Helmar Boston Garter Cobb and others...

[sirraffles]

Thank you for all the input and thanks, Leon, for starting the thread. A few of the things I've read have really astonished me!

As I'm prone to tell anyone that talks to me for more than five minutes, I think that I have the best job in the world. Every day feels like I am eleven years old again, waking up on a late June morning, grabbing my mitt and badgering the first kid walking by my door to play a little catch. I'm pretty sure that even if 0% of the people liked the cards I make, I would still make them. It is very addictive and satisfying to be building a body of modest work. I've made many great friends through this experience and hope, over time, to make more.

I would find it hard to believe that what I do detracts from the hobby in any way. If anything, I believe that it brings a little vibrancy, a little fresh air to our collecting. Just because I make an art card of Eddie Grant, for example, the value or importance of other collections are not threatened or degraded. This is not a zero sum game; when I make a new card it does not mean that other cards are somehow less desirable. That is my opinion, at least.

A question has occurred to me a few times over the past couple of years: if there was some fellow, like me, who had been making cards like this back in the 1940's, for example, what would modern collectors think of them? I tend to think that they would be valued, perhaps quite highly. Well, the only difference between me and that hypothetical 1940's creator is a few decades. While I may be able to artificially age my creations, I can't make them genuinely old. Nature, however, will eventually take care of even that.

At the beginning of this post I mentioned that I was genuinely astonished at some of the comments. What surprised me was the idea that some of my cards should be more mass produced! My impression for the last twenty-five years is that they make too much of everything! Indeed, my idea of making just four cards a year and very publicly auctioning them (while spacing them out, at that) was my attempt at finding a reliable antidote to the problem that people could count on. In any event, I can't imagine doing much in the way of increased production. Certainly, in fact, for any series that I've made thus far. I think that it would disappoint the winning bidders of the "originals".

Thanks again for all your considered opinions, Charles from Helmar Brewing

[teetwoohsix]

I voted that I like them, because I do like the artwork. I like them in the same way that I like some of the TCMA stuff from the 70's (of the 60's ),,,but I have to agree with the others about how much they go for. I wouldn't pay that much for any modern card (but to each their own, and more power to the seller).

The artwork is beautiful, and if these cards attract modern card collectors to the pre war side, that is a definite plus !!!

Sincerely, Clayton

[Kawika]

I like 'em a lot. Have five or six. Best modern tribute cards going in my opinionated opinion. Too expensive? Charles starts the cards out at a few bucks. The marketplace determines the price. It's an expensive hobby in the first place. Manufactured scarcity? Perhaps, but the guy is entitled to make a living by selling limited editions, and at least he's not peddling some hotshot's hyped-up 1 of 1 junk refractor. Some of the artwork resonates with me the same way as old tobacco cards or Goudeys. Shouldn't be in the vintage category? Lots of stuff shouldn't be in vintage - those weird "Zeenuts" and silly wheat penny whatevers, not to mention the absurd BIN's and the regular inventory dumps of cards you've seen a million times. Must Charles "voluntarily deport" himself from vintage, or should eBay just put their house in order? Collect what you like? Okie-dokie.
I hope Charles keeps right on doing what he's doing which is helping the hobby stay vital. Those ersatz Boston Garters are pretty darn nice and about as close to a BG as most of us will ever get. Besides, how can you not love cards like these?

ETA: John Q. Public is my nom du internet. My real name is David McDonald.

[Leon]

A couple more thoughts-

Charles- I certainly understand about not being able to mass produce at this point because you have committed them to being limited. Your first customers would be messed up price-wise if that were to happen. I totally agree. (love the artistic work my friend) Thanks for coming on the board and giving some more details and thoughts. Not everyone would come into the line of fire the way you have. That is commendable.

David McDonald- Well said. I love those cards. They look fabulous.

Most folks will never own the real things but since we are here.....

[CW]

Personally, I like the way the cards are artificially aged. This is not done to deceive, but rather to shift the focus away from getting that "gem mint" card with razor sharp corners. It's puts the focus back on the artwork -- the colors, the poses, the players, the colorful backgrounds -- and presents a card that appears "well loved", so to speak.

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by sirraffles

Thank you for all the input and thanks, Leon, for starting the thread. A few of the things I've read have really astonished me!

As I'm prone to tell anyone that talks to me for more than five minutes, I think that I have the best job in the world. Every day feels like I am eleven years old again, waking up on a late June morning, grabbing my mitt and badgering the first kid walking by my door to play a little catch. I'm pretty sure that even if 0% of the people liked the cards I make, I would still make them. It is very addictive and satisfying to be building a body of modest work. I've made many great friends through this experience and hope, over time, to make more.

I would find it hard to believe that what I do detracts from the hobby in any way. If anything, I believe that it brings a little vibrancy, a little fresh air to our collecting. Just because I make an art card of Eddie Grant, for example, the value or importance of other collections are not threatened or degraded. This is not a zero sum game; when I make a new card it does not mean that other cards are somehow less desirable. That is my opinion, at least.

A question has occurred to me a few times over the past couple of years: if there was some fellow, like me, who had been making cards like this back in the 1940's, for example, what would modern collectors think of them? I tend to think that they would be valued, perhaps quite highly. Well, the only difference between me and that hypothetical 1940's creator is a few decades. While I may be able to artificially age my creations, I can't make them genuinely old. Nature, however, will eventually take care of even that.

At the beginning of this post I mentioned that I was genuinely astonished at some of the comments. What surprised me was the idea that some of my cards should be more mass produced! My impression for the last twenty-five years is that they make too much of everything! Indeed, my idea of making just four cards a year and very publicly auctioning them (while spacing them out, at that) was my attempt at finding a reliable antidote to the problem that people could count on. In any event, I can't imagine doing much in the way of increased production. Certainly, in fact, for any series that I've made thus far. I think that it would disappoint the winning bidders of the "originals".

Thanks again for all your considered opinions, Charles from Helmar Brewing

Charles, it's the nature of the internet to bash everything that you don't personally collect. If you read some of the other threads, you'll find that E97 collectors bash T206 collectors, pre-war memorabilia collectors bash modern game-used collectors, everyone bashes the Cowboys and the Yankees, old established members bash newbies, etc., etc..

Thanks for the explanation - makes perfect sense to keep putting them out slowly, and the baseball artwork is probably the best I've seen anywhere. Still, not paying those prices.

[Chris-Counts]

Charles,

I don't believe your cards detract from the hobby at all. Like Greg's paintings, they represent some of the best baseball art I've ever seen, and they do a remarkable job of recreating in color an era we typically see only in black and white. I'm quite familiar with your images because I very much enjoy looking at them ...

But I don't understand creating such limited prints runs — and with such vague language about the numbers: "No more than just 6 of this card will be made and sold during a 12 month period. Most likely the number will be only 3-4."

As for mass-production, I recall when Helmar cards first came out, they were printed in fairly large numbers and were very affordable. The images were great, but the production was poor. It seemed like cards were made from styrofoam.

Keep in mind, this is a hobby that's been hit card by many scandals (see grading companies, auction houses, fake cards, fake rarities, altered cards, etc.), so collectors — including myself — are bound to be wary of something that was produced yesterday and sells for a pretty penny.

[RCMcKenzie]

ljack.jpg


Charles Sirraffles,

I like the artwork and would be a buyer if the medium were s/n lithograph in mint condition. I am not really a big fan of professionally distressed cards because they remind me of cards like this Lone Jack reprint. When I look at it I almost think I'm looking at a vintage card. I think you've obviously done well as getting 61% of people to approve of something is quite an accomplishment.

[Paul S]

del...(bad idea)

[insidethewrapper]

I could see many people buying these with the intent of reselling to novice collectors as vintage items. Why would they be listed on ebay in any catagory but modern ? That is also deceiving the public listing them in "pre-WWII" listings. I don't think they should be printed, that's my vote.

[Peter_Spaeth]

To me, a reprint by any other name is still a reprint, and manufactured scarcity doesn't do much for me either. But if people like them, that's great, everyone's mileage varies.