Wacky Packages Forum
Wacky Packages Discussion => General Wacky Packages Discussion => Topic started by: cmgmd on June 11, 2012, 10:47:08 AM
-
Check eBay.
Wow. :-[
-
Check eBay.
Wow. :-[
I saw that too. I thought that was very odd...
-
Why would anyone buy these? And how are these considered a tribute to the artists?
The seller seems to have lost it...
-
Why would anyone buy these? And how are these considered a tribute to the artists?
The seller seems to have lost it...
If you define "tribute" as a direct copy of one of the other artists sketches, then yes... a tribute it is. I could see someone possibly lending their own stylistic bend to these characters for the fun or challenge of it, but these are pretty much outright copies to the point you can look at Matt's sketch card and tell which of the OS3 artists' sketch he copied from. :dark1: Does Topps copyright the various characters used on Wacky Packages? I also noticed in the decription it states "Buyer pays fixed shipping fee of $4.90 Priority Mail Shipping" but it shows $6.50 shipping on the main auction body. They must be sealed in silk and shipped overnight dragon delivery. He must have several proud relatives bidding on these pieces.
-
Topps doesn't seem to really care about enforcing copyrights and trademarks with their Wacky Packages. There seems to be a lot of unlicensed Wacky Package material for sale these days. Years ago, I tried to sell most of most live bootleg LPs that I purchased when I was a kid. Ebay pulled them within 1/2 hour after my postings. I think someone from Atlantic Records called Ebay to have my postings pulled. I talked to someone at Ebay to figure out how they know if something is licensed or not. They told me that they do not know so they will pull postings if a representative of the company calls them directly. I guess that it depends on the industry. Am I missing something or did this artist get permission from Topps? I do wish someone who works for Topps would have the unlicensed items pulled.
-
There must be something going on behind the scenes here. Is some sort of message being sent to Topps with the creation of these pieces?
-
This one is already at 15 bucks. I wonder what type of stock he uses.
http://www.ebay.com/itm/Wacky-Packages-OS3-Color-GRIM-Sketch-Card-NO-RESERVE-New-Artist-/221045890479?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item33775c9daf
-
I wonder what type of stock he uses.
why, matte, of course
-
This one is already at 15 bucks. I wonder what type of stock he uses.
http://www.ebay.com/itm/Wacky-Packages-OS3-Color-GRIM-Sketch-Card-NO-RESERVE-New-Artist-/221045890479?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item33775c9daf
I see he notes that all cards are done on "the blank side of an ANS7 orange promo card". Now THAT might just get Topps' attention!!
-
And theirs a new ID, more things are stinking than just a pile of rotten danishes
-
Who the hell would bid on those?
EGADS! Someone already has.
-
The guy is totally wacked. I don't care if you like the guy or not but he is dillusional and should not be trusted.
-
The guy is totally wacked. I don't care if you like the guy or not but he is dillusional and should not be trusted.
Dude!! He is totally WACKED!! what idiots would be bidding on these :P :P He's probably pissed that he was caught coloring the other sketches so now he said he'll make his own!! We should all do it....this will definitely be good for the hobby...NOT...wonder what Greg thinks??? oh well....
-
The guy is totally wacked. I don't care if you like the guy or not but he is dillusional and should not be trusted.
This whole situation brings Charlie Sheen to mind for some reason...
-
Dude!! He is totally WACKED!! what idiots would be bidding on these :P :P He's probably pissed that he was caught coloring the other sketches so now he said he'll make his own!! We should all do it....this will definitely be good for the hobby...NOT...wonder what Greg thinks??? oh well....
At least this seems to prove that he did alter the sketches he tried to peddle on ebay. That is a crime, I wish I had won one of his altered sketches as I would have had the balls to report him to the police as opposed to all of the other people who continue to look the other way with his crap like this. Giving refunds doesn't excuse the crime, last I checked, when someone commits a robbery, giving the money back doesn't cause the jail time to be waived.....
-
At least this seems to prove that he did alter the sketches he tried to peddle on ebay. That is a crime, I wish I had won one of his altered sketches as I would have had the balls to report him to the police as opposed to all of the other people who continue to look the other way with his crap like this. Giving refunds doesn't excuse the crime, last I checked, when someone commits a robbery, giving the money back doesn't cause the jail time to be waived.....
It's amazing how many crooks in the collectibles arena get away with it through this MO. There's a guy who's been selling trimmed, color touched comic books for close to 20 years and actually did jail time for it. He has managed to survive on ebay for over a decade by simply refunding the money of anyone who complains. There's a comic book collecting lawyer who's energetically trying to shut him down, it's amazing how tough it is though, since ebay couldn't care less about such crimes.
-
It's amazing how many crooks in the collectibles arena get away with it through this MO. There's a guy who's been selling trimmed, color touched comic books for close to 20 years and actually did jail time for it. He has managed to survive on ebay for over a decade by simply refunding the money of anyone who complains. There's a comic book collecting lawyer who's energetically trying to shut him down, it's amazing how tough it is though, since ebay couldn't care less about such crimes.
The legal system is responsible for shutting down criminals, institutions like ebay can't do it as they don't want to put themselves in the position of being judge and jury. Until ebay is held responsible for assisting in the crime, they will look the other way. I think everyone needs to stop being satisfied just to get their money back and report this to the police. They will likely get their money back AND take a step towards truly stopping activity like this.
-
The legal system is responsible for shutting down criminals, institutions like ebay can't do it as they don't want to put themselves in the position of being judge and jury. Until ebay is held responsible for assisting in the crime, they will look the other way. I think everyone needs to stop being satisfied just to get their money back and report this to the police. They will likely get their money back AND take a step towards truly stopping activity like this.
What town, city or fed. has the police resources to go after someone who sells something not legit on ebay? Call em up and tell them you bought a fradulent sticker on ebay and see what they tell you. Maybe you have a chance if it is a large scale operation.
-
What town, city or fed. has the police resources to go after someone who sells something not legit on ebay? Call em up and tell them you bought a fradulent sticker on ebay and see what they tell you. Maybe you have a chance if it is a large scale operation.
Um, robbery is robbery and the police do take such seriously. Didn't say they need to dedicate an entire swat team to this but this is so easy to pursue, crime is documented, suspect is easily identified, yup, it would be pursued. Also, since the postal service is used, I suspect it could be mail fraud and the post master general could be notified. To your point, I dont think the post master general will take any action as the $ amount is too small but gather up enough cases of the same suspect....then it gets attention. The attitude that law enforcement will do nothing is exactly why criminals thrive.
-
Some of you are so far down the obsessive rabbit hole you can't see anything but the tunnel. You're taking something so trivial as sketch cards and projecting all this officiality on it. Believe it or not, some people will buy a card just because they like the image and nothing more. Jay Lynch sells drawings of Wacky characters and nobody has a problem with that. Matt Kirscht sold some nice sketches done on Wacky postcards. There's nothing illegal about what they're doing. I don't see any fraud here. Matt is up front in his listings. Anyone can draw any licensed image and sell it provided they sell the actual drawing and not a copy. Warhol made a perfectly legal fortune selling crappy drawings of Marilyn Monroe and Campbell's cans. I think the response here is yet another example of how ridiculous the sketch card craze is. If anyone finds these indistinguishable from original Topps cards then they have no business collecting sketch cards. If Topps doesn't like it they should stick to producing cards that can't be made so easily by fans.
-
Here's a little food for thought.
If some poor slob tries to replicate a work of genuine skill and artistry then they're going to fail and nobody will mistake it for the original. And if he can pick up his magic markers, color in his B&W sketch card to sell on ebay and you can't differentiate that from a Topps artist card then you might want to question what Topps is pushing on you.
-
Some of you are so far down the obsessive rabbit hole you can't see anything but the tunnel. You're taking something so trivial as sketch cards and projecting all this officiality on it. Believe it or not, some people will buy a card just because they like the image and nothing more. Jay Lynch sells drawings of Wacky characters and nobody has a problem with that. Matt Kirscht sold some nice sketches done on Wacky postcards. There's nothing illegal about what they're doing. I don't see any fraud here. Matt is up front in his listings. Anyone can draw any licensed image and sell it provided they sell the actual drawing and not a copy. Warhol made a perfectly legal fortune selling crappy drawings of Marilyn Monroe and Campbell's cans. I think the response here is yet another example of how ridiculous the sketch card craze is. If anyone finds these indistinguishable from original Topps cards then they have no business collecting sketch cards. If Topps doesn't like it they should stick to producing cards that can't be made so easily by fans.
Right! I can draw anything and try to sell it but that doesn't mean anyone will buy it. But what is pissing most of us off is he is actually getting bids for this crap. It will never be worth anything. It's not licensed. It's garbage. I have PC's by Kirscht and Camera that are sketches on the Postcards. I view them as reputable artists that actually contribute to each series. I don't know what kind of value they would have but I don't care because they are part of my collection. What Matt Stock is doing is making a mockery of sketches. He's altered quite a few and now doing his own color sketches. I think he is trying to poke fun at the same hobby that he supposedly loves. A total sham!
-
I think he is trying to poke fun at the same hobby that he supposedly loves. A total sham!
I think "poking fun" is the essence of wackys. I see nothing wrong with what he's doing with his sketch cards. I actually find it amusing. He stays just behind the line of directly stating what he is doing is in any way directly related to topps. What concerned me was the parallel with the doctored sketch cards issue. He's not misrepresenting what he's doing with his homemade sketch cards. If people like them, they should buy them at whatever price they feel like paying.
-
But what is pissing most of us off is he is actually getting bids for this crap. It will never be worth anything. It's not licensed.
Why would this piss you off? That someone is bidding on his sketches, that he's somewhat implying to the uneducated that his art is somehow related to topps, or does it have anything to do with bad feelings from the altered sketch card issue? I think they are totally separate issues, however, it may come across as some type of a response to the previous altered sketch card incidents.
-
It seems to me that the auction is technically worded correctly but the words "new artist" could deceive people into thinking this is a new Wacky artist. It comes across that way to me and even after I read the rest of the auction it's still not quite clear. If the auction is meant to poke fun, fine. If people are buying them with full knowledge of what they are, fine. If it doesn't infringe on Topps, fine. Everybody should call themselves a "new artist" and start making some and see what happens
But if this is intentionally designed to trick people, then that's not fine.
-
Some of you are so far down the obsessive rabbit hole you can't see anything but the tunnel. You're taking something so trivial as sketch cards and projecting all this officiality on it. Believe it or not, some people will buy a card just because they like the image and nothing more. Jay Lynch sells drawings of Wacky characters and nobody has a problem with that. Matt Kirscht sold some nice sketches done on Wacky postcards. There's nothing illegal about what they're doing. I don't see any fraud here. Matt is up front in his listings. Anyone can draw any licensed image and sell it provided they sell the actual drawing and not a copy. Warhol made a perfectly legal fortune selling crappy drawings of Marilyn Monroe and Campbell's cans. I think the response here is yet another example of how ridiculous the sketch card craze is. If anyone finds these indistinguishable from original Topps cards then they have no business collecting sketch cards. If Topps doesn't like it they should stick to producing cards that can't be made so easily by fans.
The robbery I referred to is clearly matt's selling altered sketches as originals which carried into this thread as it was this thread that highlighted that it is very likely matt lied when he said he didn't alter the sketches he was selling as originals given that he suddenly is selling whole home made sketches. Are you condoning his altering sketches as originals without disclosing such for the purpose to make money as trivial?
I couldn't care less if matt uses wacky package images to try to sell his 4th grade art on ebay.
-
Here's a little food for thought.
If some poor slob tries to replicate a work of genuine skill and artistry then they're going to fail and nobody will mistake it for the original. And if he can pick up his magic markers, color in his B&W sketch card to sell on ebay and you can't differentiate that from a Topps artist card then you might want to question what Topps is pushing on you.
This point is a good one, people falling over themselves to buy colored art is intriguing but don't lose site of the fact that altering a product for the purposes of trying to dupe the buyers into thinking it is an original in order to take more money from them is still a crime. Selling "home made" name brand purses. watches, sneakers and such without disclosing they are not genuine is a crime. Don't confuse yourself into thinking otherwise.
-
I think "poking fun" is the essence of wackys. I see nothing wrong with what he's doing with his sketch cards. I actually find it amusing. He stays just behind the line of directly stating what he is doing is in any way directly related to topps. What concerned me was the parallel with the doctored sketch cards issue. He's not misrepresenting what he's doing with his homemade sketch cards. If people like them, they should buy them at whatever price they feel like paying.
Agreed, the only parallel I drew here was that matt's sudden affinity to create his own sketch cards at the same time he was selling altered sketches while denying that he altered the sketches seems to make it obvious he lied about the source of the altered sketches. Selling those altered sketches as originals is fraud, that is a simple fact.
-
It seems to me that the auction is technically worded correctly but the words "new artist" could deceive people into thinking this is a new Wacky artist. It comes across that way to me and even after I read the rest of the auction it's still not quite clear. If the auction is meant to poke fun, fine. If people are buying them with full knowledge of what they are, fine. If it doesn't infringe on Topps, fine. Everybody should call themselves a "new artist" and start making some and see what happens
But if this is intentionally designed to trick people, then that's not fine.
Why would you possibly consider giving the benefit of the doubt that he is not trying to trick people when just weeks ago he was absolutely trying to trick people by selling altered sketches without disclosing they were altered?
-
Why would you possibly consider giving the benefit of the doubt that he is not trying to trick people when just weeks ago he was absolutely trying to trick people by selling altered sketches without disclosing they were altered?
I never said I was.
-
I never said I was.
I took your statement "If the auction is meant to poke fun, fine" as opening the door that matts artist auctions were to poke fun and hence not to deceive people into thinking he was somehow a wacky artist in some manner.
-
I took your statement "If the auction is meant to poke fun, fine" as opening the door that matts artist auctions were to poke fun and hence not to deceive people into thinking he was somehow a wacky artist in some manner.
I was just trying to list the possible interpretations people might have, some that have been discussed already. When I see, "New Artist" associated with the Wacky sketches, I know what it looks like to me. People can draw their own conclusions.
-
Lets just cut to the chase. The only artrist Matt is, is a ripoff artist. He has been doing it for decades. Over 15 years ago he ripped me off for a very large amount of money. It wasnt untill recent that i really understood what he did.
-
Lets just cut to the chase. The only artrist Matt is, is a ripoff artist. He has been doing it for decades. Over 15 years ago he ripped me off for a very large amount of money. It wasnt untill recent that i really understood what he did.
You said it brother! People think he is this great wacky collector and seller but he is a very caniving business man. He knows what he is doing and tried several tactics on me when I was getting back in the hobby, back in 2004. I have posted several times that his pictures of a complete series are just rehashes of previous auctions and that he is playing the odds you won't notice and if you do you have to spend extra effort to mail away the cards for a better card. The whole thing is a pain in the ass and he knows it so most won't do it. I have but it does suck plus extra cash for postage. I have confirmed this tactic he uses with a couple other collectors and they both confirmed that, that is his strategy. He is playing the odds you won't send them back. You may like the guy but you can now, fully, see his intentions. He doesn't care about any of us and if you think he is a friend you are totally in denial. Look at this auction and see how condescening he is to Neil. I took it as very condescending
eBay auction: #221046750416
-
Topps doesn't seem to really care about enforcing copyrights and trademarks with their Wacky Packages. There seems to be a lot of unlicensed Wacky Package material for sale these days. Years ago, I tried to sell most of most live bootleg LPs that I purchased when I was a kid. Ebay pulled them within 1/2 hour after my postings. I think someone from Atlantic Records called Ebay to have my postings pulled. I talked to someone at Ebay to figure out how they know if something is licensed or not. They told me that they do not know so they will pull postings if a representative of the company calls them directly. I guess that it depends on the industry. Am I missing something or did this artist get permission from Topps? I do wish someone who works for Topps would have the unlicensed items pulled.
Topps could have these auctions shut down if they wanted to. They probably don't even know about them. Matt is using the trademark name "Wacky Packages" to sell something not licensed by Topps. Plain and simple.
eBay shut down auctions in a similar situation that I know of. Someone was selling replacement plastigoop for Creepy Crawlers kits, and the auctions were shut down for having "Creepy Crawlers" in the title.
-
Topps could have these auctions shut down if they wanted to. They probably don't even know about them. Matt is using the trademark name "Wacky Packages" to sell something not licensed by Topps. Plain and simple.
eBay shut down auctions in a similar situation that I know of. Someone was selling replacement plastigoop for Creepy Crawlers kits, and the auctions were shut down for having "Creepy Crawlers" in the title.
I thought Topps would object to the ANS7 promo cards being used as the stock, since they have the Topps logos and trademarks. When these cards surface in the future, they are going to appear to have been authorized by Topps.
-
Some of you are so far down the obsessive rabbit hole you can't see anything but the tunnel. You're taking something so trivial as sketch cards and projecting all this officiality on it. Believe it or not, some people will buy a card just because they like the image and nothing more. Jay Lynch sells drawings of Wacky characters and nobody has a problem with that. Matt Kirscht sold some nice sketches done on Wacky postcards. There's nothing illegal about what they're doing. I don't see any fraud here. Matt is up front in his listings. Anyone can draw any licensed image and sell it provided they sell the actual drawing and not a copy. Warhol made a perfectly legal fortune selling crappy drawings of Marilyn Monroe and Campbell's cans. I think the response here is yet another example of how ridiculous the sketch card craze is. If anyone finds these indistinguishable from original Topps cards then they have no business collecting sketch cards. If Topps doesn't like it they should stick to producing cards that can't be made so easily by fans.
All the legal issues aside for the moment, and forgetting who drew them for the moment, it is possible that someone might actually prefer one of these color sketches to a Ziliznik B&W of the same character...............
Further, if these had not been drawn by the person they were drawn by, and instead they appeared on Facebook (rather than for sale on ebay) as an elementary school art project by a 7-year old who liked to draw and had a Wacky-collector parent, would we be making the same remarks about the quality of the sketches?
-
All the legal issues aside for the moment, and forgetting who drew them for the moment, it is possible that someone might actually prefer one of these color sketches to a Ziliznik B&W of the same character...............
Further, if these had not been drawn by the person they were drawn by, and instead they appeared on Facebook (rather than for sale on ebay) as an elementary school art project by a 7-year old who liked to draw and had a Wacky-collector parent, would we be making the same remarks about the quality of the sketches?
I definitely agree with you. These sketches are not sacred. Topps is not the US Govt. The secret service will not come out of the woodwork to arrest you for defacing topps bonus cards or creating sketches of wacky characters. Some of Matt's sketches do rival or surpass many of the Zeleznicks. It may also be a cost effective way to get a color sketch too. These are meant (or should be meant)to be fun.
I think topps should clearly mark the sketch backs as color or black & white in the future so there won't be any issues from people altering the sketches, because I think in some cases being able to enhance the sketches is a nice option if it's only for your enjoyment & not for the purposes to deceive. Let's face it, they are neat, and they are fun, but they are also wackys, not picassos. I think the only issue with altering the sketches is the intent to deceive, or, in the future, if altered cards surface, that there be a way to determine if they were originally color or b&w just to protect the collector who is concerned about paying the right price for what they are buying.
As funny as it sounds, I'll bet in 10 years when/if Matt's sketches resurface, people will be chasing Matt's sketch cards similar to the lost wacky repros as the spark that ignited the altered sketch revolution, or as an oddity in the hobby.
-
All the legal issues aside for the moment, and forgetting who drew them for the moment, it is possible that someone might actually prefer one of these color sketches to a Ziliznik B&W of the same character...............
Further, if these had not been drawn by the person they were drawn by, and instead they appeared on Facebook (rather than for sale on ebay) as an elementary school art project by a 7-year old who liked to draw and had a Wacky-collector parent, would we be making the same remarks about the quality of the sketches?
You have completely changed all aspects of the event and want to draw comparisons??? You have changed who is creating the sketches and the fact they are being peddled for profit using the wacky packages trademark.
-
I'll bet in 10 years when/if Matt's sketches resurface, people will be chasing Matt's sketch cards similar to the lost wacky repros as the spark that ignited the altered sketch revolution, or as an oddity in the hobby.
I will bet against you on this assuming when you said "people" you meant there would be large demand within the hobby for this crap. There is hardly large demand for repros, only a select few who are probably largely ignorant of the true details around repros even collecting the repros rabidly.
People like matt and greg were opposed to people printing up their own ludlow backs as it threatened the sanctity of the real ludlows. There was a clown named Garret Dykstra or some similar name who used to brag to us all at the Parsippany shows about how he planned to take series 1 cards and print his own ludlow backing. Every one of us were against this.
Sketches being sold on Topps material will have no way to be distinguished from Topps issued material in the future. Didn't roxanne have display box repros made by Duane for sale that matt and greg went ape shit over how that was bad for the hobby as well as how it was bad that duane was making repros of all of the major cards?
It is no shock to me to see hypocicy in full force here....of course there is an agenda, matt aligns himself with greg and there is no secret greg spends day and night seething about topps cutting him out as shown by his childish outburst at the recent Allentown show. Make no mistake about it, the altered sketches and "new artist" sketches are attempts to water down the attractiveness of the real sketches as the real sketches have driven some of the sales of the new wackys.
I am enjoying watching people play both sides claiming that matt is all about fun in wackys all while recently he was comitting fraud with selling altered sketches until he was called out on it.
-
You have completely changed all aspects of the event and want to draw comparisons??? You have changed who is creating the sketches and the fact they are being peddled for profit using the wacky packages trademark.
Yes, but purely, and in a vacuum perhaps, for the sake of momentarily looking at the artwork itself from an aesthetic point of view. Realistically, and in the real world, one cannot separate the two. I wouldn't want any artwork by Jerry Sandusky in my residence no matter how aesthetically pleasing it was.
-
Hopefully people will buy them then cut them up and throw'em out
-
I will bet against you on this assuming when you said "people" you meant there would be large demand within the hobby for this crap. There is hardly large demand for repros, only a select few who are probably largely ignorant of the true details around repros even collecting the repros rabidly.
People like matt and greg were opposed to people printing up their own ludlow backs as it threatened the sanctity of the real ludlows. There was a clown named Garret Dykstra or some similar name who used to brag to us all at the Parsippany shows about how he planned to take series 1 cards and print his own ludlow backing. Every one of us were against this.
Sketches being sold on Topps material will have no way to be distinguished from Topps issued material in the future. Didn't roxanne have display box repros made by Duane for sale that matt and greg went ape shit over how that was bad for the hobby as well as how it was bad that duane was making repros of all of the major cards?
It is no shock to me to see hypocicy in full force here....of course there is an agenda, matt aligns himself with greg and there is no secret greg spends day and night seething about topps cutting him out as shown by his childish outburst at the recent Allentown show. Make no mistake about it, the altered sketches and "new artist" sketches are attempts to water down the attractiveness of the real sketches as the real sketches have driven some of the sales of the new wackys.
I am enjoying watching people play both sides claiming that matt is all about fun in wackys all while recently he was comitting fraud with selling altered sketches until he was called out on it.
I don't think the demand will be widespread, just as the demand for repro lost wackys isn't widespread. I think they (lost wackys) are a novelty in the hobby, and for that reason, I find them (the lost wackys, not necessarily the reproductions of the rare cards) interesting.
I think the line does get blurry when it comes to reproduction boxes, and printing ludlow camels on topps cards. When the collectors have no way to tell the real from the fake or altered, then the potential for counterfeiting is more likely regardless of the intent of the creator. Under these circumstances, I'd be against this type of reproduction. In the case of Matt's "new artist" sketches, there is really no way to mistake this for a topps product for anyone remotely in "the know." The altered sketch cards are a whole different story, regardless of whether they are done for personal artistic preferences or to deceive.
I also find the whole situation with the "new artist" auctions interesting & a bit intriguing . It has clearly hit a nerve with some, and is a polarizing topic by the way he has approached it. It may even have an effect on future sketch cards because of the issue it exposes & emphasizes as a potential problem for sketch collectors.
-
I don't think the demand will be widespread, just as the demand for repro lost wackys isn't widespread. I think they (lost wackys) are a novelty in the hobby, and for that reason, I find them (the lost wackys, not necessarily the reproductions of the rare cards) interesting.
I think the line does get blurry when it comes to reproduction boxes, and printing ludlow camels on topps cards. When the collectors have no way to tell the real from the fake or altered, then the potential for counterfeiting is more likely regardless of the intent of the creator. Under these circumstances, I'd be against this type of reproduction. In the case of Matt's "new artist" sketches, there is really no way to mistake this for a topps product for anyone remotely in "the know." The altered sketch cards are a whole different story, regardless of whether they are done for personal artistic preferences or to deceive.
I also find the whole situation with the "new artist" auctions interesting & a bit intriguing . It has clearly hit a nerve with some, and is a polarizing topic by the way he has approached it. It may even have an effect on future sketch cards because of the issue it exposes & emphasizes as a potential problem for sketch collectors.
Agree....sometimes we have to go through a somewhat painful incident like this one in order to see how to best proceed in the future. It may be as simple as returning to the OS2 practice of having color sketches done with the sketch card backs upside down, or just using different color backs for color sketch cards.
-
Yes, but purely, and in a vacuum perhaps, for the sake of momentarily looking at the artwork itself from an aesthetic point of view. Realistically, and in the real world, one cannot separate the two. I wouldn't want any artwork by Jerry Sandusky in my residence no matter how aesthetically pleasing it was.
...haven't you paid top $ for "scarce" sketches regardless of the aesthetics....it doesn't seem fair to ask people to only look at the aesthetics relating to matts pieces. Anyone think matt didn't do the art but had them commissioned and he is signing them? Remember, we want to discuss all posibilities, correct?
-
I don't think the demand will be widespread, just as the demand for repro lost wackys isn't widespread. I think they (lost wackys) are a novelty in the hobby, and for that reason, I find them (the lost wackys, not necessarily the reproductions of the rare cards) interesting.
I think the line does get blurry when it comes to reproduction boxes, and printing ludlow camels on topps cards. When the collectors have no way to tell the real from the fake or altered, then the potential for counterfeiting is more likely regardless of the intent of the creator. Under these circumstances, I'd be against this type of reproduction. In the case of Matt's "new artist" sketches, there is really no way to mistake this for a topps product for anyone remotely in "the know." The altered sketch cards are a whole different story, regardless of whether they are done for personal artistic preferences or to deceive.
I also find the whole situation with the "new artist" auctions interesting & a bit intriguing . It has clearly hit a nerve with some, and is a polarizing topic by the way he has approached it. It may even have an effect on future sketch cards because of the issue it exposes & emphasizes as a potential problem for sketch collectors.
The bottom-line is that if someone is intentionally doctoring sketches and re-selling for profit to unsuspecting customers it's wrong, and it's damaging to the hobby. If it's being done to damage Topps in some way what about the affect it has on collectors? I have a hunch it's more about money than damaging Topps, but who knows.
-
Heres what 1 looks like from a legitimate artist instead of a unscrupulous "dealer"
(http://s16.postimage.org/t0zaig8cx/Image_50.jpg) (http://postimage.org/image/t0zaig8cx/)
-
The bottom-line is that if someone is intentionally doctoring sketches and re-selling for profit to unsuspecting customers it's wrong, and it's damaging to the hobby. If it's being done to damage Topps in some way what about the affect it has on collectors? I have a hunch it's more about money than damaging Topps, but who knows.
I think we're all in agreement about the wrongness of the doctored/altered sketches (as I myself was among those personally taken in by them), but now I think we've moved on to focus on the "new artist" sketches.
-
I definitely agree with you. These sketches are not sacred. Topps is not the US Govt. The secret service will not come out of the woodwork to arrest you for defacing topps bonus cards or creating sketches of wacky characters. Some of Matt's sketches do rival or surpass many of the Zeleznicks. It may also be a cost effective way to get a color sketch too. These are meant (or should be meant)to be fun.
I think topps should clearly mark the sketch backs as color or black & white in the future so there won't be any issues from people altering the sketches, because I think in some cases being able to enhance the sketches is a nice option if it's only for your enjoyment & not for the purposes to deceive. Let's face it, they are neat, and they are fun, but they are also wackys, not picassos. I think the only issue with altering the sketches is the intent to deceive, or, in the future, if altered cards surface, that there be a way to determine if they were originally color or b&w just to protect the collector who is concerned about paying the right price for what they are buying.
As funny as it sounds, I'll bet in 10 years when/if Matt's sketches resurface, people will be chasing Matt's sketch cards similar to the lost wacky repros as the spark that ignited the altered sketch revolution, or as an oddity in the hobby.
And in 10 years when someone write the book "A History of Wacky Packages - From 1967 to 2022", there is now plenty of material for an entire chapter on all the wrongs that have been committeed through the years, from what just happened recently, to resealing opened packs and representing them as unopened, to creating fake 1st series red ludlows, to Leslie getting sold a fraudulent Lynch sketch by some guy in the UK, etc. What other Wacky wrongs through the years am I missing here?
-
In the case of Matt's "new artist" sketches, there is really no way to mistake this for a topps product for anyone remotely in "the know."
I feel for newbies in the future, who may end up believing these are really authorized Topps sketches when the ebay auction from the 'reseller' then specifically refers to the reverse and the Topps logos and copyright.
-
And in 10 years when someone write the book "A History of Wacky Packages - From 1967 to 2022", there is now plenty of material for an entire chapter on all the wrongs that have been committeed through the years, from what just happened recently, to resealing opened packs and representing them as unopened, to creating fake 1st series red ludlows, to Leslie getting sold a fraudulent Lynch sketch by some guy in the UK, etc. What other Wacky wrongs through the years am I missing here?
Fraud(whether it be restuck ludlows, altered sketches, fraudulant Lynch sketches, resealing packs, probably other examples I am missing) and ebay shill bidding are the big two.
-
I feel for newbies in the future, who may end up believing these are really authorized Topps sketches when the ebay auction from the 'reseller' then specifically refers to the reverse and the Topps logos and copyright.
How did matt get so many of these blank backed cards? Excuse my ignorance but are they common?
-
How did matt get so many of these blank backed cards? Excuse my ignorance but are they common?
yes, they came in ANS7 packs by the boatloads! I have a stack of them that I use to separate stacks and such.
-
I think we're all in agreement about the wrongness of the doctored/altered sketches (as I myself was among those personally taken in by them), but now I think we've moved on to focus on the "new artist" sketches.
I don't really know what to make of it. If it was on blank card stock and didn't reference a Topps series it would be fine, but because it references a Topps series and is on a Topps card I would think it's violating some copyright laws or something. It's just a question of whether Topps cares. When I first saw them I found it more humorous than anything else.
-
I don't really know what to make of it. If it was on blank card stock and didn't reference a Topps series it would be fine, but because it references a Topps series and is on a Topps card I would think it's violating some copyright laws or something. It's just a question of whether Topps cares. When I first saw them I found it more humorous than anything else.
Although he references old school 3, he doesn't mention wacky packages on the card, nor does he spell old school out. He only says OS3 which someone would have to know enough to know what he means. I really think that years after the dust settles, these will become an oddity because they are just quirky enough & clever enough to catch someone's attention, but I seriously doubt anyone would pay big bucks, or mistake these things for the real things. I found it extremely humorous myself.
-
And in 10 years when someone write the book "A History of Wacky Packages - From 1967 to 2022", there is now plenty of material for an entire chapter on all the wrongs that have been committeed through the years, from what just happened recently, to resealing opened packs and representing them as unopened, to creating fake 1st series red ludlows, to Leslie getting sold a fraudulent Lynch sketch by some guy in the UK, etc. What other Wacky wrongs through the years am I missing here?
Matt could have his own chapter on how to dupe the public for years and get away with it. Lets just face it, he is a crook, and crooks will always find a way to deceive! Weather it be selling misrepresented cards, to selling OS boxes with unopened packs that were resealed, to doctoring original sketches and now his own cards. Plain and simple....He's a thief!!! And he will never change.
-
Some of you are so far down the obsessive rabbit hole you can't see anything but the tunnel. You're taking something so trivial as sketch cards and projecting all this officiality on it. Believe it or not, some people will buy a card just because they like the image and nothing more. Jay Lynch sells drawings of Wacky characters and nobody has a problem with that. Matt Kirscht sold some nice sketches done on Wacky postcards. There's nothing illegal about what they're doing. I don't see any fraud here. Matt is up front in his listings. Anyone can draw any licensed image and sell it provided they sell the actual drawing and not a copy. Warhol made a perfectly legal fortune selling crappy drawings of Marilyn Monroe and Campbell's cans. I think the response here is yet another example of how ridiculous the sketch card craze is. If anyone finds these indistinguishable from original Topps cards then they have no business collecting sketch cards. If Topps doesn't like it they should stick to producing cards that can't be made so easily by fans.
My main problem is that he is using Wacky Packages in the title. Someone not so familiar with everything going on in the Wacky world may think they are sactioned Wacky sketch cards. If he were just selling the likeness without putting OS3 or Wacky Packages direct references in the sale, then I think there would be a lot less of a beef with these drawings.
-
My main problem is that he is using Wacky Packages in the title. Someone not so familiar with everything going on in the Wacky world may think they are sactioned Wacky sketch cards. If he were just selling the likeness without putting OS3 or Wacky Packages direct references in the sale, then I think there would be a lot less of a beef with these drawings.
I could not agree with you more Big Muc!!! I have a serious problem with the drawings being on the back of the Topps cards. It is misleading and meant to deceive. I don't know this Matt character at all, but he should know better than to do this to mislead honest collectors.
-
Whether it be...selling OS boxes with unopened packs that were resealed....
Could you refresh my memory on this one? I don't remember it.
-
Could you refresh my memory on this one? I don't remember it.
About 15 years ago i bought a box of 6th series from him. I put the box away until a few years ago. Well when i really knew alot more about wackys i pulled the box out and inspected it. Turns out half the box was 6th and the other half was 7th series in resealed packs. Remember at the fall show i showed you a resealed pack with 2 stickers, both with gum stains? Again his! I still have the ebay printouts from then. That is why i am able to say with quite certainty he is a crook. Open your eyes and see him for what he really is.
-
About 15 years ago i bought a box of 6th series from him. I put the box away until a few years ago. Well when i really knew alot more about wackys i pulled the box out and inspected it. Turns out half the box was 6th and the other half was 7th series in resealed packs. Remember at the fall show i showed you a resealed pack with 2 stickers, both with gum stains? Again his! I still have the ebay printouts from then. That is why i am able to say with quite certainty he is a crook. Open your eyes and see him for what he really is.
Could this ebay seller fake Flashback gold cards? He has a few listed and I'm thinking of bidding on these -
Alex
-
Could this ebay seller fake Flashback gold cards? He has a few listed and I'm thinking of bidding on these -
Alex
I dont see him being that good. I'm sure his golds are real. Just make sure they look real when you get them. If you win.
-
How did matt get so many of these blank backed cards? Excuse my ignorance but are they common?
As Rob said, they were inserted in ANS7 packs. I have a stack of them myself, I use them to write on with trades, and to separate saved cards. Here's a scan:
(http://s10.postimage.org/ipl8d301h/Binder_promo001.jpg) (http://postimage.org/image/ipl8d301h/)
-
I dont see him being that good. I'm sure his golds are real. Just make sure they look real when you get them. If you win.
That's correct.....the golds are legit for sure.
-
As Rob said, they were inserted in ANS7 packs. I have a stack of them myself, I use them to write on with trades, and to separate saved cards. Here's a scan:
(http://s10.postimage.org/ipl8d301h/Binder_promo001.jpg) (http://postimage.org/image/ipl8d301h/)
They'd make pretty good sketch cards IF the surface was a higher quality drawing board!
-
They'd make pretty good sketch cards IF the surface was a higher quality drawing board!
I think we should flood the ebay market with these home-made "New artist" sketches. I am going to see if my son is interested in drawing up some of these characters on these cards and list him as a new artist as well. Why not? He is actually pretty good at drawing. He is 9 and already much, much better than I am. But that is not saying much!
-
Fascinating thread...
It seems clear that the seller is at least being disingenuous, leaving room for a buyer to make leaps and assumptions based upon the information that is present in the listing. The name Topps does not appear in the sketch auctions, so as has been pointed out, he carefully walks the line. But it's obvious that someone could be led by the information there to think that they are official.
Adding a disclaimer to the auctions like: "These are not official Topps sketchcards, nor are they licensed by Topps." That would be what a good dealer would do, because a good salesman wants you to know what you're getting. A good salesman wants to give you what you actually want. It's a shame we've lost that ideal - and made the trade of sales such a negative thing, to so many people.
It's like pointing out all of the flaws on a piece in your listing, or glossing them over in the hopes that the buyer misses them. One is what a solid dealer does, the other, not so much.
I can't speak to some of the fraudulent activities being discussed, but this kind of stuff does risk damaging a hobby. Of course, as has been pointed out, the sketch card craze itself may not be the most healthy thing for the hobby, either. Heady stuff!
-
I thought Topps would object to the ANS7 promo cards being used as the stock, since they have the Topps logos and trademarks. When these cards surface in the future, they are going to appear to have been authorized by Topps.
not sure why they would object, it's not like he made fake sketch card stock. And I know a number of folks here have had artists at some of the shows draw sketches on the same things. I don't think anyone has turned around and tried to flip one on ebay for $, but they easily could and what's the difference?
To me the card stock is not a problem, it's him calling it a wacky packages sketch in the auction title, which it is not
-
not sure why they would object, it's not like he made fake sketch card stock. And I know a number of folks here have had artists at some of the shows draw sketches on the same things. I don't think anyone has turned around and tried to flip one on ebay for $, but they easily could and what's the difference?
To me the card stock is not a problem, it's him calling it a wacky packages sketch in the auction title, which it is not
I didn't know those cards had been used for sketches before. I recall Smokin' Joe asking people here to send him their extras for a special project, and it died - I kind of figured Topps didn't like the idea. So, my concerns regarding Topps are apparently moot, and I will refrain from further posts on the subject, other than this last:
To me, the current auction title format is transient, whereas the sketch being on a card with a copyright and logos seems more of a problem, and may embolden "new artist sketch" card buyers to claim even more than Matt is presently claiming. A degree or two of separation, and ignorance is bliss, and people will have plausible deniability when they list them later as official cards to get newbies to bite. Just my opinion.
And I know, I am getting cynical, even Wackys aren't helping..........
-
To me, the current auction title format is transient, whereas the sketch being on a card with a copyright and logos seems more of a problem, and may embolden "new artist sketch" card buyers to claim even more than Matt is presently claiming. A degree or two of separation, and ignorance is bliss, and people will have plausible deniability when they list them later as official cards to get newbies to bite. Just my opinion.
And I know, I am getting cynical, even Wackys aren't helping..........
Perfectly said
-
I didn't know those cards had been used for sketches before. I recall Smokin' Joe asking people here to send him their extras for a special project, and it died - I kind of figured Topps didn't like the idea. So, my concerns regarding Topps are apparently moot, and I will refrain from further posts on the subject, other than this last:
To me, the current auction title format is transient, whereas the sketch being on a card with a copyright and logos seems more of a problem, and may embolden "new artist sketch" card buyers to claim even more than Matt is presently claiming. A degree or two of separation, and ignorance is bliss, and people will have plausible deniability when they list them later as official cards to get newbies to bite. Just my opinion.
And I know, I am getting cynical, even Wackys aren't helping..........
I think I have mentioned it before ...lol
There are collectors here that think Matt is a great guy. Now we see this crap and now we have to see who is on is side on this. I know the people that stood up for him when we were calling him a scumbag and now I don't seeing them stand up to 'now' see what this guy is doing.
-
There must be a demand for these because people are bidding on them! They are all color sketches, so people are going to jump on them, I guess. This is going to effect the value and sales of legit sketch cards....an oversaturated market.
-
There are collectors here that think Matt is a great guy. Now we see this crap and now we have to see who is on is side on this. I know the people that stood up for him when we were calling him a scumbag and now I don't seeing them stand up to 'now' see what this guy is doing.
I'm not sure exactly what you're saying in this incoherent post. However, speaking for myself, I never "stood up" for him during any of these sketch discussions. I simply warned against jumping to conclusions about exactly what he was guilty of without facts. I should think you would appreciate this approach since it's the same tack I took three years ago when you sold me a re-sealed 12th series pack. I realized at the time it was likely you were unaware it was fake, and that turned out to be the truth. I'm glad I didn't fly off the handle and call you a scumbag before I had all of the facts. That's all I was suggesting about Matt. Unfortunately it doesn't appear he was blameless in this case, but I would advocate the same measured approach toward anyone under suspicion.
-
I'm not sure exactly what you're saying in this incoherent post. However, speaking for myself, I never "stood up" for him during any of these sketch discussions. I simply warned against jumping to conclusions about exactly what he was guilty of without facts. I should think you would appreciate this approach since it's the same tack I took three years ago when you sold me a re-sealed 12th series pack. I realized at the time it was likely you were unaware it was fake, and that turned out to be the truth. I'm glad I didn't fly off the handle and call you a scumbag before I had all of the facts. That's all I was suggesting about Matt. Unfortunately it doesn't appear he was blameless in this case, but I would advocate the same measured approach toward anyone under suspicion.
Sorry, we are vacationing at St Pete's Beach, FL and I had too many Piña colada's last night... :o HaHa
-
Sorry, we are vacationing at St Pete's Beach, FL and I had too many Piña colada's last night... :o HaHa
No problem, I envy you....
-
Neil: Would Topps be interested if they were pointed to the "fake sketch card" auctions?
Personally I think it is not going to do good things for the sketch cards and will just muddy the waters for new collectors -- besides the fact that what they are doing is probably illegal (violating several aspects of copyright law). If I were Topps, I wouldn't want someone doing this with cards that had my logo/copyright on them, using the term "Wacky Packages" and my characters -- it makes it look like they approve/condone them.
If I were the legit artists I would also be upset. They (generally) put in a TON of work with the sketch cards. Some yahoo cranking these out and making some $$$ on the side based on their work is really sleazy.
If he were doing this on completely blank cards with no mention of "Wacky Packages" -- and not using copyrighted characters -- then that would be fine. He is not.
-
If he were doing this on completely blank cards with no mention of "Wacky Packages" -- and not using copyrighted characters -- then that would be fine. He is not.
Please don't read this as a defense of Matt Stock. I agree with almost all objections to his "new artist" sketches that have been voiced here.
However, if we're going to object to use of "copyrighted characters," then where was all the outrage when Jay Lynch was producing such sketches for years without any Topps affiliation?
-
Neil: Would Topps be interested if they were pointed to the "fake sketch card" auctions?
Personally I think it is not going to do good things for the sketch cards and will just muddy the waters for new collectors -- besides the fact that what they are doing is probably illegal (violating several aspects of copyright law). If I were Topps, I wouldn't want someone doing this with cards that had my logo/copyright on them, using the term "Wacky Packages" and my characters -- it makes it look like they approve/condone them.
If I were the legit artists I would also be upset. They (generally) put in a TON of work with the sketch cards. Some yahoo cranking these out and making some $$$ on the side based on their work is really sleazy.
If he were doing this on completely blank cards with no mention of "Wacky Packages" -- and not using copyrighted characters -- then that would be fine. He is not.
I'd like to start by saying I'm neither for or against these "new artist" sketches. I find the concept amusing & intriguing (which is probably why this thread is so active). I don't think he is violating any copyright laws, since the characters aren't copyrighted. If they were, topps would be violating the copyrights of the products they are spoofing. I do find it ironic that the feelings many people here have regarding these wacky "new artist" sketches are probably very similar to the feelings those in the companies topps parodied in the late 60's/early 70s felt back then.
As plan9 pointed out, as long as the images are hand drawn, there are no copyright issues regarding topps art. He (Matt) also only mentions OS3 on the cards themselves. Wacky packages is a "transient" label on his auction as rawgoo pointed out previously. Since Matt purchased the ANS7 cards he is drawing on, he is free to do whatever he wants with them.
-
However, if we're going to object to use of "copyrighted characters," then where was all the outrage when Jay Lynch was producing such sketches for years without any Topps affiliation?
I hear what you're saying, but to me there are distinct differences:
* In Jay's case you have someone who at least was/is an official artist with the company, and who has created official sketch cards. On top of that, he's been doing work for the company since way back and helped create some of the gags/characters themselves (if I am not mistaken).
* Weren't the sketches Jay did done as completely separate art? That is, he wasn't putting out sketches on Wacky Packages stock cards and peddling them as sketch cards, right? Sketching/painting the characters (some of which he may have created for the company -- I do not know) on a different medium (e.g. on 5x7 or 6x8 cards) is really different imo. I could see where Topps might actually like this because it promotes their characters by a known/affiliated artist -- it's almost a form of advertising.
* The legit artists aren't allowed to do "sketch cards" as such except for the "return sketch cards". This pretty much says it all.
-
... I don't think he is violating any copyright laws, since the characters aren't copyrighted. If they were, topps would be violating the copyrights of the products they are spoofing.
I'm not an expert at copyright law but I believe this is incorrect. AFAIK the Topps characters are automatically copyrighted by Topps upon creation (at least in the USA). Topps is not violating the copyrights of the products they are spoofing since they are not precisely the same (they would be if they used the precise same wording and/or precise same imagery).
Thus the Pupsi Dog belongs to Topps. "Pupsi Cola" resulted in a cease and desist letter because it was very similar to the "Pepsi Cola" brand/copyright. Whether or not it actually violated copyright law is for the courts to decide, but Topps would have incentive to withdraw the parody because it could cost them a lot of money to fight a lawsuit even if they eventually won. And there wasn't enough monetary incentive for them to do this.
-
I hear what you're saying, but to me there are distinct differences:
* In Jay's case you have someone who at least was/is an official artist with the company, and who has created official sketch cards. On top of that, he's been doing work for the company since way back and helped create some of the gags/characters themselves (if I am not mistaken).
* Weren't the sketches Jay did done as completely separate art? That is, he wasn't putting out sketches on Wacky Packages stock cards and peddling them as sketch cards, right? Sketching/painting the characters (some of which he may have created for the company -- I do not know) on a different medium (e.g. on 5x7 or 6x8 cards) is really different imo. I could see where Topps might actually like this because it promotes their characters by a known/affiliated artist -- it's almost a form of advertising.
* The legit artists aren't allowed to do "sketch cards" as such except for the "return sketch cards". This pretty much says it all.
My personal opinion of topps is that if they aren't involved in the project & making money from the wacky franchise, and someone else is directly, an affiliated artist or not, they are not happy about it.
Regarding sketch cards, the artists are absolutely able to do sketch cards of wacky characters. I have commissioned a few myself. What they are not able to do is use the wacky packages wording on the sketch card.
-
I'm not an expert at copyright law but I believe this is incorrect. AFAIK the Topps characters are automatically copyrighted by Topps upon creation (at least in the USA). Topps is not violating the copyrights of the products they are spoofing since they are not precisely the same (they would be if they used the precise same wording and/or precise same imagery).
Thus the Pupsi Dog belongs to Topps. "Pupsi Cola" resulted in a cease and desist letter because it was very similar to the "Pepsi Cola" brand/copyright. Whether or not it actually violated copyright law is for the courts to decide, but Topps would have incentive to withdraw the parody because it could cost them a lot of money to fight a lawsuit even if they eventually won. And there wasn't enough monetary incentive for them to do this.
I think this is where Plan9's comments come into play. If Matt is drawing his individual interpretation of a wacky character, and selling it, there is no issue. If he is mass producing topps images, that is a no no. He used the Andy Warhol - Campbell's soup example and I believe he is correct about this issue. Matt also doesn't use the wording wacky packages in his drawing. He only uses OS3, which is really a collector's abbreviation for the series. I don't even know if it is a common term outside the forum discussions.
-
I'd like to start by saying I'm neither for or against these "new artist" sketches. I find the concept amusing & intriguing (which is probably why this thread is so active). I don't think he is violating any copyright laws, since the characters aren't copyrighted. If they were, topps would be violating the copyrights of the products they are spoofing...
Topps, as well as satirical cartoonists, and other artists, can spoof copyrighted characters and materials under laws that govern satirical use. I suppose they always walk the thin line of making the product and/or character look different enough from the original however to avoid copyright infringement. I don't know if Topps copyrights any of their characters but
Matt could always claim he is satirizing Topps' characters. My main objection is the shady, if not down right misleading, advertising of the sketches by using Wacky Packages in the auction title, as others have mentioned here. The other thing I would think is objectional, is that his renderings are for the most part, an exact copy (minus the skill) of specific sketch cards. He did not really attempt to draw the characters in his own style. So in many cases, they come across like a poor counterfeit attempt.
-
I think this is where Plan9's comments come into play. If Matt is drawing his individual interpretation of a wacky character, and selling it, there is no issue. If he is mass producing topps images, that is a no no. He used the Andy Warhol - Campbell's soup example and I believe he is correct about this issue. Matt also doesn't use the wording wacky packages in his drawing. He only uses OS3, which is really a collector's abbreviation for the series. I don't even know if it is a common term outside the forum discussions.
Again, this starts to get into the nitty-gritty of Fair Use, etc. and is probably more complex than most people realize, and is probably only an issue if/when someone decides to enforce their rights.
But is this really his interpretation, or would most people deem it a direct copy of someone else's work?
Imagine, for example, someone selling their "interpretation" of Garfield, or Charlie Brown. If it is recognizably similar to the original it is no longer an interpretation. And "the 10% rule" afaik is not well understood (there is a lot of myth about it going around).
With the example of Andy Warhol, was he even violating any laws at the time? Perhaps many such laws didn't exist at that time and he was the first to do this kind of thing -- like the audio sampling that started in the late 80's and early 90's. It wasn't illegal and/or being enforced. Try to do that now and you'd be in trouble.
As for the commissioned sketch cards, my understanding is the artists are limited to doing only the characters from that particular series -- i.e. they can't explicitly use characters outside that series -- and they are doing the art on cards specifically meant for that series (return cards), which have Topps copyright information on them and are sanctioned by Topps.
Really the bottom line is whether or not people want to start the chain of events to enforce their rights (whether or not they actually exist) -- i.e. it comes down to money/effort.
Seems like Matt is doing unsanctioned knock-off's (possibly direct copies) that could affect the sketch card market. This seems very different from other examples cited.
-
No problem, I envy you....
You won't be envious of my final bill I'm about to receive tomorrow.. LOL. Its going to be huge. So much for buying art for awhile but my kids are getting older and wanted another family vacation befor my son graduates from high school in the next couple years.
Sorry to hijack this thread.
-
Does it look like he's just light-boxing existing sketch cards? If so... that's even more messed up than the disingenuous lack of info that could make people think these are official.
If anyone knows are can tell if these are exact or near-exact copies of sketches, I'd be interested to see the side-by-sides.
---------------
I don't know too much about them, but in the last decade, I've seen some famous comic artists doing "cover recreations" of their own work. Guys like John Byrne will do a classic X-Men cover that they themselves originally illustrated. The recreation will sell for a pretty penny, though not as much as the original cover.
But if I lightbox a John Byrne cover and sell it as a "cover recreation"....that's messed up.
-
Does it look like he's just light-boxing existing sketch cards? If so... that's even more messed up than the disingenuous lack of info that could make people think these are official.
If anyone knows are can tell if these are exact or near-exact copies of sketches, I'd be interested to see the side-by-sides.
Just my opinion but it doesn't look like he box lighted them. I would expect them to be better if that were the case. My guess is that they are drawn free-hand, but that he used a specific sketch card as the model. These are very flat with little signs of shading or perspective skills. For example, his HURTS tomato looks very one dimensional compared to the OS3 sketches. Even when he uses shading techniques, it is not done very effectively.
(http://s10.postimage.org/6qyzrfxt1/KGr_Hq_VHJEIE_n_Nppeyv_BP1i_Ip_O6_Rw_60_57.jpg) (http://postimage.org/image/6qyzrfxt1/)
(http://s10.postimage.org/gpjydx78l/Hurts_Camera_Neil_2.jpg) (http://postimage.org/image/gpjydx78l/)
(http://s10.postimage.org/dwqqtw6w5/Hurts_Engstrom_Brent_2.jpg) (http://postimage.org/image/dwqqtw6w5/)
Given that any of us have only seen a small percentage of the entirety of OS3 sketches made, I would suspect finding the exact sketch he copied from would be somewhat difficult, especially if Matt still owns the "model" sketch.
Another reason I suspect they are hand-drawn... notice Matt doesn't appear to like to put hands on the characters, probably because they are more difficult. Eyes are another weak area. Here is his BON AMI compared to OS3 sketches...
(http://s18.postimage.org/q3xly3fp1/KGr_Hq_R_p_YE_L16_B_h_WBP12_Cpk_ZQ_60_57.jpg) (http://postimage.org/image/q3xly3fp1/)
(http://s18.postimage.org/58bbmujhx/Bone_Ami_Simko_Joe_1.jpg) (http://postimage.org/image/58bbmujhx/)
(http://s18.postimage.org/ze9q1mqet/Bone_Ami_Smokin_Joe_2.jpg) (http://postimage.org/image/ze9q1mqet/)
His GULP looks very similar to this Walton sketch, down to the coffee spills and the drools...
(http://s13.postimage.org/gzlvbrw03/KGr_Hq_Z_k4_E_Co_Ftt_O_BP12_FJ_Jvg_60_57.jpg) (http://postimage.org/image/gzlvbrw03/)
(http://s13.postimage.org/61f77bwsj/Gulp_Walton_Colin_1.jpg) (http://postimage.org/image/61f77bwsj/)
To my eye... Matt's MR BABBLE appears most similar to Simko's sketches...
(http://s14.postimage.org/wn6497rdp/KGr_Hq_NHJCEE_UR8_Ssy_NBP2i_N_r_PIw_60_57.jpg) (http://postimage.org/image/wn6497rdp/)
(http://s7.postimage.org/lg51io5lz/Mr_Babble_Simko_Joe_1.jpg) (http://postimage.org/image/lg51io5lz/)
-
They are garbage! I sure hope no one on here bids on them.
-
Neil: Would Topps be interested if they were pointed to the "fake sketch card" auctions?
Hi Wayne,
Sorry for the delay. I'm just catching up on some of the latest posts. Unfortunately, I'm not in a position to discuss the "fake sketch card" auctions on Topps behalf. But suffice it to say, they are aware of them.
So, here's my own personal opinion about the latest sketch card developments: If people continue to exploit the market with imitations, fakes, knockoffs, and/or altered sketch cards, it will undoubtedly effect each one of us adversely- the fans (who demand integrity in the wacky packages brand), the buyers (who expect to get what they paid for) and the artists (whose credibility is challenged).
I can't say what the outcome will be, but my hope is that this snowball doesn't get any bigger!
-
. . . my hope is that this snowball doesn't get any bigger!
It’s a Hopeless situation ;D
-
Hi Wayne,
Sorry for the delay. I'm just catching up on some of the latest posts. Unfortunately, I'm not in a position to discuss the "fake sketch card" auctions on Topps behalf. But suffice it to say, they are aware of them.
So, here's my own personal opinion about the latest sketch card developments: If people continue to exploit the market with imitations, fakes, knockoffs, and/or altered sketch cards, it will undoubtedly effect each one of us adversely- the fans (who demand integrity in the wacky packages brand), the buyers (who expect to get what they paid for) and the artists (whose credibility is challenged).
I can't say what the outcome will be, but my hope is that this snowball doesn't get any bigger!
I would say the fact that they are not very good is a good thing!
-
Is he holding a turkey leg in this one?
http://www.ebay.com/itm/Wacky-Packages-OS3-Color-HAWAIIAN-PUNKS-Sketch-Card-NO-RESERVE-New-Artist-/221046773564?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item33776a173c
-
Is he holding a turkey leg in this one?
http://www.ebay.com/itm/Wacky-Packages-OS3-Color-HAWAIIAN-PUNKS-Sketch-Card-NO-RESERVE-New-Artist-/221046773564?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item33776a173c
It'd be nice if these were selling for $0.99 -- would be hard to justify making them for that (plus packing/shipping/fees).
-
The first 5 auctions ended today, ranging from $12.50 - $15.50, all won by the same collector.
-
The first 5 auctions ended today, ranging from $12.50 - $15.50, all won by the same collector.
hmmm. all won by t***p. someone who seems to predominantly bid just on things sold by this seller.
-
hmmm. all won by t***p. someone who seems to predominantly bid just on things sold by this seller.
Perhaps Matt's proud Mom wants to put them on the refrigerator. ;)
-
hmmm. all won by t***p. someone who seems to predominantly bid just on things sold by this seller.
I don't get it either. These sketches are worthless. Even if you collect without worrying about future value these are completely trash. You might as well toss them when you get them. They don't even belong to a series. Anyone can draw something and try and sell it. It's total crap. I would rather have some of the stuck folders in my collection because I would know they were stuck by a kid in the 70's enjoying Wackys.
-
Perhaps Matt's proud Mom wants to put them on the refrigerator. ;)
Next to his elementary school grades, where a couple of F’s became B’s :great:
Have you figured out what is written in Bone Ami’s hair?
Subliminal messages hidden in sketches… is this the next big wave?!
(http://i1184.photobucket.com/albums/z332/rbishop224/Bon.png)
-
I don't get it either. These sketches are worthless. Even if you collect without worrying about future value these are completely trash. You might as well toss them when you get them. They don't even belong to a series. Anyone can draw something and try and sell it. It's total crap. I would rather have some of the stuck folders in my collection because I would know they were stuck by a kid in the 70's enjoying Wackys.
Unless that's Topps in disguise collecting evidence??
-
Next to his elementary school grades, where a couple of F’s became B’s :great:
Have you figured out what is written in Bone Ami’s hair?
Subliminal messages hidden in sketches… is this the next big wave?!
(http://i1184.photobucket.com/albums/z332/rbishop224/Bon.png)
Yea I see it: "Joke is on you guys I am making money selling my own sketches" :] :]
-
hmmm. all won by t***p. someone who seems to predominantly bid just on things sold by this seller.
I was thinking the same thing. Most of the auctions seem to have to bids, and the second one is always exactly $15. Something smells funny.
-
I was thinking the same thing. Most of the auctions seem to have to bids, and the second one is always exactly $15. Something smells funny.
I'll hopefully clear up the smell. That was me bidding, and $15 was as high as I was willing to go on any of them. Not a cent more. Clearly no one in the Wacky world valued them much higher than that, based on the results. And hopefully this will be the end of such sketches on ebay. To me they are simply a novelty.
-
To me they are simply a novelty.
I agree.
-
I'll hopefully clear up the smell. That was me bidding, and $15 was as high as I was willing to go on any of them. Not a cent more. Clearly no one in the Wacky world valued them much higher than that, based on the results. And hopefully this will be the end of such sketches on ebay. To me they are simply a novelty.
Well said. I still don't know why you really want them but each collector has their own agenda. Maybe all the fumes from your sketch collection has altered your brain...LOL :]
-
Well said. I still don't know why you really want them but each collector has their own agenda. Maybe all the fumes from your sketch collection has altered your brain...LOL :]
That is a definite possibility! :wee_hee:
-
Well said. I still don't know why you really want them but each collector has their own agenda. Maybe all the fumes from your sketch collection has altered your brain...LOL :]
Maybe Matt will practice his skills over the next few years, mend the fences with Topps, and become one of the best Topps' artists we've ever seen! (Saunders included). Then these $15.00 sketches would be worth a fortune! Crazier things have happened. Like when the Giants won the Superbowl last year?
-
Maybe Matt will practice his skills over the next few years, mend the fences with Topps, and become one of the best Topps' artists we've ever seen! (Saunders included). Then these $15.00 sketches would be worth a fortune! Crazier things have happened. Like when the Giants won the Superbowl last year?
Let's not get carried away here :o
-
Maybe Matt will practice his skills over the next few years, mend the fences with Topps, and become one of the best Topps' artists we've ever seen! (Saunders included). Then these $15.00 sketches would be worth a fortune! Crazier things have happened. Like when the Giants won the Superbowl last year?
Now if Eli Manning started drawing his own color renditions of OS3 sketch cards and put them on ebay, that might create some interest......... :s_cool:
-
Now if Eli Manning started drawing his own color renditions of OS3 sketch cards and put them on ebay, that might create some interest......... :s_cool:
I'm sure they would be better than Matt's. Or mine.
-
I'm sure they would be better than Matt's. Or mine.
Instead of starting with OS3 he could start with Series 12 Sootball and then Series 14 Balding Football.
-
I find the "new artist" sketches to be a weird, cringe-worthy turn of events. But the real sketches that were colored, I find that sad. They were basically destroyed. What collector would want them now?
-
Maybe Matt will practice his skills over the next few years, mend the fences with Topps, and become one of the best Topps' artists we've ever seen! (Saunders included). Then these $15.00 sketches would be worth a fortune! Crazier things have happened. Like when the Giants won the Superbowl last year?
I didn't know matt had issues with Topps....
-
I didn't know matt had issues with Topps....
I don't think they would like the fact that he was selling doctored sketches, or the "new artist" sketches that reference Old School 3 on them.
-
This just makes me nauseous. If it was some kid doing drawings then no one would care and we can put it in the are these people nuts thread but this is a collector that is really pushing this garbage. Why is there even a bid on this? :confuse:
Really sad
eBay auction: #221056042076
-
That auction does a disservice to the hobby and should be shut down by Topps. Its not a "tribute". It s just wrong on too many levels; All of which have been discussed here.
It should be pulled so no one can purchase this tripe thinking it is something it isn't, which is what Matt hopes for. Carefully worded description, carefully worded to avoid legal action and to attract novice buyers.
DrDeal
-
Please don't read this as a defense of Matt Stock. I agree with almost all objections to his "new artist" sketches that have been voiced here.
However, if we're going to object to use of "copyrighted characters," then where was all the outrage when Jay Lynch was producing such sketches for years without any Topps affiliation?
For me, the whole thing hinges on the intent of the person who is creating the "unofficial" cards. In Jay's case, he's a seasoned artist with a long legacy of work on real Wackys with Topps who is just trying to pay a few bills with some extra-cirricular work. I know that Topps doesn't pay their artists particularly well, so I certainly don't blame Jay for wanting to play in the sketch market. And everything he's sold has been spectacular in terms of quality, so at least you're getting something good for your money.
These "new artist" OS3 cards on the other hand appear to have been made with the sole intent of extracting money from unwitting collectors. If you want to get really cynical, you could even argue that they're meant to undermine the whole "Old School" effort by flooding ebay with a bunch of fake crap that will ultimately drive down the value and collectibility of the real sketch cards. The "altered" cards that have been offered up by this same seller will almost certainly have that effect, as it will become nearly impossible over time to distinguish real cards from cards with added color/details. What I don't understand is why Topps seems to be sitting on the sidelines and doing nothing to stop it. It's their brand - don't they care?
-
For me, the whole thing hinges on the intent of the person who is creating the "unofficial" cards. In Jay's case, he's a seasoned artist with a long legacy of work on real Wackys with Topps who is just trying to pay a few bills with some extra-cirricular work. I know that Topps doesn't pay their artists particularly well, so I certainly don't blame Jay for wanting to play in the sketch market. And everything he's sold has been spectacular in terms of quality, so at least you're getting something good for your money.
These "new artist" OS3 cards on the other hand appear to have been made with the sole intent of extracting money from unwitting collectors. If you want to get really cynical, you could even argue that they're meant to undermine the whole "Old School" effort by flooding ebay with a bunch of fake crap that will ultimately drive down the value and collectibility of the real sketch cards. The "altered" cards that have been offered up by this same seller will almost certainly have that effect, as it will become nearly impossible over time to distinguish real cards from cards with added color/details. What I don't understand is why Topps seems to be sitting on the sidelines and doing nothing to stop it. It's their brand - don't they care?
You're right and I'm surprised this even has to be explained.
-
Sad is an understatement for that trash.
How can anyone bid on that junk and think that they are getting anything of value?
This guy needs to go down!
-
Sad is an understatement for that trash.
How can anyone bid on that junk and think that they are getting anything of value?
This guy needs to go down!
Is Marc still placing reserve bids on all of matt's stuff?
-
I haven't seen sketches go this low before. Can't go down much more before you have to pay people to take these Zeleznicks.
http://www.ebay.com/itm/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&_trksid=p4340.l2557&hash=item43b0f13857&item=290731407447&nma=true&pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&rt=nc&si=GvSOITa60MT6wuAbMcfhluv2zho%253D&orig_cvip=true&rt=nc
http://www.ebay.com/itm/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&_trksid=p4340.l2557&hash=item43b0f13365&item=290731406181&nma=true&pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&rt=nc&si=GvSOITa60MT6wuAbMcfhluv2zho%253D&orig_cvip=true&rt=nc
http://www.ebay.com/itm/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&_trksid=p4340.l2557&hash=item43b0f12c0e&item=290731404302&nma=true&pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&rt=nc&si=GvSOITa60MT6wuAbMcfhluv2zho%253D&orig_cvip=true&rt=nc
-
Wow, the shipping costs more than the sketch!