Ironmandrd

???? You are spending income earned by your wife on art?

Speaking of Comic Link, they have an auction ending tonight which based on my tracking bids has a large number of under-market pieces -- as well as a few surprises to the high side.

Tuska then Romita/Layton on Iron Man Sal Buscema then George Perez (interspersed with some Sal Buscema) on Avengers John Buscema on Marvel Triple Action (Avengers reprints). Byrne/Austin on X-Men End of Trimpe/beginning of Sal B. on Hulk John Buscema on Thor I of course appreciated other later titles like Miller Daredevil/DK, Simonson Thor, Bryne second run FF, Zeck Punisher, etc. and enjoyed reading reprints of Romita Spidey and Trimpe Hulk but by then I was a bit older (with al the things that go along with that) and the nostalgia feeling wasn't/isn't the same (that doesn't mean I didn't looked forward eagerly at times to the next issue of various titles). Sorry for the multiple artists on certain titles but that's how my nostalgia rolls!

At one time Conan #11 was owned by David Mandel It could be his consignment or someone's who he sold/traded it to (he doesn't update his CAF very much)

I'm no expert---While at first blush it looks like Pollard (esp, panel 5 and the layouts themselves), looking closer, esp. at panel 4 which looks like no panel I've ever seen of Pollard, I'd have to guess Hall by a tiny edge. Sorry couldn't be a better help.

I know of at least two more as I saw it effectively change hands from Bechara to a collector at the NJ Art Con about 3-5 years ago (they actually finalized the deal sometime after the show)., I believe that collector was then the consignor to Comic Link (IIRC) .

OMG. I cannot believe you just did that. Are you kidding???? That is "access" as in physical access---ZERO to do with what we are talking about. Why don't you now start talking about easements? O f'ing MG. OMG again. Yes -- EXACTLY. Those ARE bad business practices. And ZERO to do with the alleged conduct we are talking about and your earlier points and position. I don't even know what to make of this as this basically looks like it was written by someone indirectly trying to convince some guy named @Rick2you2 that he is wrong. But wait, you are @Rick2you2, This has devolved into ridiculousness. Absent new info from Romain or Visar, I'm done with this thread. See ya!

Sorry--unconvinced. I literally have never heard of an "implied right to access" - the only "access" I've ever seen in matters like this relate to circumstances where its reasonable that a seller may not have possession of the items and may have to obtain them from a third party (with whom it has a contractual agreement). But my Google skills aren't as good as yours. Speaking of which--have you never seen nor heard of nor Googled cases where fraud was found by a court but damages are zero? You don't need damages to prove fraud. And please just give up the ghost on use of the phrase "bad business practice" -- use those Google skills and you'll see you may be the only one with that definition of "bad business practice" And lastly mostly for Mike H's benefit, I'm presuming for the sake of discussion that Romain's version is/was true-I don't know that it is--so yes there is no universal agreement on what happened here. But by the way, since I posted two people have contacted me with stories about how Visar has acted in a way that they viewed as negative--like backing out of what they thought was a done deal--not the conduct alleged here but neither had positive interactions with him.

I don't even know where to begin with this thread. The conduct, if true, seems wrong on its face. Think about if a lot of people did this -- it'd be crazy chaos. Anyway, Skip to 2. below if don't want more (non-lawyer boring) discourse regarding legal considerations. As an attorney, for what it's worth, here are my personal views (ie not legal advice to anyone and ignoring the non-US nature of this). 1. (and less importantly) US law and its interpretation and consequences in this area are likely more complicated than they may appear even to a practicing attorney, let alone a layman (unless you are, for example, a professor of Contracts and the UCC). So for the apparent minority advocate of this from the other side, @Rick2you2 some of what (you) he says regarding legality I would generally agree with. But it's not an exercise I care to go through ("I agree here" and "I disagree here") --- but one point I would strongly disagree with (you) him on is the following. (forgive the switching from third person to first person) He says it more accurately the second time around when he switches from referring to "there is no representation of ownership being made since there is no commercial contract containing a representation" to "At most, there is an implicit promise by the person listing an item that he/she has access to the goods in question and can sell them. Dealers regularly sell things they do not own, nor hold as a bailment" but he then veers into "Briefly, no, a seller has no obligation to disclose whether he owns a piece of art under any theory in the absence of special circumstances." Sorry, @Rick2you2, no, to my recollection, you have that backwards. The special cases are where you may have no obligation. The salient point you are missing is that these are unique items. Those other cases are special situations for, for example, non-unique commercial goods and merchants. As an example--this is not the case where you order a suit from Macy's and then Macy's has to fulfill that order by putting in a new order for suits to Hugo Boss and then Hugo Boss either delivers to you or delivers to Macy's. No one is saying Macy's misrepresented their "ownership" of the suit or their ability to sell it (and I'm sure Macy's website has a lot of disclosure about this anyway). "Access to" is for special cases of merchandise---not unique art. I guess "access to" could apply potentially to art but would require a disclosure saying in effect "I don't own this art but reasonably believe I can obtain it within some reasonable time after you indicate your binding purchase." So while I have not done any research, I would strongly believe that there is at the least an implied representation of ownership when you post art for sale without saying you don't own it and that means doing so without owning the art is therefore a misrepresentation by Visar (putting aside all other considerations for the moment like damages, failure to perform, etc. etc.) So that leads to: 2. (and more importantly) ALL THE TALK ABOUT LEGALITY DOESN'T REALLY MATTER. There is no case to be tried here--no arbitrator, jury or judge to persuade. Other than formalized auctions and similar sales (like HA Make an Offer), our "hobby" does not rely heavily on legalities notwithstanding the 4, 5 and 6 figure purchases/sales that occur regularly in private. No summary of sale terms are being distributed, no disclaimer statements furnished, no private contracts countersigned, no conditional sales, no bills of sale or lading or invoices created (maybe a few dealers), escrow agents are rarely used, cash is used frequently, outside counsel is not involved, etc. etc. So while talking legalities may be mildly interesting to some, it misses the mark. We are governed here more by customs or mores or accepted community norms or ethical conduct or whatever term(s) is/are your preference (let's cal it "Acceptable Conduct" for ease of use). When a dealer agrees to send me art before I have paid for it, he's not thinking of suing me if I fail to pay or if I pay after a lot of pursuing after a really long time--he's trusting that as a good customer I'll engage in Acceptable Conduct and timely pay. And I had better have a good excuse for late payment (or non-payment!) or I run the risk of his non-legal remedies---not selling me any other art, or requiring full payment upfront or publicly shaming me and therefore damaging my hobby reputation and my potential dealings with others in the hobby, etc.. He trusts that I won't screw him because he trusts that the negative consequences of my actions will be more detrimental than paying him (there are of course exceptions where violating community trust has not lead to material negative consequences (Matt Stock for example or other obvious cases)). So looking at things through that prism, I cannot see how Visar's conduct (if true based on on Romain's version) is not a violation of Acceptable Conduct. Full stop. And he should not engage in such conduct in the future. Nor should others. If he wants to, he should buy the piece from the owner and then when he has it, he can attempt to resell it (putting aside for a different discussion altogether the potentially perceived stigma of immediate flipping). (and saying it is a "bad business practice" seems to be sugar coating it --that implies it's a poor business decision (like having high prices so your inventory just sits) as opposed to violating a community norm). [Lastly, as an anecdotal aside, at least twice I've been on the end of this as the ultimate buyer --someone representing they owned a piece that they didn't actually own and asking me if I was interested in buying/trading it from them---and there was a lot of back and forth and wasted time coming to an agreement and both deals then fell through--thankfully neither time did I pay before it fell apart but it was annoyting that it yhappened and I won't deal the same way with such folks in the future. In one case the person finally admitted they didn't own the piece and their attempting to get it fell through. In the other case the excuses were lame and strongly suggested they didn't actually own the piece. Other times I've been approached and either wasn't interested in pursuing anyway but still suspected that they didn't own the piece or just plainly suspected and so didn't pursue. I think one time I knew who actually still owned the piece.] Jeez that was a long post.

$8200 for the Perez X-Men Annual page is surprisingly high and must be a record for a non-Infinity Gauntlet page.

Pieces I am following are still under FMV

Haven't bought from Tom in many years but bought miscellaneous Iron Man pages from him before that--always a nice guy who was easy to deal with. Sorry to hear that his site is shutting down.

Thought I'd try something different and post that I'm looking for Sal Buscema/Joe Staton pages from Avengers #129, #130, #131 and #132. Also from Giant Size Avengers #2 by Dave Cockrum. Also, if you don't own a page but someone you know does (who I don't know), finders fee paid for leads which end in a transaction. Thanks for looking!

70% over FMV as a percentage can be harsh but as stated above it's all relative to the actual dollar amount and where your psychological or financial pain level is at as the numbers start getting high (and that will vary for each person of course). And sometimes it's just about the feeling of not wanting to be so taken advantage of. I've happily paid up 70% or more on certain pieces and also firmly refused to pay up that much (or even much less of a mark-up) on other pieces. Another way to look it (as my wife is quick to remind me if I think about passing on something good)--how unhappy are you going to be a month, 6 months, a year later if you pass this up? Again, an individual decision. In one aggregious case, I ended up paying a guy over 5X what he had just paid a week earlier for a piece that I REALLY wanted (but had missed the opportunity by one day) (and unfortunately we are not talking hundreds to then thousands). But losing the piece was going to cause too much regret so i reconciled myself to it.

If there was no shipping on it that is likely not the final invoice but more likely just the results of your bidding. In any event I also suggest calling them to see what options are available as a new customer.

Wow

About 95%-5% in favor of published.

Hah! Yup. You got me there.

Speaking of Stan Lee . . . https://www.cnn.com/2019/05/14/entertainment/stan-lee-manager-elder-abuse-keya-morgan/index.html

Well sure it could be worse -- they could have signed on top of the characters. But I agree with what appears to be the majority sentiment -- the art was better left alone. And sorry Mike H., it's not just a " C O L L E C T I B L E" even if the consignor may or may not have treated it as such.

Hah! Even better---pretty sure that page sold on Ebay previously before the above sale and again by one of Matt's ebay names.

Frank Cho semi-regularly does sketch covers that are on sale on eBay - he has several themes (one being the big butts of women like MJ or Wonder Woman) and they all sell in excess of $1k.

I see the appeal up to a point but the prices seem crazy high at times--perhaps part of that is for a rarer edition of the comic? But it seems that if you took the drawing and had gotten it as a straight commission of the same size instead that it would in most instances cost a lot less. Maybe an exception is Frank Cho--does he charge $1k-$2k for a comic book sized commission?

I'll be there. Presumably its the dealers who usually go plus a few collectors setting up to sell.

The page 1 title splash to the Klaw issue (FF 56?) sold on CLink and I believe the page 1 title splash to FF 70 also sold on CLInk