OS3 Color Sketches - New artist

[RawGoo]

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.

[quas]

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?

[Kook]

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.

[bandaches]

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. 

[bandaches]

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.

[quas]

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.

[deadpresidentsvisa]

                                                                        Hopefully people will buy them then cut them up and throw'em out

[Kook]

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.

[quas]

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.

[bandaches]

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?

[Dr Popper]

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.   

 

[deadpresidentsvisa]

                                                              Heres what 1 looks like from a legitimate artist instead of a unscrupulous "dealer"

[quas]

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.

[quas]

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?

[RawGoo]

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. 

[bandaches]

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.

[bandaches]

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?

[Dr Popper]

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. 

[Dr Popper]

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.   

[Kook]

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.

[lucidjc]

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.

[Bigmuc13]

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.

[MadMike]

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.

[Paul_Maul]

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.

[lucidjc]

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.

[Alexeirex]

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

[lucidjc]

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.

[RawGoo]

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:

[Dr Popper]

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.

[koduck]

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:

They'd make pretty good sketch cards IF the surface was a higher quality drawing board!

[Bigmuc13]

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!

[JasonLiebig]

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!

[Fanatical_and_Sickly]

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

[RawGoo]

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..........

[koduck]

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