authorized reprints. Buying these, only fuels these a**holes to keep making 'em..

[hunterdutchess]

Originally Posted by novakjr

I wish everyone would quit calling these reprints. They are not reprints. Reprint would require them to be "RE"-printed by the original company or whoever owns the rights or is authorized to do so. These are flat out counterfeit. Nothing more, nothing less. Every one of these should be removed from ebay because they are NOT authorized reprints. Buying these, only fuels these a**holes to keep making 'em..

Well at least these guy's are honest: http://sports-cards.shop.ebay.com/i.....c0.m270.l1313

[collectbaseball]

Originally Posted by novakjr

I wish everyone would quit calling these reprints. They are not reprints. Reprint would require them to be "RE"-printed by the original company or whoever owns the rights or is authorized to do so.

I think the images on the cards/the design are in the public domain now (anything pre-1923, anyway). But I think someone making reprints would need to have a license from the MLB to incorporate team names/logos, and possibly permission from players' estates.

[teetwoohsix]

Originally Posted by collectbaseball

I think the images on the cards/the design are in the public domain now (anything pre-1923, anyway). But I think someone making reprints would need to have a license from the MLB to incorporate team names/logos, and possibly permission from players' estates.

Maybe that's the case with this card, although it says "reprint" at the bottom of the card, there's no indication of who made it or where it was made. Would this be considered a fake reprint, or an authorized reprint?

[PolarBear]

Some of that Helmar stuff is awesome.

[BCauley]

So, thejudyshore sells this one to rcinvestmentsinc, leaving feedback for the buyer on April 22nd.

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll...253D&viewitem=

Now, this one looks very similar (please correct me if I'm wrong, they look to be the same). This one is for sale by one feedback person balooandbogey who happens to be in the same town as the person who sold the above auction thejudyshore. However, they still state that it is a reprint. Unless they are just trying to build feedback for whatever reason, I don't get it.

http://cgi.ebay.com/1933-Goudey-Babe...item20b8e702cf