• When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.

CartoonFanboy

Member
  • Posts

    110
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by CartoonFanboy

  1. 27 minutes ago, vodou said:

    Are you sure they're actually buying these pieces from an actual somebody else? I mean a real third-party, maybe somebody you know with a known collection, not them or their associates.

    I'm asking being I've observed the same phenomenon in markets I follow, but it's art they've owned (and I've kept an eye on) for literally decades. It was never not owned by them. They list them on their site, or eBay, or CAF, moving them around here there and everywhere, then later they pop up on various (not to name names, as it's now more than just one) marketplaces with big stickers. (Mostly because certain venues require an actual number not the bullsheep "ask/inquire" noise.) Then after (literally) dying on the vine there, they're "sold" and moved back to their site with the usual ask/inquire posting instead of a price. Then...sure as you-know-what...the same piece will get recycled to CAF or another marketplace or auction and the whole thing repeats again. Once you follow this cycle a few times (on the same unique piece of art)...you can only laugh and know that you will never ever ever do business with them again :)

    I see what you're saying (and I got to say it doesn't surprise me), but in at least one instance I've seen a piece I know they didn't have come up on Clink that they bought really high. It was a cover that was part of a collection that was slowly getting pieced out with several other covers from the same series and artist selling prior. I had actually bought two of the other covers but had no interest in this one, still I was watching the price anyway. Much to my surprise the piece sold for about twice what I was expecting, so it naturally stuck out for me. A couple months later the cover shows up in one of my alerts (can't remember which) and I click on it wondering who the person was that bought it, that's when I saw it was a DB.

    There was also the time that I was selling a page that I had purchased two years prior on ebay. Again, to my surprise the page sold for 2.5X what I had paid. I was thrilled of course, then I looked at the buyer and saw the name Donnley. As an interesting side note, he took over a week to pay me and ignored several emails I sent saying that I had specified payment was due within three days. 

  2. While I find much of what the DB's do confusing, counterintuitive and with regards to "unused covers" outright abhorrent, I've been especially surprised recently with how much they overpay for new art. On occasion I'll see a piece within my areas of focus sell on Click or another auction site for substantially more than what I expected. While this is not an uncommon occurrence in our hobby, I've observed that many times the same piece of art will show up in the DB's CAF shortly there after. 

    Marking up the price of art you got a good deal on is logical, doing the same thing on pieces you (by my estimate) overpaid for does not a seem like a sound business plan. 

  3. I'm not a member of clan Mcleod. I also find it funny we're using that as a metaphor since there has kinda been more than one Highlander given the various mythos changes and re-tooling that franchise has gone through ... but I digress. I'm more of a one piece per favorite artist Grail guy.

    For me there are a handful of pieces - each by a different artist - that are Grails to me. Realistically most of these I'll never own except the one that I'm fortunate enough to have. To me these Grails are the one example I hold above all others, regardless of content, historical significance, value etc. Even if I was offered a more valuable piece by that artist or one that is generally considered more desirable by the collecting community, I'm still keeping that personal Grail (outside of some absurd offer/trade that would be life changing of course).

  4. A bit more information. I pulled out my copy of BBDO #1 and found that the same art is used for BOTH the cover and the first page. This explains the numbering confusion with the covers being marked as page 1 (the first page is basically a synopsis of the characters origins). This being the case I'm sure the plan was to do the same thing for issues 2-4.

    I also dug up the art in question on the web archive at Spencer Beck's site. It was in the Mark Bagley section.

    https://web.archive.org/web/20111112013435/http://theartistschoice.com/bagleyan.htm#BBDOULTSPIDEY

    I think the only outstanding question now is if the art was published. I'm still of the opinion that the project got scraped after the first issue was published, thus the remaining issues were never printed despite being written and illustrated. That's just my guess tough.

  5. If you look at Scott Hanna's art on Spencer Beck's site you'll see that there are 4 issues listed for the BBDO Diversity give aways. Issue 4 was supposed to feature the Avengers, so this was probably meant to be the cover despite the weird numbering. 

    Given all that however, I'm not so sure they ever published past issue 1. I've never personally run across issues 2-4.

    Here's a link to Hanna's art page http://theartistschoice.com/hannamrvap.htm#BBDO

    Regarding the cover stock, I wouldn't read too much into that. The BBDO #1 cover looks pretty legit (you can see a scan of it on the page I linked to by clicking on the broken image for the cover to issue 1 if you want) and given that this was a give away comic that was printed at a smaller size than a normal comic, it's understandable that they just used a regular piece of comic art board.