Why would he comment on the origins of these sets when he doesn’t have to?
Integrity as a reliable data source for Wacky-related material?
The text SEEMS to be thinly veiled salesmanship for a bootleg release, and might well be an obtuse feigning or fraudulent unawareness of exactly what and who are behind them (since they're probably violating Topps' copyrights?). Illegal in itself? No. But dishonest? Maybe.
Or maybe Greg is just in love with this random series of contemporary bootlegs because he thinks they're the greatest Wacky releases ever, and sincerely has no idea of their origins. Maybe that's the kind of material he sincerely likes.
But the text there reminds me a bit of a seller on ebay who for a year or two was selling vintage-looking glass jars (they were not vintage), pasted up with printed out (and faux aged) copies of vending insert cards and other vintage gum and candy graphics (the vast majority of which were downloaded from my Flickr archives, sadly - and the only reason I was aware of them) and listing them as "vintage graphics". The language was purposely obtuse, leaving it open for a buyer to fill in the blanks and make assumptions that the $5 glass jar they were paying $60 for was some kind of vintage antique. But the seller knew exactly what they were. They crafted everything about the listing text in hopes to get someone to buy into a false idea and profit from their misguided assumption. Rather than telling them exactly what they had, and hoping for them to spend based on its actual qualities. That's "bad person" territory, IMO.
If Greg, contrary to his descriptions, actually does know everything about them (who is making them, etc), I will still give him some credit. Compared to the seller in my ebay story, his descriptions are mostly clear to what these actually are. (He's not fraudulently trying to sell them as vintage, or painted by Norm, etc). What he does is feign ignorance of their creators (maybe, unless he really has no idea), and IF so doing, he puts his hobby reputation (and his site's reputation) behind them as worthy to spend money on them or to collect. He gives them hobby legitimacy, by backing them with his own.
So, if he actually knows every last detail about them, and he is being dishonest about not knowing, and people who bought in find out, his hobby reputation and legitimacy could and maybe should suffer due to his dishonest actions. But only if that were the case. If he just loves these though, and is reporting on them as sincerely and honestly as he can, then he's just projecting his tastes and opinions about them, which I can't find fault with.
Recent PostsThe gag and scent taglines are perfect, and I love the lady with the clothespin on her nose.