Author Topic: LOST WACKYS  (Read 18290 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Paul_Maul

  • Posts: 2410
Re: LOST WACKYS
« Reply #175 on: April 17, 2018, 07:48:36 AM »
I don't get how the seller can use the word "Lost".  What about this auction product was ever "lost"?

Lost wackys have sold well, so this is “lost.”  Really, what does it matter, since any potential buyer with a double digit IQ would have to realize these are not lost wackys. I think the box stickers are very cool, but selling them this way does them a disservice.

Offline quas

  • Posts: 867
Re: LOST WACKYS
« Reply #176 on: April 17, 2018, 09:15:02 AM »
Lost wackys have sold well, so this is “lost.”  Really, what does it matter, since any potential buyer with a double digit IQ would have to realize these are not lost wackys. I think the box stickers are very cool, but selling them this way does them a disservice.

Not necessarily true in every case.  I think Kelly Anne Conway has a double digit IQ but she would not realize these are not Lost Wackys.   8)
Marc

Offline bigtomi

  • Posts: 1513
Re: LOST WACKYS
« Reply #177 on: April 17, 2018, 03:05:48 PM »
I think Kelly Anne Conway has a double digit IQ
Not so sure about that one.

Offline sco(o)t

  • Posts: 3659
  • Looking for a WP 2018 Chad Scheres auto card
Re: LOST WACKYS
« Reply #178 on: April 17, 2018, 04:58:50 PM »
Not so sure about that one.

So your thinking single digits.    ;)
aka Scot Leibacher (no trademark)

Offline Paul_Maul

  • Posts: 2410
Re: LOST WACKYS
« Reply #179 on: April 18, 2018, 01:44:11 PM »
So your thinking single digits.    ;)

Considering she is Phi Beta Kappa with a law degree that seems unlikely.

Offline NationalSpittoon

  • Posts: 910
Re: LOST WACKYS
« Reply #180 on: April 18, 2018, 01:58:17 PM »
So your thinking single digits.    ;)

I'd say triple of anyone who believes a gun can levitate and kill someone. (It's the gun's fault, not the human's.)

I thought we were avoiding political grievances on this forum.
Mark

Offline freetoes

  • Posts: 102
Re: LOST WACKYS
« Reply #181 on: April 18, 2018, 02:50:41 PM »
I'll bet she would remember Wackys, being about the right age.

There's nothing "lost" about these pictures of boxes. They're simply being sold under the Lost Wacky banner. And now that this line has been crossed, the only limits are those of the printers' imagination.

Yes, these descriptions are intentionally misleading at best. And if we know for a fact that o**p is Greg, this is very disappointing.

Side note: What card was ever unique by design (being designated "1 of 1," no less)? I doubt if even Topps would do this.

Offline RawGoo

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 4150
Re: LOST WACKYS
« Reply #182 on: April 18, 2018, 03:20:15 PM »

Side note: What card was ever unique by design (being designated "1 of 1," no less)? I doubt if even Topps would do this.

Topps Chrome sets have "Superfractors" that are 1 of 1 for each base title in the set.


Offline Paul_Maul

  • Posts: 2410
Re: LOST WACKYS
« Reply #183 on: April 18, 2018, 03:35:40 PM »
I'll bet she would remember Wackys, being about the right age.

There's nothing "lost" about these pictures of boxes. They're simply being sold under the Lost Wacky banner.

Greg is actually selling them on his own page with no “lost” reference.

http://www.wackypacks.com/forsale/front.html

Offline freetoes

  • Posts: 102
Re: LOST WACKYS
« Reply #184 on: April 18, 2018, 06:39:21 PM »
Topps Chrome sets have "Superfractors" that are 1 of 1 for each base title in the set.

Thanks, Pat. Again I overestimated Topps. Another example of how they cured me of completism.

Offline freetoes

  • Posts: 102
Re: LOST WACKYS
« Reply #185 on: April 18, 2018, 06:41:42 PM »
Greg is actually selling them on his own page with no “lost” reference.

http://www.wackypacks.com/forsale/front.html

If anyone hasn't seen the site's LW3 page, it's interesting reading:

http://www.wackypackages.org/unpublished/LW3.html


Offline bandaches

  • Posts: 3650
  • I had wacky sketch addiction!
    • Visit my Wacky Pack Website
Re: LOST WACKYS
« Reply #186 on: April 18, 2018, 08:35:36 PM »
If anyone hasn't seen the site's LW3 page, it's interesting reading:

http://www.wackypackages.org/unpublished/LW3.html
Interesting read or a pile of horseshit in terms of the mysteriousness of it?
Contact me at bandaches@yahoo.com as I have tons of wackys for sale!

Offline slamjim

  • Posts: 1701
  • OLDS7 in 2018!
Re: LOST WACKYS
« Reply #187 on: April 19, 2018, 12:00:49 AM »
Interesting read or a pile of horseshit in terms of the mysteriousness of it?

The funniest part is it says that proof sheet from 2011 turned up yet the date on the sheet is from April 2017.

Offline sco(o)t

  • Posts: 3659
  • Looking for a WP 2018 Chad Scheres auto card
Re: LOST WACKYS
« Reply #188 on: April 19, 2018, 07:47:20 AM »
Not an endorsement, just addind to the evolving history of this... Matt Stock posted today on the  "EvoMasher's Wacky Packages Marketplace" Facebook page, that the Wackypackages.org store is now open again. They are selling the same Lost Wacky Series 3 sets previously seen on eBay at:
             http://www.wackypacks.com/forsale/front.html

I guess I would feel pretty bitter if I had purchased a set on ebay for $250 only to find it now sells for $125 in the store and perhaps not as rare as previously advertised.

aka Scot Leibacher (no trademark)

Offline Paul_Maul

  • Posts: 2410
Re: LOST WACKYS
« Reply #189 on: April 19, 2018, 08:32:26 AM »
Not an endorsement, just addind to the evolving history of this... Matt Stock posted today on the  "EvoMasher's Wacky Packages Marketplace" Facebook page, that the Wackypackages.org store is now open again. They are selling the same Lost Wacky Series 3 sets previously seen on eBay at:
             http://www.wackypacks.com/forsale/front.html

I guess I would feel pretty bitter if I had purchased a set on ebay for $250 only to find it now sells for $125 in the store and perhaps not as rare as previously advertised.

If you'd feel bitter about that, then you'd experience a lot of bitterness, as varying price points reflecting varying inventory are a normal part of buying and selling. 

If an ebay seller auctions and item and it sells for $200, and the same seller offers the same item buy it now for $150 the following month, is there something wrong with that?

Offline Paul_Maul

  • Posts: 2410
Re: LOST WACKYS
« Reply #190 on: April 19, 2018, 10:05:21 AM »
If you'd feel bitter about that, then you'd experience a lot of bitterness, as varying price points reflecting varying inventory are a normal part of buying and selling. 

If an ebay seller auctions and item and it sells for $200, and the same seller offers the same item buy it now for $150 the following month, is there something wrong with that?

On the other hand, if an earlier auction specifically implied that there was a limited quantity of these, that's wrong. Many sellers are not candid if they have many of an item because they know divulging that will depress prices. But outright lying about that would be wrong.

Offline sco(o)t

  • Posts: 3659
  • Looking for a WP 2018 Chad Scheres auto card
Re: LOST WACKYS
« Reply #191 on: April 19, 2018, 12:17:03 PM »
On the other hand, if an earlier auction specifically implied that there was a limited quantity of these, that's wrong. Many sellers are not candid if they have many of an item because they know divulging that will depress prices. But outright lying about that would be wrong.

Yes, my point exactly. The description from one of the $250 sets follows below. I didn't bother to see how many sets have been sold on ebay but I would consider this deceptive advertising given there is almost always at least one auction running and now available in the store with no apparent limit, or not an indicated limit anyway,  to the quantity. How's that for a run-on sentence? :P

"The Ultra rare 2011 Lost Wacky 3rd Series set of 27/27 stickers with 9-card McSnoremick checklist puzzle.


This set is in NEW condition, still in it's original two sealed pack.

This set even comes with both lost gums cards as well as the very rare insert card.

The solo pictures are to show you exactly what is inside the 2 sealed packs.

These will be shipped priority insured.

THESE ARE VERY RARE AND YOU DO NOT SEE THEM VERY OFTEN."
aka Scot Leibacher (no trademark)

Offline Jean Nutty

  • Posts: 3217
Re: LOST WACKYS
« Reply #192 on: April 19, 2018, 01:08:30 PM »
http://www.wackypacks.com/forsale/new/boxes_series4_pack.html

BTW, the description footnote (1) under the "Wacky Packages Box Stickers" pack image states 

1. This is an underground project. This is not an official Topps product.

Offline lucidjc

  • Posts: 1073
Re: LOST WACKYS
« Reply #193 on: April 19, 2018, 02:14:16 PM »
 

If an ebay seller auctions and item and it sells for $200, and the same seller offers the same item buy it now for $150 the following month, is there something wrong with that?

I would think that there would be something wrong with that if they were sold under the "limited" banner at $250 each, then offered in quantity at the lower price.
That would be price gouging.

Price gouging is a pejorative term referring to when a seller spikes the prices of goods, services or commodities to a level much higher than is considered reasonable or fair, and is considered exploitative, potentially to an unethical extent.

Jim

Offline Baked Bears

  • Posts: 1200
Re: LOST WACKYS
« Reply #194 on: April 19, 2018, 03:26:05 PM »
If you'd feel bitter about that, then you'd experience a lot of bitterness, as varying price points reflecting varying inventory are a normal part of buying and selling. 

If an ebay seller auctions and item and it sells for $200, and the same seller offers the same item buy it now for $150 the following month, is there something wrong with that?

No, there is nothing wrong with what you described, and it isn't unethical.  On an emotional level, however, I wouldn't say that I feel exactly happy whenever I happen to stumble across something at a much lower price than I originally bought it for.  I live with the situation, yes, though I'm not overjoyed.  I think most people would feel the same.  It's just human nature.  (Meanwhile, you're always thinking in the back of your mind what you could have bought with the extra cash!)

Offline Paul_Maul

  • Posts: 2410
Re: LOST WACKYS
« Reply #195 on: April 19, 2018, 04:52:27 PM »
I would think that there would be something wrong with that if they were sold under the "limited" banner at $250 each, then offered in quantity at the lower price.
That would be price gouging.

Price gouging is a pejorative term referring to when a seller spikes the prices of goods, services or commodities to a level much higher than is considered reasonable or fair, and is considered exploitative, potentially to an unethical extent.

Jim

I’m bothered by deceptive or untruthful auction descriptions. Bottom line, if these sheets are just being printed up, suggesting otherwise is dishonest.

Beyond that, I could care less what is being charged for them. This isn’t gasoline or water during a hurricane, buyers can take it or leave it.

Offline drono

  • Posts: 302
Re: LOST WACKYS
« Reply #196 on: April 21, 2018, 07:35:22 PM »
http://www.wackypacks.com/forsale/new/boxes_series4_pack.html

BTW, the description footnote (1) under the "Wacky Packages Box Stickers" pack image states 

1. This is an underground project. This is not an official Topps product.

Since they used the exact font for "Wacky Packages" that I'm sure is a Topps copyright, I'll bet Topps would still have a problem with this set.  Admitting that it's an underground project doesn't absolve them of violating Topps' copyright.  Stating that Topps couldn't do it if they wanted to, doesn't mean they can do it legally either.  Methinks they're treading up a slippery slope here.

It's in the same realm as making up hats with NFL team logos on it (or even their likeness -- it doesn't have to be exact) and selling them without consent of the NFL or the teams represented.

Offline JasonLiebig

  • Posts: 1605
    • CollectingCandy.com
Re: LOST WACKYS
« Reply #197 on: April 22, 2018, 12:22:19 AM »
Actually, rather than a copyright issue, this would be a trademark infringement, since the Wacky Packages logo is a registered trademark of Topps.  And for those that don't know, you cannot get copyright protection for the same thing you're trademarking.  So, the name is trademarked, but in most cases, the artwork on the stickers themselves are copyrighted.  It can get a bit complicated, certainly, but there you have it.

Interestingly, it would appear that Topps' trademark is what is referred to as a "word mark" meaning that it is for the use of the word "Wacky Packages" in connection to adhesive stickers (they have separate trademarks for the digital and clothing categories).  By "word mark" that means that they don't claim any trademark over the particular STYLE of the logo itself, lest they could go after many of the other folks who utilize similar style of logos.  They could have attempted to file a trademark for "Wacky Packages" in a thick bordered style of yellow lettering with a thick black border, and that would protect against someone infringing on the style of their trademark. 

But yeah, at the end of the day, someone selling "Wacky Packages Boxes" stickers is clearly inviting a trademark infringement case against them.  Whether or not that Topps actually pursues it is something else entirely.

Since they used the exact font for "Wacky Packages" that I'm sure is a Topps copyright, I'll bet Topps would still have a problem with this set.
« Last Edit: April 22, 2018, 12:25:55 AM by JasonLiebig »
Jason Liebig - A swell TV host who used to oversee Marvel Comics' X-Men - now creator and curator of WishbookWeb.com and CollectingCandy.com, a celebration of candy packaging, marketing and the people behind it all.

Offline quas

  • Posts: 867
Re: LOST WACKYS
« Reply #198 on: April 22, 2018, 03:46:43 AM »
Perhaps Topps' non-pursuit of Wacky patent/trademark infringements is consistent with their general attitude of not seeming to care all that much about Wacky Packages in the first place any more.  Now if there was a patent/trademark infringement of GPK or sports cards, Topps' attitude might be very different.  Just a thought.
Marc

Offline Bigmuc13

  • Posts: 322
Re: LOST WACKYS
« Reply #199 on: April 22, 2018, 05:40:44 AM »
If anyone hasn't seen the site's LW3 page, it's interesting reading:

http://www.wackypackages.org/unpublished/LW3.html

That is a very full description for a very 'mysterious' set.  I think there is little mystery there.  Now. of they find out if Pupsi was pulled or added, that would be awesome  :]
Still looking for Series 17

Offline Bigmuc13

  • Posts: 322
Re: LOST WACKYS
« Reply #200 on: April 22, 2018, 05:44:42 AM »
Yes, my point exactly. The description from one of the $250 sets follows below. I didn't bother to see how many sets have been sold on ebay but I would consider this deceptive advertising given there is almost always at least one auction running and now available in the store with no apparent limit, or not an indicated limit anyway,  to the quantity. How's that for a run-on sentence? :P

"The Ultra rare 2011 Lost Wacky 3rd Series set of 27/27 stickers with 9-card McSnoremick checklist puzzle.


This set is in NEW condition, still in it's original two sealed pack.

This set even comes with both lost gums cards as well as the very rare insert card.

The solo pictures are to show you exactly what is inside the 2 sealed packs.

These will be shipped priority insured.

THESE ARE VERY RARE AND YOU DO NOT SEE THEM VERY OFTEN."

Wow, that last sentence is really an indictment of the deception in this auction, especially sine they were currently printing them and had unlimited potential for quantities made.
Still looking for Series 17

Offline drono

  • Posts: 302
Re: LOST WACKYS
« Reply #201 on: April 22, 2018, 10:23:51 AM »
Wow, that last sentence is really an indictment of the deception in this auction, especially sine they were currently printing them and had unlimited potential for quantities made.

Exactly!

It's not a 1909S-VDB penny that hasn't been minted in over a 100 years and will never be minted again.  It's a "we can print it anytime we want to find a sucker who's willing to pay $75 (or more)" item.

Offline Zenergizer

  • Posts: 767
Re: LOST WACKYS
« Reply #202 on: April 22, 2018, 03:29:21 PM »
I agree!  Here's my take on the whole thing (and my apologies if I wrote this before):

1.  I'm not sure who owns the rights to those images, but most likely Greg, so if he wants to put
out a set and have Matt help him out, more power to him.  I don't know Matt at all, can't say what type
of person he is.  If everything was done fairly and without issue, as a fan I'd love to see these
titles get printed on some nice card stock, ones that I can tuck away neatly in some pocket pages!
I'm not qualified enough to know about the "if's," though.

2.  Certain titles have to be questioned.  "Picky Stix" is definitely an old one of Dave's that had been
unreleased until a few ANS ago.  I'd hate to see anything get taken away or misused or misrepresented
by any of the great Topps artists that we have.

3.  The auctions that were shilled (or is it "schilled"? I keep thinking of Curt Schilling, the Red Sox pitcher)
were disgraceful and sad.  And deceitful.  Just call it what it is.  "Hey, we made a bootleg set of many
unreleased titles blah blah blah" and I'd be much more interested.

Just my three cents,
Paul

3. 

Offline moron_chicken

  • Posts: 75
Re: LOST WACKYS
« Reply #203 on: April 22, 2018, 04:57:01 PM »
"I'm not sure who owns the rights to those images, but most likely Greg"

Greg does not own the rights to those images.  I know this has been debated before but either Topps owns them or the person who currently owns a piece of the art used.  I know for the original Lost sets 1 & 2 Greg rounded up the art work from the respective owners so her could get high resolution scans.  I know because I own one of the pieces that was used, Gooya.  I would think legally they owe royalties to either Topps or the person who owns the respective art piece. 

Offline Zenergizer

  • Posts: 767
Re: LOST WACKYS
« Reply #204 on: April 22, 2018, 06:56:17 PM »
well noted, thanks for that.  I'm still not sure if one owns the original art to any piece that gives him/her the
right to publish it or profit from it.  If it was submitted to Topps and Topps paid for it, they own the rights I would think?
They can later sell the artwork if they choose.

(And my apologies for starting any debate, I'm not trying to stir any embers, just hypothetically thinking of
the Lost Wacky projects specifically)

Offline JasonLiebig

  • Posts: 1605
    • CollectingCandy.com
Re: LOST WACKYS
« Reply #205 on: April 22, 2018, 11:33:05 PM »
Yeah, ownership of original artwork comes with ZERO explicit rights .  Owning the "rights" or in this case, the copyright, is totally separate from owning an original.   If Topps commissioned the work and the artist invoiced Topps for the work in question, chances are they own the rights to it. 

If these are rejected pieces that Topps never paid for, then the question of copyright is less clear.  Because who paid for or now owns the rights?   The most obvious person would be the original artist, unless they sold off the piece and all rights to it. 

So technically and legally, owning an original doesn't give you reproduction or publication rights.  BUT, in real world practice?  Ebay is awash with copyright infringement.  Somewhat reputable t-shirt dealers online are similarly awash with trademark and IP violations.  So... in actual practice, this debate is likely all a moot point.   Because regardless of the legality of it, they're doing it, and no one is probably going to stop them. 

The humor would be if someone else started blatantly ripping THEM off and producing bootlegs of THEIR bootlegs (and I realize this has already been brought up previously).  They would have little room to complain and no legal ground to stop them.  Even if ethically-speaking, it would be pretty low. 

Somewhere out there, someone who is looking at doing things the right way by pursuing legal licenses for usage of other people's IP, they're the folks who get kinda knocked by all of this behavior.  It dis-incentivizes that area of entrepreneurship. 






 
well noted, thanks for that.  I'm still not sure if one owns the original art to any piece that gives him/her the
right to publish it or profit from it.  If it was submitted to Topps and Topps paid for it, they own the rights I would think?
They can later sell the artwork if they choose.

(And my apologies for starting any debate, I'm not trying to stir any embers, just hypothetically thinking of
the Lost Wacky projects specifically)
Jason Liebig - A swell TV host who used to oversee Marvel Comics' X-Men - now creator and curator of WishbookWeb.com and CollectingCandy.com, a celebration of candy packaging, marketing and the people behind it all.

Offline moron_chicken

  • Posts: 75
Re: LOST WACKYS
« Reply #206 on: April 23, 2018, 01:42:13 AM »
"The humor would be if someone else started blatantly ripping THEM off and producing bootlegs of THEIR bootlegs (and I realize this has already been brought up previously).  They would have little room to complain and no legal ground to stop them.  Even if ethically-speaking, it would be pretty low. 
"


I would pay a lot of admission to watch this movie. 

Offline koduck

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 1965
  • Make it snappy!
Re: LOST WACKYS
« Reply #207 on: April 23, 2018, 07:12:26 AM »
Agreed! This kind of drama is usually reserved for the GPK audience. Get your popcorn out!

Offline mikecho

  • Posts: 1062
Re: LOST WACKYS
« Reply #208 on: April 23, 2018, 10:06:23 AM »
To get off the subject a little bit, I called Greg at the phone number on his Wackys website and told him about some a's and c's for said website. He seemed to be very receptive to me and said that he'd change them when he got the chance to do so. I know that he's a busy man, but I have faith that he'll do this. I'll keep an eye out, though, and see what happens.

Offline Paul_Maul

  • Posts: 2410
Re: LOST WACKYS
« Reply #209 on: May 05, 2018, 03:47:34 AM »
I saw there is a binder now for the Boxes Series 1 - 4. This looks very nice; but I won't be pursuing it due to the prohibitive cost of these cards. Even at the $99 per set price on the the web site; that equates to $5 per card which is not what I am willing to pay. $29 to $39 per set would have worked for these sets ; but that was not the path chosen.

Be patient. With everything, those who have to be the first to have something pay the most. Maybe eventually the prices will come down.

 

anything