It has been 3 years to the month since we lost Kenny Baker.

Topps is STILL cranking out signed product of him.


I think Topps (and other companies) should be required to inform collectors when they have finally depleted the back stock of signed stickers.

Never gonna happen.

Three years isn't even the record. Leonard Nimoy passed away in February 2015 and I'm sure RA still has something from him in the vault. And those are not sticker autos, so just imagine the ones that are.

We should all look this up as a research project and the winner is the one who finds the person that is dead the longest and is still signing cards. Not that there is a prize for it mind you.

quote:

Originally posted by Raven:
Never gonna happen.

Three years isn't even the record. Leonard Nimoy passed away in February 2015 and I'm sure RA still has something from him in the vault. And those are not sticker autos, so just imagine the ones that are.

We should all look this up as a research project and the winner is the one who finds the person that is dead the longest and is still signing cards. Not that there is a prize for it mind you.

Hahaha! Right! WAIT! No Prize? REALLY?!?!

Strangely enough a company having actual signed cards after the death of a celebrity does not agitate me like imagining a book of autographed stickers sitting in a safe to be used on items at someone else's production whims.

I was discussing this with a sports friend of mine and he says the Willie Mays has made a deal where there could be cards of his signature rolling out decades beyond his passing.

I'm sure back in 2004, when Quotable Bond came out, I noticed some autos were dated a couple years prior to release and theorised on the RA message boards they could end up holding onto autographs for YEARS.
People said no, that would never happen! Who would do such a thing...

Regardless, it is cool that collectors get chance after chance to obtain cards from these great signers.

Still not a big fan of sticker autos, but I do think their inclusion can be a boon for certain sets. A set like Star Wars Stellar, for example, should be all hard-signed given the price IMO, but at least stickers meant Carrie Fisher and Kenny Baker, and Hamill (who won't sign), can have an auto card released and make the sets more uniform/complete.

quote:

Originally posted by X:
and Hamill (who won't sign),

Wait, WHAT?!

I missed this, is this something he announced?

quote:

Originally posted by mykdude:

quote:

Originally posted by X:
and Hamill (who won't sign),

Wait, WHAT?!

I missed this, is this something he announced?

Nothing official. Apparently there is bad blood between him and Topps. Same for Anthony Daniels and Gwendoline Christie too.

Hamill hasn’t participated since 2017 or thereabouts when Topps took forever to fulfil his redemptions for Stellar 1. Topps advertised that for this premium high end set all autos would be hard signed, except for deceased actors. In the end the Hamill cards ended up using stickers and there was a lot of backlash from collectors/dealers.
Don’t know if that’s all Topps could get out him or they had to use up stickers they already had to satisfy the needs of that release.

Either way, his autos haven’t been in sets since as far as I recall.

He seems to be avoiding conventions and sit-down signings as well and his asking prices are getting hefty.

Take a look on eBay, there are often now very few of his auto cards available and go for quite a bit. Everything has been hoovered up and some of what does appear can outsell Harrison Ford these days.

Hamill has been a great signer for Star Wars fans for a very long time. He was adding his own wacky autograph inscriptions for years before card makers realized it could be a whole other product premium hit for them. Maybe that got him mad, they didn't give him credit for the idea.

Yes he is MIA right now and not turning up on-card, but maybe its just the time he realized that he should be equal to Ford, at least in this saga. The fact that he was more accommodating and accessible in the past than some others shouldn't mean he's a cheaper signer, if he is feeling a little disrespected.

Hamill is still in great demand and he's probably at an age where he wants to cash in a bit more for himself than for card makers and show promoters. In his case, with his history, I would give him a pass if his price has gone up and he's more selective. And by pass, I mean not hold it against him, he's been good to his fans.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Raven,

Well that's the prevailing theory: he wants to cash in. He's done so much for fandom for years, he can justify withdrawing somewhat now... coincidentally when his popularity is arguably hotter than it ever has been? Leave the people wanting more and they'll pay the $350+ he now charges for autos when he does make a rare appearance.
It has even gotten to the point where autograph chasers are saying Ford is now easier to get in person than Hamill. So long as you are respectful and don't get in his face, Ford will stop in the street. Hamill, not a chance.

He may be important to the franchise and the fan base, but ultimately he is no Harrison Ford. Don't get me wrong, Hamill is one of THE best guests I have ever met at a convention but I felt he was steep at £135/$165 at Celebration Europe 2016. The year before he was $125 at Celebration Anaheim.

Funny how everyone retains a different story about people, usually coming as hearsay from someone else. I have heard just the opposite about Ford for a long time, that he is very prickly in public, as many of the bigger celebrities must be to avoid getting mobbed.

He certainly protected his autograph very well up until the last 2 - 3 years. His signature is right up there on the list of "most likely to be forged", in part because authentic autographs from him were so few and far between. Even the paid stuff was minimal. Just how many certified cards did he sign for TOPPS Indiana Jones products? You could count them on one hand for some titles I think. Now he is churning them out in 50 copy clips for Star Wars and signing for other makers and there was at least one advertised "send in your item" personal signing. He is not cheap to be sure, but if you have the money, the supply is available, where it was just so rare before.

Hamill's autograph should already be in everyone's collection if they really cared, so he's playing catch-up and why shouldn't he do it when he's hot? Why shouldn't he protect his autograph now? If no one shows up or no one buys, he'll know he's asking too much.

Guess I should just be happy I have both.

Sure makes the $500 I spent on the whole Galaxy series 5 autograph set 6 years ago worth it.

quote:

Originally posted by X:
I'm sure back in 2004, when Quotable Bond came out, I noticed some autos were dated a couple years prior to release and theorised on the RA message boards they could end up holding onto autographs for YEARS.
People said no, that would never happen! Who would do such a thing...

A while back I started cataloging the copyright date for on-card autographs. If you see an auto in the wild with a 2014 date, how do you know that it was only available with a 2019 series? (GOT InfleXions ranged across those years.) Some studios want cardmakers to use the copyright date of the photo image, so it's not necessarily a sign of "late, unreleased, or left over", but GOT Season 7 had a heaping handful of 2014s and 2015s, and the photo scenes couldn't have come from that season.

quote:

Originally posted by allender:
A while back I started cataloging the copyright date for on-card autographs. If you see an auto in the wild with a 2014 date, how do you know that it was only available with a 2019 series? (GOT InfleXions ranged across those years.) Some studios want cardmakers to use the copyright date of the photo image, so it's not necessarily a sign of "late, unreleased, or left over", but GOT Season 7 had a heaping handful of 2014s and 2015s, and the photo scenes couldn't have come from that season.

It's always been very frustrating to me that I can't tell which autograph card came from which release on many of these running titles. Bond may tell you the movie it's from, but not the set it was released in. Star Trek the same. GoT may tell you the season, but again not the set. As you say, copyright dates can be way off and useless. I have had to keep my own lists on the series or consult yours for the titles that I follow.

If the autograph card indicated the set name the makers would have to stick to the release schedule, so for on-card the solution is just not to say anything. No such issue with stickers though, you will never know how long prior to a release that sticker was signed or how many are left to be used.

If autograph collectors were smart they would throw out the whole notion of rarity on certified autograph cards when stickers are being used. Yes the card may be limited and rare, but in terms of the signature, that 1/5 card may actually be a 1/500 sticker waiting to drop. So how can we talk about rare signers when we have no idea what's in the vault?

I agree, how many Kenny bakers and Carrie fishers to come.

quote:

Originally posted by Raven:

If autograph collectors were smart they would throw out the whole notion of rarity on certified autograph cards when stickers are being used. Yes the card may be limited and rare, but in terms of the signature, that 1/5 card may actually be a 1/500 sticker waiting to drop. So how can we talk about rare signers when we have no idea what's in the vault?

I think to some extent this happens. Often I see prices with things like pop century level out in spite of numbering. And even when a low number does go for more it never goes for anything near what it would if that number were a true value.

I would also tend to believe that anything which crosses over to a new set must be approved by the celebrity. No matter how many stickers the company has.

I can see some famous people bailing on Pop Century simply because of the horrendous images of them that are being used. Matthew Broderick's first run on a card and it is one of the ugliest cards in the whole set!

As a collector I try to always get a feel for what the entire signature run is above any special "rare" card. If an autograph card is going to be rare it should be something that the signer does, not the manufacturer.

quote:

Originally posted by Raven:
Funny how everyone retains a different story about people, usually coming as hearsay from someone else. I have heard just the opposite about Ford for a long time, that he is very prickly in public, as many of the bigger celebrities must be to avoid getting mobbed.

This is certainly not the case. Just look up Youtube videos of Ford signing. He's generally willing, but the moment it starts getting slightly out of control he shuts it down. He has an overall cranky demeanor, but from what I've seen he's accommodating.

As far as Baker and Fisher, it's not like Topps is flooding sets with 100+ any more (except for the Stellar line). You're lucky if there are 10 in a set.

Leaf seems to have an unending supply of James Gandolifini stickers, and he's been gone 6 years now. Same with the wrestler Chyna, who's 5 years gone.

quote:

Originally posted by mykdude:
I would also tend to believe that anything which crosses over to a new set must be approved by the celebrity. No matter how many stickers the company has.

I have no information about this from the industry side of it, but I would tend to think that celebrities are just contracted to sign X number of stickers and give away any rights to knowing where they will be used. From a legal stand point, that would seem to be the way to go.

A card maker would be crazy to have to keep getting permission from the signer to use something they paid for years ago. And then what about any Estates? Suppose someone dies and the Estate objects to the continued use of signed stickers in future sets? No, I'm pretty sure the celebrities have to be giving away their rights of approval when they agree to sign stickers. Whether they realize it or not, it's probably up to their lawyers and agents. Who ever doesn't want to give blanket approval, just doesn't make the agreement and doesn't sign. At least that would be my assumption on it, if anyone knows for sure?

quote:

Originally posted by Ted Dastick Jr.:
As far as Baker and Fisher, it's not like Topps is flooding sets with 100+ any more (except for the Stellar line). You're lucky if there are 10 in a set.

Yes, but there are at least 6 - 8 Star Wars sets a year conservatively, for how many years past and future, and Stellar has over 60 copies by itself I think. So they will run out of Bakers and Fishers eventually, but no question each new sticker or on-card autograph that appears increases the supply and lessens the big money demand.

As for Ford, you said what I said. He is a cranky guy. But when he does sign for free on the street he gets mobbed and winds up cursing at people because they don't stop, which is probably what they deserve actually , but that's on youtube also.

quote:

Originally posted by Raven:

I have no information about this from the industry side of it, but I would tend to think that celebrities are just contracted to sign X number of stickers and give away any rights to knowing where they will be used. From a legal stand point, that would seem to be the way to go.

A card maker would be crazy to have to keep getting permission from the signer to use something they paid for years ago. And then what about any Estates? Suppose someone dies and the Estate objects to the continued use of signed stickers in future sets? No, I'm pretty sure the celebrities have to be giving away their rights of approval when they agree to sign stickers. Whether they realize it or not, it's probably up to their lawyers and agents. Who ever doesn't want to give blanket approval, just doesn't make the agreement and doesn't sign. At least that would be my assumption on it, if anyone knows for sure?

It's true there could be a blanket contract but in many ways this is almost like a product endorsement. I would think similar rules apply. Just as you say a card maker would be crazy, so would a celebrity to blindly sign off their image and signature for an unspecified amount of time.

I have a couple of cons coming up towards the end of the year I think I might asked some of the celebrities. John Cusack has signed for Pop Century, I will definitely hit him up.

quote:

Originally posted by mykdude:
It's true there could be a blanket contract but in many ways this is almost like a product endorsement. I would think similar rules apply. Just as you say a card maker would be crazy, so would a celebrity to blindly sign off their image and signature for an unspecified amount of time.

I have a couple of cons coming up towards the end of the year I think I might asked some of the celebrities. John Cusack has signed for Pop Century, I will definitely hit him up.

That's true too, but perhaps the celebrities leave the fine print to their agents and don't even know that all the stickers are not immediately used. Plus most signers are not really big names, so many might just be happy that someone wants to pay them for their autograph and don't care where it's going.

If you find out, I'd be curious to hear what they say about these contracts, maybe you'll start a riot. In Cusack's case, with his God awful signature, I don't think he should worry about where they choose to put his stickers.

Just thinking about the images only, I think there's an answer to it. Sets like Pop Century and Americana use public or non-copyrighted photos, so they may not need approval from the person pictured. Any film or TV properties have photos licensed out from the studio, so again they don't need approval from the individual actors pictured for each product as long as they have the license. That would prevent celebrities from complaining about using their images for unspecified periods of time because they can't control studio licenses or get money for public photos.

That just leaves the question of do they really know or care where their autograph stickers go and do the contracts take away all signer approval rights anyway?

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Raven,

quote:

Originally posted by Raven:

Just thinking about the images only, I think there's an answer to it. Sets like Pop Century and Americana use public or non-copyrighted photos, so they may not need approval from the person pictured. Any film or TV properties have photos licensed out from the studio, so again they don't need approval from the individual actors pictured for each product as long as they have the license. That would prevent celebrities from complaining about using their images for unspecified periods of time because they can't control studio licenses or get money for public photos.

That just leaves the question of do they really know or care where their autograph stickers go and do the contracts take away all signer approval rights anyway?

Yeah, Cusack should be ashamed of that scribble he calls a signature. I don't see it any better on items signed at shows and cons either.

I would have to think that as long as a set is licensed and making money there is some type of permission system for images. Certainly it is obvious that not using film or album images cuts out the middleman.

Just like when Upper Deck lost their League license, they could still push player cards through the Players Association. No team logos and such.

Most of the Americana stuff looked nice but with the recent Pop Century releases I have to wonder if exact images were ever discussed or just how many could be used?

Did I mention how ugly this set is?