Author Topic: Wacky Package Reference  (Read 30581 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline NationalSpittoon

  • Posts: 881
Re: Wacky Package Reference
« Reply #35 on: June 12, 2016, 03:16:15 PM »
I guess $100 is reasonable but I don't have that money to spend on a book.  :-\
Mark

Offline quas

  • Posts: 854
Re: Wacky Package Reference
« Reply #36 on: June 12, 2016, 03:57:15 PM »
Links to each pdf are back in first message.

Is there no longer a hardcover book?    :sad:
Marc

Offline Swiski

  • Posts: 945
Re: Wacky Package Reference
« Reply #37 on: June 13, 2016, 04:43:48 AM »
Anyone know what changed between the first PDFs and the second PDFs?

Offline mcuddy17

  • Posts: 30
Re: Wacky Package Reference
« Reply #38 on: June 13, 2016, 06:19:08 AM »
Anyone know what changed between the first PDFs and the second PDFs?

Credits for the text sections were added and a few typos that I found were fixed.

 
Is there no longer a hardcover book?    :sad:

I have to get it uploaded with the above referenced credits.

Offline RawGoo

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 4067
Re: Wacky Package Reference
« Reply #39 on: June 14, 2016, 04:24:10 AM »
Credits for the text sections were added and a few typos that I found were fixed.

 
I have to get it uploaded with the above referenced credits.

Adding the credits was a very good idea!!

Offline Bigmuc13

  • Posts: 322
Re: Wacky Package Reference
« Reply #40 on: June 14, 2016, 01:03:21 PM »
It will also be interesting to see how long it takes for someone to create one of these and put it on eBay.

Yeah, I imagine that someone will.  This is very cool./  I printed out the pages and put it in a three ring binder.  Not as nice as the one bound, but it is still pretty cool
Still looking for Series 17

Offline bandaches

  • Posts: 3650
  • I had wacky sketch addiction!
    • Visit my Wacky Pack Website
Re: Wacky Package Reference
« Reply #41 on: June 14, 2016, 06:19:52 PM »
Credits for the text sections were added and a few typos that I found were fixed.

 
I have to get it uploaded with the above referenced credits.
The credits according to who?  The various books by Paul and Phil were fairly accurate with credits, not so much elsewhere.
Contact me at bandaches@yahoo.com as I have tons of wackys for sale!

Offline Paul_Maul

  • Posts: 2396
Re: Wacky Package Reference
« Reply #42 on: June 14, 2016, 07:31:15 PM »
The credits according to who?  The various books by Paul and Phil were fairly accurate with credits, not so much elsewhere.

Just the credits for specific passages of text taken directly from Greg and Rusty's sites.

Offline Tom Keen

  • Posts: 185
Re: Wacky Package Reference
« Reply #43 on: June 15, 2016, 08:17:35 AM »
Just the credits for specific passages of text taken directly from Greg and Rusty's sites.
Are Greg and Rusty the authors of all passages on their sites?  Is it passages or credits on findings or coclusions you are concerned with the credits?  Are Greg and Rusty championing this need or is it your mission on their behalf?  If I have followed along properly, you seem to feel much of what is on Rusty's site is unfounded speculation.  Have you discussed this directly with Rusty to be sure it is speculation?

Offline Paul_Maul

  • Posts: 2396
Re: Wacky Package Reference
« Reply #44 on: June 15, 2016, 11:44:39 AM »
Are Greg and Rusty the authors of all passages on their sites?  Is it passages or credits on findings or coclusions you are concerned with the credits?  Are Greg and Rusty championing this need or is it your mission on their behalf?  If I have followed along properly, you seem to feel much of what is on Rusty's site is unfounded speculation.  Have you discussed this directly with Rusty to be sure it is speculation?

I don't think "much" of what's on Rusty's site is speculation, I know that some of it is speculation. Which is fine, as long as it is presented as such.

As for the rest of your post, I'm not sure what you're talking about. I offered an opinion that I think it's a nice idea to obtain permission and include credit for material taken directly from another source. I'm not championing anything.
« Last Edit: June 15, 2016, 11:46:31 AM by Paul_Maul »

Offline Tom Keen

  • Posts: 185
Re: Wacky Package Reference
« Reply #45 on: June 15, 2016, 02:21:41 PM »
I don't think "much" of what's on Rusty's site is speculation, I know that some of it is speculation. Which is fine, as long as it is presented as such.

As for the rest of your post, I'm not sure what you're talking about. I offered an opinion that I think it's a nice idea to obtain permission and include credit for material taken directly from another source. I'm not championing anything.
Do the websites you refer to include credit for the material on their sites?  I ask all of this as I think you unnecessarily complicated a pretty cool project that now has to thoroughly provide credits or not bother at all, half way is no man's land, so I think my questions are fair.  You definitely are championing this on their behalf, no big deal, just calling it what it is. 

Declaring something as indisputable fact in regards to wacky packages from the 1960s and 1970s is pretty bold.  New wrapper/series combinations are uncovered, ToppsVault validates and invalidates things all the time.  Let's not get carried away saying one site has "some", "much", "lots" "little" speculation(not interested in semantics here) and other sites are 100% sound in facts and completeness.

Offline Tom Keen

  • Posts: 185
Re: Wacky Package Reference
« Reply #46 on: June 15, 2016, 02:56:56 PM »
I think that this is a really cool package.

However, now that these files are being disseminated publicly and people are planning on printing them out in book form, it does concern me that all of this material is being used without any credit or permission. The more people that print it out, the more a situation is created where a standalone storehouse of wacky information is available without any credit to those who created it.

I acknowledge that assigning proper credit within a tome of this size would be difficult, but I think this issue merits consideration.
This sounds like more than you saying it is a "nice idea" to add credits. 

You made this sound like a legal issue "material being used without permission or credit".  I am a big fan of calling it what it is.   Are you a lawyer with expertise in public domain material?  Are you sure the websites you are championing haven't already used material without providing credit?  Let's go all the way on this or not at all.....I prefer to allow a cool project like this to move forward without overcomplicating it but that is just me.

Re: Wacky Package Reference
« Reply #47 on: June 15, 2016, 03:56:15 PM »
Greg provides credit to a ton of people on his site. http://www.wackypacks.com/credits.html
And states that:   * All text on this domain copyright Greg Grant 2000-2009, unless otherwise specified.

I don't recall Rusty indicated credit to anyone else when using other's images.

Just because something is on the internet, it does not make it 'public domain' material that anyone can use without copyright violation.

Re: Wacky Package Reference
« Reply #48 on: June 15, 2016, 04:06:22 PM »
Declaring something as indisputable fact in regards to wacky packages from the 1960s and 1970s is pretty bold.  New wrapper/series combinations are uncovered, ToppsVault validates and invalidates things all the time.  Let's not get carried away saying one site has "some", "much", "lots" "little" speculation(not interested in semantics here) and other sites are 100% sound in facts and completeness.
Rusty has fabricated his own images to go along with an extensive story of the 1972 Die Cut set.
That is speculation.
The core theory of the 1972 Die Cut set was posted by me on Greg's old forum and is just something Rusty 'borrowed' and ran with.
« Last Edit: June 15, 2016, 04:11:02 PM by Fanatical_and_Sickly »

Offline Paul_Maul

  • Posts: 2396
Re: Wacky Package Reference
« Reply #49 on: June 15, 2016, 04:52:53 PM »
Quote from: Tom Keen
I prefer to allow a cool project like this to move forward without overcomplicating it but that is just me.

Well, fortunately Mick is more reasonable than you.

Offline Kook

  • Posts: 1003
Re: Wacky Package Reference
« Reply #50 on: June 15, 2016, 06:02:42 PM »
Do the websites you refer to include credit for the material on their sites?  I ask all of this as I think you unnecessarily complicated a pretty cool project that now has to thoroughly provide credits or not bother at all, half way is no man's land, so I think my questions are fair.  You definitely are championing this on their behalf, no big deal, just calling it what it is. 

Declaring something as indisputable fact in regards to wacky packages from the 1960s and 1970s is pretty bold.  New wrapper/series combinations are uncovered, ToppsVault validates and invalidates things all the time.  Let's not get carried away saying one site has "some", "much", "lots" "little" speculation(not interested in semantics here) and other sites are 100% sound in facts and completeness.

I'm not sure where all your anger is coming from. It appears to me that Dave is offering his opinion about credits since he is familiar with many of those that participated in the original research on the websites & thinks they deserve mention. I happen to agree since we have all greatly benefitted from the information over the years and I appreciate their efforts, as well as mcuddy's efforts to organize everything together.

Dave is not unnecessarily overcomplicating a cool project by adding credits, he has nothing to do with the project. He's offering his opinion, which others, including myself feel has some merit. People that don't agree with his opinion are free to ignore it, including mcuddy, the person who assembled the project, however, he seemed all but happy to add the credits.

If offering an opinion to include credits is championing a cause on someone's behalf, on whose behalf is the cause you are championing NOT to include the credits, since the project editor has no problem with it?
« Last Edit: June 15, 2016, 06:05:40 PM by Kook »

Offline bandaches

  • Posts: 3650
  • I had wacky sketch addiction!
    • Visit my Wacky Pack Website
Re: Wacky Package Reference
« Reply #51 on: June 15, 2016, 07:56:18 PM »
Rusty has fabricated his own images to go along with an extensive story of the 1972 Die Cut set.
That is speculation.
The core theory of the 1972 Die Cut set was posted by me on Greg's old forum and is just something Rusty 'borrowed' and ran with.
Dave says that he is the author of the 1st series sheet evolution.  Doesn't that include the 1972 die cut set?

"Primarily the 1972 test material. The 1st series sheet evolution (which I wrote) is pretty much fact."

I can't keep track of who should be credited for what but if you guys want to play traffic cop, pretend to be lawyers and enforce non official or expired copyrights and stuff, go for it!  I am fairly certain I am the one who called out the knights move but I couldn't give a rats ass if someone else wants to claim to be the author of that info.  I coined the phrase Scoot No/copyright(as obvious as it is yet it was undiscovered nor documented in any previously issued price guides) too.  Certainly someone writing that info down on their website gives them no privilege to it whatsoever so I sorta see where Tom is going with this.  Websites covered with pictures of Topps products also gives them no privilege to it as technically Topps owns those images.










Contact me at bandaches@yahoo.com as I have tons of wackys for sale!

Offline bandaches

  • Posts: 3650
  • I had wacky sketch addiction!
    • Visit my Wacky Pack Website
Re: Wacky Package Reference
« Reply #52 on: June 15, 2016, 08:01:07 PM »
I'm not sure where all your anger is coming from. It appears to me that Dave is offering his opinion about credits since he is familiar with many of those that participated in the original research on the websites & thinks they deserve mention. I happen to agree since we have all greatly benefitted from the information over the years and I appreciate their efforts, as well as mcuddy's efforts to organize everything together.

Dave is not unnecessarily overcomplicating a cool project by adding credits, he has nothing to do with the project. He's offering his opinion, which others, including myself feel has some merit. People that don't agree with his opinion are free to ignore it, including mcuddy, the person who assembled the project, however, he seemed all but happy to add the credits.

If offering an opinion to include credits is championing a cause on someone's behalf, on whose behalf is the cause you are championing NOT to include the credits, since the project editor has no problem with it?
I am with you, I wouldn't "mind" getting credit for stuff but I am reasonably sure the lineage of who actually deserves credit for many things has been muddied over the years so I am fairly certain the crediting job will be incomplete.  I have never found Dave to be one who settles for incomplete, he is as thorough as thorough gets but I think he signed up for something here he won't be able to deliver in completeness.
Contact me at bandaches@yahoo.com as I have tons of wackys for sale!

Offline Paul_Maul

  • Posts: 2396
Re: Wacky Package Reference
« Reply #53 on: June 15, 2016, 08:12:14 PM »
Ernie...I wrote the 1st series sheet article (then edited by Greg)...I have nothing to do with anything written about the (hypothetical) 1972 die cut set.

It's not really feasible for credit to be assigned for every bit of research/discovery at this point. As you point out, not all of that is well enough established.

However, when entire articles/text pages are used verbatim from a website, it seems reasonable that the source be credited, that's all.

Offline bandaches

  • Posts: 3650
  • I had wacky sketch addiction!
    • Visit my Wacky Pack Website
Re: Wacky Package Reference
« Reply #54 on: June 15, 2016, 08:25:15 PM »
Mick took them down temporarily to fix/add some things, they will be back.

What does this mean in the series 1 section?

Moron ->  Jolly Mean  -> Maddie Boy

Contact me at bandaches@yahoo.com as I have tons of wackys for sale!

Offline Paul_Maul

  • Posts: 2396
Re: Wacky Package Reference
« Reply #55 on: June 15, 2016, 08:38:55 PM »
That describes the progression of titles that were numbered 21.

Offline bandaches

  • Posts: 3650
  • I had wacky sketch addiction!
    • Visit my Wacky Pack Website
Re: Wacky Package Reference
« Reply #56 on: June 15, 2016, 08:42:40 PM »
That describes the progression of titles that were numbered 21.
...but it reads as replacements on a sheet as opposed to number replacements and the numbers aren't referenced.  Just an opportunity for improvement.
Contact me at bandaches@yahoo.com as I have tons of wackys for sale!

Offline Paul_Maul

  • Posts: 2396
Re: Wacky Package Reference
« Reply #57 on: June 15, 2016, 08:53:25 PM »
...but it reads as replacements on a sheet as opposed to number replacements and the numbers aren't referenced.  Just an opportunity for improvement.

Well, the article is about the sheet replacements that led from the die cut sheet to the 1st series sheet. So, in that context, it indicates that Moron Salt on the die cut sheet was replaced by JM, which was later replaced by MB. The numbers really aren't relevant in this context.

Offline bandaches

  • Posts: 3650
  • I had wacky sketch addiction!
    • Visit my Wacky Pack Website
Re: Wacky Package Reference
« Reply #58 on: June 15, 2016, 09:09:32 PM »
Well, the article is about the sheet replacements that led from the die cut sheet to the 1st series sheet. So, in that context, it indicates that Moron Salt on the die cut sheet was replaced by JM, which was later replaced by MB. The numbers really aren't relevant in this context.
yeah, the disconnect is that there is no Jolly mean 21 sheet represented in the article to visually support the write up so my thinking is the support is in the numbers. I guess no such sheet turned up?
Contact me at bandaches@yahoo.com as I have tons of wackys for sale!

Offline Tom Keen

  • Posts: 185
Re: Wacky Package Reference
« Reply #59 on: June 16, 2016, 07:22:19 AM »
I'm not sure where all your anger is coming from. It appears to me that Dave is offering his opinion about credits since he is familiar with many of those that participated in the original research on the websites & thinks they deserve mention. I happen to agree since we have all greatly benefitted from the information over the years and I appreciate their efforts, as well as mcuddy's efforts to organize everything together.

Dave is not unnecessarily overcomplicating a cool project by adding credits, he has nothing to do with the project. He's offering his opinion, which others, including myself feel has some merit. People that don't agree with his opinion are free to ignore it, including mcuddy, the person who assembled the project, however, he seemed all but happy to add the credits.

If offering an opinion to include credits is championing a cause on someone's behalf, on whose behalf is the cause you are championing NOT to include the credits, since the project editor has no problem with it?
Anger?  Sorry no anger here, just knew something didn't sound right as Paul Maul kept changing his tone on this.  Throwing out worries about "permissions"(scare tactic) is not the same as "nice gesture"(good will), just a simple fact so it made me wonder about motive.  That is my opinion and as you said, we are allowed to offer our opinions.  Mine just happens to be supported with actual posts and words used.  Now that we see Paul Maul got his credit, the motive and words used here align, all is right with the world.

I am not a big fan of razzle dazzle, instead, say what you mean, mean what you say, stand behind what you say. Leave smoke screens to the politicians.

In terms of accuracy.  I see reference to Norm Saunders doing all of the series 1 art in the copyrighted "factual" "credit laden" section of text.  Is that a fact?  I have heard otherwise and anyone who knows anything about art will see a marked difference in the series 1 art versus mid series art.  Some of the series 1 art is subpar.  I bet when you dig deeper, you will find other artists were involved and Norm had to brush up their work to try to save it for die-cut series by trying desperately to add 3D rendering and such.  My theory is that when they realized how much better Norm was than the others, Norm started doing 100% of the pieces as opposed to touch ups.

I don't know this guy Rusty but it seems there is quite a bit of hubris of the folks who keep saying "much", "some", "any" of his stuff is speculation but zero percent of their conclusions are "speculation"...perhaps I could be accused of Championing for Rusty, a person I know nothing, it would be a fair accusation  :P
« Last Edit: June 16, 2016, 07:57:23 AM by Tom Keen »

Offline ratchet007

  • Posts: 720
Re: Wacky Package Reference
« Reply #60 on: June 16, 2016, 12:04:26 PM »
Can we just get back to how awesome a book this is? Mine was waiting for me when I got home today and I must say it's pretty amazing. Kudos to Mick for putting this together. Can't wait for the next installment.

Offline quas

  • Posts: 854
Re: Wacky Package Reference
« Reply #61 on: June 16, 2016, 12:50:14 PM »
Can we just get back to how awesome a book this is? Mine was waiting for me when I got home today and I must say it's pretty amazing. Kudos to Mick for putting this together. Can't wait for the next installment.

Thank you Raven!!  And looking forward to seeing the link, once available, to where we can once again purchase the hardcover book.
Marc

Offline Tom Keen

  • Posts: 185
Re: Wacky Package Reference
« Reply #62 on: June 16, 2016, 12:51:19 PM »
Can we just get back to how awesome a book this is? Mine was waiting for me when I got home today and I must say it's pretty amazing. Kudos to Mick for putting this together. Can't wait for the next installment.
Agreed, no more credits, no more permissions, let the presses roll!

Offline Paul_Maul

  • Posts: 2396
Re: Wacky Package Reference
« Reply #63 on: June 16, 2016, 02:05:16 PM »


In terms of accuracy.  I see reference to Norm Saunders doing all of the series 1 art in the copyrighted "factual" "credit laden" section of text.  Is that a fact?  I have heard otherwise and anyone who knows anything about art will see a marked difference in the series 1 art versus mid series art.  Some of the series 1 art is subpar.  I bet when you dig deeper, you will find other artists were involved and Norm had to brush up their work to try to save it for die-cut series by trying desperately to add 3D rendering and such.  My theory is that when they realized how much better Norm was than the others, Norm started doing 100% of the pieces as opposed to touch ups.



David Saunders, an authority on his father's work and a professional artist himself, states that Norm painted all the die cuts.

So you're saying series 1 art is subpar compared to mid series art? Please do elaborate.

Offline Paul_Maul

  • Posts: 2396
Re: Wacky Package Reference
« Reply #64 on: June 16, 2016, 02:28:34 PM »
yeah, the disconnect is that there is no Jolly mean 21 sheet represented in the article to visually support the write up so my thinking is the support is in the numbers. I guess no such sheet turned up?

I don't think anyone knows exactly what die cut sheets exist because it's unclear when titles were replaced. Some number variations seem rarer than others, so there are likely a ton of intermediate die cut sheets that have never been found.

Offline Tom Keen

  • Posts: 185
Re: Wacky Package Reference
« Reply #65 on: June 16, 2016, 03:12:06 PM »
David Saunders, an authority on his father's work and a professional artist himself, states that Norm painted all the die cuts.

So you're saying series 1 art is subpar compared to mid series art? Please do elaborate.
Let's take it off line, the group wants merriment here and focus on these cool books and this cool collection of data. 

Offline vahsurfer

  • Posts: 779
Re: Wacky Package Reference
« Reply #66 on: June 16, 2016, 07:29:33 PM »
WHAT DIFFERENCE DOES IT MAKE AT THIS POINT! (HAHAHAHAHAHAH I HAD to get that in here!!!!!!)

#BurnTheWitch

Back to your regular programming.......

I LOVE my book - I do not have to print two sided and hope all works out well, toner, and drum, etc.

AWESOME Job, GREAT REFERENCE and incredible tool for making sure your collection is spot on!

Offline bandaches

  • Posts: 3650
  • I had wacky sketch addiction!
    • Visit my Wacky Pack Website
Re: Wacky Package Reference
« Reply #67 on: June 17, 2016, 08:50:30 PM »
Ernie...I wrote the 1st series sheet article (then edited by Greg)...I have nothing to do with anything written about the (hypothetical) 1972 die cut set.

It's not really feasible for credit to be assigned for every bit of research/discovery at this point. As you point out, not all of that is well enough established.

However, when entire articles/text pages are used verbatim from a website, it seems reasonable that the source be credited, that's all.
Any idea why greg seems to think the only label code on series 2 box is NEW SERIES 5-438-46-01-1?  Mine is NEW SERIES 5-438-46-01-0.  Now we are about to see another label/Box variation that doesn't "fit" previously documented info.
Contact me at bandaches@yahoo.com as I have tons of wackys for sale!

Re: Wacky Package Reference
« Reply #68 on: June 17, 2016, 09:10:03 PM »
Any idea why greg seems to think the only label code on series 2 box is NEW SERIES 5-438-46-01-1?  Mine is NEW SERIES 5-438-46-01-0.  Now we are about to see another label/Box variation that doesn't "fit" previously documented info.
Seems to be a typo, as the box image he has shows a -0 like yours.

Rusty also oddly lists the code as -1, even though he has a much better resolution photo that also clearly shows -0


Offline bandaches

  • Posts: 3650
  • I had wacky sketch addiction!
    • Visit my Wacky Pack Website
Re: Wacky Package Reference
« Reply #69 on: June 17, 2016, 09:53:47 PM »
Seems to be a typo, as the box image he has shows a -0 like yours.

Rusty also oddly lists the code as -1, even though he has a much better resolution photo that also clearly shows -0

(Image removed from quote.)
so likely his 3rd series box label info is also incorrect?
Contact me at bandaches@yahoo.com as I have tons of wackys for sale!

 

anything