Bronty

On 1/22/2024 at 12:29 PM, 1classics said:

 

One other thing to mention that was discussed originally is value. If this was auctioned with clink in 2014 and sold for north of $2k+ at the time, nearly a decade later selling for multiples is quite common.

agreed 100% - I remember pages from Raphael 1 with Casey Jones panels being sold by Eastman for 5k ea or so, what maybe six years ago?   (I might have that wrong but somewhere in there) and now those pages are 25k on HA. 

The interview is easily searchable on google. 

A) #3 appears to have been out at the time of the interview;

B) the rest is ambiguous due to the word choices in the relevant interview;

C) the piece in question doesn't seem to appear in the interview.    There is a Raphael image in the interview but this is not it.    Perhaps it was published elsewhere in the book but that does seem unlikely off hand.   

D) Clearly they haven't done enough diligence on this description and they do make mistakes sometimes.    I'll leave it to others to determine if that's criminal.   Strikes me as a strong word choice but this also seems lacking on their end.

On 1/21/2024 at 2:16 PM, Michael Browning said:

Good points, all around. I think it MIGHT hit $125K, so it will get close, but I don't think it will surpass the previous sale and, by not doing that, the seller takes a small loss. Maybe the enjoyment of the piece is enough to offset that, but, selling it so soon after buying it less than three years ago makes me think it was bought as an investment rather than a nostalgic keeper and the seller might be trying to mitigate a bigger loss.

that's where I figure it - just over six figures; 100-125k.   At the end of the day I would rather have Mandel's scorpion page that just sold.

This has got a lot going for it, but no spidey really kicks it in the nads.

On 1/18/2024 at 6:58 PM, Michael Browning said:

I think it hits $20k.

That's where my head went to when  I first saw it as well.    Its an appealing image.

I have a different approach as well in that I really don't care what the percentage is.    I'm more concerned with having enough value outside of collectibles that retirement will be comfortable.    After that, the remainder can be in collectibles if I choose.    So I look at it more like... there's a minimum amount of 'real world' assets I want to have.    After that, its a free for all.    So, I look at it more in absolute dollar terms than percentage terms.    Sure, a percentage falls out of that, but the percentage is in no way part of my thought process.

On 1/17/2024 at 10:05 AM, PhilipB2k17 said:

 

The Billionaire has enough money to convince a greedy art dealer to act as his agent/fiduciary in procuring art for him. 

You keep going back to this idea that the guy has money, so its just a done deal that he can convince a dealer to act as fiduciary.

Let's say that's the case.    It may not be in Bouvier's best interest to agree to that.    Only a sucker is going to make 10% as an agent if he can instead make 50% as a dealer.   

IMO, you assume way too much about who does or doesn't have leverage here.    We don't know.     I imagine Bouvier is not poor, not dumb, and has dealt with many strong personalities and strongarm tactics in the past.    Yet he's weathered those storms and risen to the top no?    To deal at that level, he's no rube, and forcing him into a corner he doesn't necessarily want to be in cannot be assumed.

And now, the fork!   Its done.

On 1/17/2024 at 10:13 AM, PhilipB2k17 said:

You didn't ask me, but I'd say about $5k-$7K. Interior pages are going for about $2K-$3k. Sometimes less. It's the title splash from issue 1. But it's Patterson inks. If it hits 5 figures, it's because it's the #1 Title splash (and a very nice example from the series by Bolland), but I don't think it has any spillover effect onto other pages. 

Thanks!   You clearly know the market better than I do, but I'll guess it does better than that due to the issue 1 page 1 effect as you said.   

It will be fun to see where that one falls out.

Ehh, I'm putting a fork in this.  Deleted.

I didn't speak to whether it was express or implied.   

At the end of the day, I imagine a lot of these transactions rely on trust and confidence between the parties, no different than our corner of the hobby world.    If you are transacting privately for large amounts, you have to be able to trust the other person.    I've dealt for what are very significant sums to me without a contract - essentially on the basis of trust.     I would suggest many people have dealt privately in art at sums that really probably DO warrant contracts, without one. 

I don't imagine its much different here.    Yeah, you can ask for a contract, but it does change the relationship.    Both in good ways (easier to sue) and in other ways that maybe aren't so great (I might not get the art I want).

If I'm an art collecting junkie and I am lusting after material a dealer holds, I don't necessarily have the leverage to start making demands.   

Forget the sums being nine or ten figures and imagine that you are dying for Romita Spideys.     Can you make Burkey subject to a contract, express or implied?     He's just as likely to tell the collector to get stuffed.

On 1/16/2024 at 10:54 AM, comix4fun said:

Oh yeah. If there was every a Bolland piece, inked by someone other than himself, that would go for a massive premium we're looking at it. 

Great looking page yes.    I am not too familiar with Camelot 3000 although I like the covers.    What is your guess on price for this splash?

On 1/17/2024 at 10:05 AM, PhilipB2k17 said:

If you paid me several million dollars consideration to do it, I might agree to the contract. As would Bouvier. That's my point.

The Billionaire has enough money to convince a greedy art dealer to act as his agent/fiduciary in procuring art for him. The contract would not have been to jump into a vat of acid or roll around in a pile of razor blades. If the dealer then acts in a self-interested manner, it's a lot easier to sue him. 

Well then we are talking past each other.   Of course it was ADVISABLE to have a contract, but that doesn't answer the question of whether one ACTUALLY EXISTED.    

Per your earlier quote, it seems there was no contract actually in place, so the horse has left the barn on the advisability of a contract.

On 1/17/2024 at 9:35 AM, PhilipB2k17 said:

It's only ridiculous to people who do not know how contracts work.

I can afford a lawyer.   Should I unilaterally draw up a contract requiring you to dance naked in Times Square?

That's what you said isn't it?   That the Russian is a billionaire and can afford a lawyer, so he should draw one up to his liking.     As though the other party (also a billionaire..) has no say in the matter?

There are definite themes.

- Xenozoic Tales/ Schulz

- Archie covers

- Don Simpson

- Eisner

etc

On 1/12/2024 at 2:34 PM, Yorick said:

For that particular Bolland, something about those soft pencils and shading creates a more outstanding image (to me) than the finished work.  AND, that particular image is likely one of Bolland's most consistently high-value selling books (except perhaps Killing Joke?).

I would venture you've got a case of jpg confusion!    That prelim might look the same size as a cover on the computer, as a jpg.   In real life, side by side, its going to be much smaller and you're going to much prefer the final. 

You’re overthinking it IMO.    Not every significant piece is going on a wall.    Some people have more 100k pieces than wall space they want to hang art on.   Some pieces have value than wall power.   Etc etc.    there’s all sorts of reasons why something may or may not be on a wall, and using your reasoning or your situation (or any one person’s situation) and trying to apply it across the broad spectrum of collectors doesn’t really work IMO.

On 1/14/2024 at 8:22 AM, Rick2you2 said:

Actually, they don’t have to sign it all to be bound by it. Agency law requires no signed writing. Its existence can be based on the facts and circumstances. So can fiduciary status (which is a disfavored interpretation). You can still be bound by it even if you don’t sign it but begin performance. I have this discussion regularly with contractors I represent (although not on agency status). Only if no performance and no signature is provided will the contracting be avoided. 

Real estate contracting is treated differently because it generally involves the purchases and sale of land. Also, states often have statutes governing real estate contracting.

That’s good information but I was just responding to the idea that “well he can afford a lawyer so he should just draw it up to his advantage, which is ridiculous on its face.   
 

It also doesn’t really answer the question of whether or not Bouvier was in fact an agent here.    

On 1/12/2024 at 11:56 AM, PhilipB2k17 said:

You would think a Billionaire could afford to have a lawyer draw up such a contract. 

You know, both parties have to sign a contract.    Just because you draw up a contract you like and bring it to me doesn't mean I won't tape it to a urinal and use it for target practice.

I’m sure that one surprised everybody.    Seems like way too much but as long as the buyer is happy, I’m pretty certain the seller is too. 

Ehh I take that back.  It matches to the printed book.

probably some sunfade.

On 12/7/2023 at 2:53 PM, Bronty said:

For ASM 1?   3m?    I’d take that bet.     I was actually wondering if that 9.6 went so strong because it was an upgrade candidate.     Note there is a 2nd 9.8 on the census now after many years of there being a single 9.8.

Well, It’s an ASM 1 not an AF15.    
 

3m would have been shocking.   1 and change makes sense . 

Prices so far don't seem stratospheric to me.

On 1/11/2024 at 10:34 AM, delekkerste said:

Canada now:

South of the US/Canada border:

Yeah perhaps.

On 1/11/2024 at 2:35 AM, Primetime said:

What a wild 😜 lamp conversion 💡 I just have the normal oil can. 

well, I guess that book is expensive enough that  you might need the lubricant!   congrats!