Terry Doyle

My tastes in OA are fairly eclectic. Been meaning to purchase a few examples of Movie Poster OA for some time and I happened upon this original - measuring a large 21" x 28" - earlier this week at what I considered to be a giveaway price. The artist is Tom Chantrell, a British painter who enjoyed a long career as a prolific Movie Poster artist. From a 1969 movie called 'The Christmas Tree' that I don't ever recall seeing (and probably don't want to see anytime soon), but I am a fan of the artist's works, so I'm happy to have landed a nice example of an original painting . . .

Measuring 10.6" x 8.1" . . .

Country of origin doesn't figure too highly in the equation, for me. I tend to like things that look interesting, as opposed to all the endless sketches or pin-ups of super-hero-types-in-long-underwear, or nudies-in-no-underwear that feature too heavily. Your illo made me smile . . .

That's good.

Nice cover, congrats. There's a before & after image in Robert Dennis's CAF, if you're not already aware?

There is a thread within this OA forum, but you could always post something in the Marketplace or here.

It would be nice to see it, but you have some sort of restricted setting It sounds good!

There were about 8 different bidders on that item willing to take a chance.

Very romantic.

Oh, and as an afterthought, internet days (and soaring values) have been good to me when it came to selling-off chunks of my collection to make big lifestyle changes (latest one being that I retired 7 years early from work as a result of my art sales of last year). So, pre-internet days as a collector . . . and internet days as a seller. Both have worked well for me.

Started collecting in 1982. For over ten years I was mostly buying EC art via the Russ Cochran Art Auctions. These were subscriber-based, so the audience would have been much smaller to what you see today with the internet auctions. In addition to the EC stuff (at one time I owned several hundred pages of complete stories and some covers), I had to do the leg-work to track down original art over here in the UK (I was also collecting home-grown art, which could be very difficult to locate when it came to the prime works). Checking out possible leads as a result of research and building friendships along the way (I would travel round the country meeting-up with other collectors). Lots of good memories and I built-up a wonderful collection (most of the good stuff now gone), without having to break the bank doing so.. Easier to locate art nowadays, in the age of the internet, but the good stuff is heavily competed for and the guys with the deep-pockets win the prizes.

Isn't that the point however, to divert attention from the original discussion? Which one was the original discussion . . . I'm losing track?

Especially when boardies are now having to copy-and-paste their posts onto other threads just to cover all bases.

Just what the doctor ordered! Pleasant screams . . .

+1

Yeah, Superman to boot, literally!

Will do, thanks.

Who knows what happened to his nose (or is that the point?). No accompanying description.

Terry, Is that really outside the realm of possibility ? Somebody shilled Mike's auctions. While it could have been merely an administrative "friend" of mike's, it more likely was a person or people intimately involved in the hobby. While ADMITTEDLY speculative on my part that people on this board that are silent are these "friends" of Mike, it is certainly not outside the realm of possibility by a long shot. Anonymous posters have been around a long, long time and act with a false sense of bravado, often exhibiting trollish behaviour. At this moment in time, Mike Burkey is probably more concerned with damage-limitation and trying to put matters right. I somehow doubt that he would actively want 'friends' to post here on his behalf and pour more petrol on the fire. Just my opinion, Peter, you're entitled to yours.

I think people just don't like the double standard that those in 'The Club' get to play by, while collectors are considered peons or canon fodder. That the regular posters who are usually quick to rush in with their moral judgments and legal opinions about almost every issue remain silent speaks volumes about their hypocrisy and lame character. It has actually been quite funny as some of these long time posters usually love to espouse their moral superiority and deep legal knowledge. Sometimes silence is an action. Strong views, you're entitled to them, but why do you feel the need to post behind a shielded identity? At least a lot of those 'silent' posters you refer to are identifiable.

Have you not gone the route of asking Bill Cox to re-instate your gallery, Ankur?