Does anybody enjoy the...

[brian1961]

Originally Posted by Phil68

Hi Brian. Can you post a pic of the Mantle? If it's here, I'm missing it. I love '62s...the photos are not the best, as you mentioned.
Phil

As embarassing as it sounds, I honestly do not know how to post a picture. However, I found it on eBay, and here's the listing title:

"1962 Style Mickey Mantle New York Yankees HOF Novelty Custom Art Card"

Valiantmann charges $7.99 for the card, plus $3.89 shipping. While the shipping charge is excessive, the card much, much, much more than makes up for the entire cost to you. If you're adroit at posting photos, would you please kindly do the honors in posting his listing photo for us, to reinforce what I've been expressing about this fantasy card?

He simply uses the backside of the regular Topps card for his own creation. Stunning, and I must say essentially perfect.

Have a peaceful day, friend, and happy collecting! -- Brian Powell

[bnorth]

Originally Posted by brian1961

As embarassing as it sounds, I honestly do not know how to post a picture. However, I found it on eBay, and here's the listing title:

"1962 Style Mickey Mantle New York Yankees HOF Novelty Custom Art Card"

Valiantmann charges $7.99 for the card, plus $3.89 shipping. While the shipping charge is excessive, the card much, much, much more than makes up for the entire cost to you. If you're adroit at posting photos, would you please kindly do the honors in posting his listing photo for us, to reinforce what I've been expressing about this fantasy card?

He simply uses the backside of the regular Topps card for his own creation. Stunning, and I must say essentially perfect.

Have a peaceful day, friend, and happy collecting! -- Brian Powell

Here is a picture of both versions listed. I am also a big fan of custom cards.

[ALBB]

Eeh... cool to look at..would never buy one,or add to a set to say " there !, I have the 52T Musial "

[brian1961]

Originally Posted by bnorth

Here is a picture of both versions listed. I am also a big fan of custom cards.

A long overdue thanks to Ben North for coming to my rescue in posting scans of the fantasy 1962 Topps Mickey Mantle I spoke so highly of.

The specific photo I was referring to is the scan on the right side of the screen. It's a special image to me, personally. You see, when the awful day came in August 1995 that Mickey died and went to be with the Lord, the USAToday chose this same image to bring the news of his death. I still remember seeing the picture, and thinking to myself, boy, would that shot have made a nice baseball card of Mickey. I even bought the issue just to get that picture! As I had written before, I believe the caption with the photo stated it was taken in the summer of 1960, when Mickey was very healthy and still looked young. This image would have been most apropos for a 1962 Topps baseball card of The Mighty Mick, in a distinctive horizontal format.

If you've patiently read my recollection, thanks for bearing with me.

To be sure, fantasy cards mean something to me. In conjunction with my book, NEVER CHEAPER BY THE DOZEN, and with the help of an artist and a computer graphic artist, I lovingly made two versions each of fantasy 1954 Wilson Franks Mickey Mantle and Jackie Robinson cards. That was a lot of fun, though expensive! A quartet of breathtaking dream come trues, though! Having a pretty good imagination, as well as knowledge of regional-collecting as it was, I play it out in my mind as a 10-year-old successfully begging his dear Mom to buy a pair of Wilson Franks packs, though the family brand was Oscar Meyer. Later that evening, I assisted her in the preparation of the franks, for the first time in my life! Opening the packages, the first "free prize" was Jackie Robinson. Jack looked terrific, as he's shown stealing home in a marvelous horizontal pose. The actual photo I chose to do the card was the moment Jack actually stole home against the Cubs in '52. Cub pitcher Willard Ramsdell nearly blew a fuse at his catcher when he missed Jackie by a whisker! With a nice light blue background, the card is perfect to me. Then, the second card. With apprehension, but tingling excitement, I slowly find the second "free prize". Wow---Mickey Mantle!!! I've always liked purple, even as a little kid. I found this evocative shade of red-violet that matched some I'd seen in mid 50s advertising. Fifteen years prior, I had sourced a profoundly beautiful action shot of Mickey about to slug the ball during a Yanks' home game. The time period of the game was close enough to work for a '54 Wilson Franks, since Mantle looked very young, and he was still batting with his regular cloth baseball cap on. You can see the dirt spray up on Mick's lead foot as he's about to swing. The wonderful NY on his uniform stands out beautifully. The complete package is ..... perfect! All in all, to get Jackie Robinson and Mickey Mantle Wilson Franks cards in a matter of minutes would put this baseball card-lovin' kid on a Cardboard Cloud 9, as I described it in my book, for a couple of weeks!

Though I could not market the cards legally, I went through the laborious process of having a few made for me, period. It was a great experience and very fulfilling, and made for an appropriate last chapter of my book, as I concentrated on Wilson Franks and focused on Jackie Robinson, particularly his 1947-49 Bond Bread cards. Oh yes, at the end of that chapter, you will find a a beautiful color page with all four of the fantasy Wilsons I made, arranged around a large color photo of the Wilson Franks package, just as it appears on their great cards.

Have a swell day, guys, as well as the ladies who frequent Net54.

--- Brian Powell

[maniac_73]

I'm not a big fan of them personally but I understand why others would enjoy them. Only because to me, a card represents a period in time. I look at it as a historical piece and not just an art piece. I imagine someone pulling it from a pack at the time and what was happening in baseball in the world. Kind of a mini timecapsule. That gets lost for me in reprints and cards that never were.

[Exhibitman]

Panini just filed a big copyright infringement case against some of the makers and sellers who used the Donruss "Rated Rookie" and other design elements.

[Gary Dunaier]

Originally Posted by maniac_73

I'm not a big fan of them personally but I understand why others would enjoy them. Only because to me, a card represents a period in time. I look at it as a historical piece and not just an art piece.

Exactly. It's an actual genuine real artifact from a time when someone who's now a household name was still an unknown, unproven player... someone you could approach for an autograph and not only would he be thrilled to give you one, but if he wasn't pressed for time he'd be happy to spend a few minutes with you to talk baseball or otherwise just hang and talk about whatever.

Originally Posted by maniac_73

That gets lost for me in reprints

Not for me... although I agree that it's not the same as holding the real thing.

Originally Posted by maniac_73

That gets lost for me in . . . cards that never were.

True. I'm thinking of the "1952" Joe DiMaggio card that Topps made a while back. Even if Topps made an official statement to the effect of 'this is the card we would have made, if we had issued a DiMaggio card that year,' it's not the same because the photo and the writeup were done with x-number of years of hindsight of how big a legend he became.

Perhaps if Topps had intended to produce a DiMaggio card in '52, and such a card had made it all the way to the proof stage before Topps decided to pull the plug, and those proofs were reprinted and sold for the first time in the '80s or later, that would be a different thing... but in general, I agree with you.

[brian1961]

I am well aware 95% (give or take a few) of all collectors loathe reprints and fantasy cards. It's as if they feel it's their sworn duty to abhor them, turn their face away from them, and never waste so much as a dollar on them.

As one who has always had an appreciation for reprints, ever since responding to an ad Mike Aronstein placed in THE SPORTING NEWS in 1972 for a complete set of 1933 DeLong baseball cards for the "princely sum" of around $5, plus a fair s&h fee, I was delighted when I got his small package in the mail. The 24 cards were magnificent in color and reproduction, printed on a quality thin cardboard stock, in time I discovered Mike's cardstock was a strong improvement over the original. The cards' gloss was a telltale sign they were simply reprints. I don't remember if Mike printed a disclaimer on the backsides, but I was at the huge Midwest Convention in July 1972, and nobody squawked about their quality. I was really into the 30s at the time, and as a widow's son, could never afford a genuine card. In reality, I had never heard of DeLongs until the previous year, when I had read Lionel Carter's feature of the set in THE SPORT HOBBYIST.

Please understand. I fully agree with you that reprints or fantasies are not the same, in the hand, as the real McCoy. It's not a historical relic. They will not increase in value, for the most part.

On the other hand, they most assuredly are an art piece that very much represents the point in time of the original. I shan't waste time explaining why I love the Card Collectors Company reprint of the 1960 Home Run Derby cards, but I declare they are so close to the originals, and are marked as such to prevent almost any idiot from purchasing them as originals.

I have an even softer spot for fantasy cards. There are all sorts of reasons why players were not selected for inclusion in a favorite set of ours, or a set that never was but in our minds "should have been done". Purchasing some of these fantasy cards has given me some genuine hobby joy. Creating and producing a few fantasy cards for my own enjoyment has been fulfilling. I mean--- very nice representations of 1954 Wilson Franks Mickey Mantle and Jackie Robinson. I love them and place them with original period baseball cards I have. The late Bob Lemke produced a few fantasies that I treasure. I suppose they might appreciate in value, but I appreciate them too much to sell them. I simply bought them from Bob because I liked his work---1955 Topps All-Americans of Broncho Nagurski and Jackie Robinson, his Red Man Chewing Tobacco Mantle, his 1963 JELL-O box with a variant photo of Mickey Mantle. I must emphasize--- when the creator selects photos with good taste, and are appropriate for the given fantasy card, it makes for a commendable work of art. I love some of them; they look terrific. I get a kick out of them for what they are, not for what they are not---the real thing.

You must also understand I have a decent remnant collection of "the real thing". I most assuredly have some nice pieces in my collection. I could do the top ten against your top ten thing, and perhaps send you away with your tail draggin' the ground, or me becoming maroon-faced with embarrassment, but that wouldn't really prove anything, would it? Some of you guys "get it" that some of us like a good reprint or fantasy. I thank you for at least trying to understand.

Back in the day when reprints were first introduced to the hobby, several big names were outraged and very vocal about their feelings. I never recalled reading why they were so vehement about reprints. Perhaps those collectors who'd worked so hard, and/or spent so much to build up their collections felt very threatened by the reprints. Perhaps they were worried an abundance of reprints in the hands of collectors would cheapen their holdings, causing their collections not to vault in value the way they demanded they do. Or, maybe it was simply they liked the idea of having great cards few others could possibly own, and enjoyed bragging about them and lording over their fellow collectors who were severely challenged to acquire anything worth a havin'. For many years I was on the outside looking in, and I know how excluded it felt.

I'm honestly not trying to convince you to collect reprints or fantasy cards. I felt I must articulate some of my feelings about them, and to say they're not just worthless junk. To you, they are. That's fine. My mature and refined imagination find some, repeat some, of them endearing.(Insert a smiling wink and roll of the eyes--HA!)

I sincerely wish all of you happy collecting, whatever that may be. I know it's not postwar regional / food issues, 'cause only 35 of you bought my book, with a few dozen more purchasing the Amazon digital version.

--- Brian Powell

[bnorth]

Originally Posted by brian1961

I am well aware 95% (give or take a few) of all collectors loathe reprints and fantasy cards. It's as if they feel it's their sworn duty to abhor them, turn their face away from them, and never waste so much as a dollar on them.

As one who has always had an appreciation for them, ever since responding to an ad Mike Aronstein placed in THE SPORTING NEWS in 1972 for a complete set of 1933 DeLong baseball cards for the "princely sum" of around $5, plus a fair s&h fee, I was delighted when I got his small package in the mail. The 24 cards were magnificent in color and reproduction, printed on a quality thin cardboard stock that resembled the original. The gloss on the cards was a telltale sign they were simply reprints. I don't even remember if Mike printed a disclaimer on their backsides. I was really into the 30s at the time, and as a widow's son, could never afford a genuine card. In reality, I had never heard of DeLongs until the previous year, when I had read Lionel Carter's feature of the set in THE SPORT HOBBYIST.

Please understand. I fully agree with you that reprints or fantasies are not the same, in the hand, as the real McCoy. It's not a historical relic. They will not appreciate in value, for the most part.

On the other hand, they most assuredly are an art piece that very much represents the point in time of an original. The photos used are often selected in good taste, and would be appropriate for the given fantasy card. I'm not going to waste time explaining why I love the reprint set Card Collectors Company did of the 1960 Home Run Derby cards, but I declare they are so close to the originals, and are marked as such to prevent almost any idiot from purchasing them as originals.

I have an even softer spot for fantasy cards. There are all sorts of reasons why players were not selected for inclusion in a favorite set of ours, or a set that never was that in our minds "should have been done". Purchasing some of these fantasy cards has given me some genuine hobby joy. Creating and producing a few fantasy cards for my own enjoyment has been fulfilling. I mean--- very nice representations of 1954 Wilson Franks Mickey Mantle and Jackie Robinson. I love them and place them with original period baseball cards I have. The late Bob Lemke produced a few fantasies that I treasure. I suppose they might appreciate in value, but I appreciate them too much to sell them. I simply bought them from Bob because I liked his work---1955 Topps All-Americans of Broncho Nagurski and Jackie Robinson, his Red Man Chewing Tobacco Mantle, his 1963 JELL-O box with a variant photo of Mickey Mantle. I love them all; they look terrific. I get a kick out of them for what they are, and not for what they are not---the real thing.

You must also understand I have a decent remnant collection of "the real thing". I most assuredly have some nice pieces in my collection. I could do the top ten against your top ten thing, and perhaps send you away with your tail draggin' the ground, or me becoming maroon-faced with embarrassment, but that wouldn't really prove anything, would it? Some of you guys "get it" that some of us like a good reprint or fantasy. I thank you for at least trying to understand.

Back in the day when reprints were first introduced to the hobby, several big names were outraged and very vocal about their feelings. I never recalled reading why they were so vehement about reprints. Perhaps those collectors who'd worked so hard, and/or spent so much to build up their collections felt very threatened by the reprints. Perhaps they were worried that an abundance of reprints in the hands of collectors would cheapen their holdings, causing their collections not to vault in value the way they demanded that they do. Or, maybe it was as simple as they liked the idea of having great cards few others could possibly own, and enjoyed bragging about them and lording over their fellow collectors who were severely challenged to acquire anything worth a havin'. For many years I was on the outside looking in, and I know how excluded it felt.

I'm honestly not trying to convince you to collect reprints or fantasy cards. I suppose I felt I must articulate some of my feelings about them, and to say they're not just worthless junk. To you, they are. That's fine. My mature and refined imagination find some, repeat some, of them endearing.

I sincerely wish all of you happy collecting, whatever that may be. I know it's not postwar regionals, 'cause only 35 of you bought my book, with a few dozen more purchasing the Amazon digital version.

--- Brian Powell

Great post Brian.

I don't collect postwar regionals but am one of those 35 because I love learning about the hobby. It's a great "book" that I highly recommend purchasing.

Mr Lemke was a great man. Unlike most custom card makers was kind enough to help me when I started making custom cards for my collection.

[mrmopar]

I doesn't get much easier than this site. Click on the paperclip when you are drafting a message and it opens an image manager. You browse for the pic you want and attach it. Voila!

Originally Posted by brian1961

As embarassing as it sounds, I honestly do not know how to post a picture. However, I found it on eBay, and here's the listing title:

"1962 Style Mickey Mantle New York Yankees HOF Novelty Custom Art Card"

Valiantmann charges $7.99 for the card, plus $3.89 shipping. While the shipping charge is excessive, the card much, much, much more than makes up for the entire cost to you. If you're adroit at posting photos, would you please kindly do the honors in posting his listing photo for us, to reinforce what I've been expressing about this fantasy card?

He simply uses the backside of the regular Topps card for his own creation. Stunning, and I must say essentially perfect.

Have a peaceful day, friend, and happy collecting! -- Brian Powell

[Bigdaddy]

I really like some of the customs, though they do have to have certain attributes for me:

• The photo needs to be from the sam time period as the card
• The cardstock needs to be of type
• The back of the card needs to be similar to cards of that series

You have to admit, some of the photo choices of Topps, and even some of the prewar cards, is quite poor. If someone can do a better job and produce a better card, then more power to them.

[HRBAKER]

I buy a few now and again to use for autographs.

[GasHouseGang]

Have you ever gotten a surprised reaction from one of the stars signing an autograph on a card they've never seen?

[bnorth]

Originally Posted by GasHouseGang

Have you ever gotten a surprised reaction from one of the stars signing an autograph on a card they've never seen?

Yes I have.

I had the SGA card from when Tony Oliva was put in the Twins HOF. I had him sign it a few years ago. When he seen it he got a big smile and asked me where I got it. I told him I was there for the event. His smile got even bigger. A great man he is, he is the only person I have ever stood in line to get a autograph from.

[Gary Dunaier]

Originally Posted by Bigdaddy

The photo needs to be from the same time period as the card

Topps didn't always stick to that rule.

Extreme example: the 1969 Chris Cannizzaro, which uses a photo taken at the Polo Grounds, which meant at the time the card was issued the image was at least six years old.