Marwai

Yes, I get it now. It's an awful movie and all the MCU is ruined forever and just awful. Those that agree, please pledge with me not to watch Avengers Endgame and stay off that thread.

It doesn't matter now after Black Panther made 1 Bill. It mattered before and for about 20 years since Blade when Hollywood thought only white superheroes can make money.

Well if you have not looked at all the "social" media articles that wasn't going to let it fail: 1) It was a black movie that wasn't about race relations, slavery, stereotypes, and had a positive outlook. 2) It was about the country that was going away from isolationism to joining the rest of the world. T'Challa has to answer: Should his wealthy country hide or share resources with the rest of the world? Should they be a leader on the world stage or stay on the sidelines? Once revealed to the rest of the world, should they let in refugees from other countries and turn Wakanda into something just like any other poor country? Will they bring their ways and ruin the Wakandan culture? Do they have a responsibility to the rest of the world or not? 3) Do they share this technology and weapons,etc. responsibly or use it to escalate war across the globe? America sells arms to many nations across the globe. Do we do this responsibly? 4) How do we as a society weaponize Rhinos? This always brings the attention of the Academy.

We might be looking at it too close as comic book fans and forget that Hollywood loves the "social" aspects more than the comic genre. Most of the stuff that gets nominated for best picture has something social to say or is some period piece drama. Black Panther is one of the few superhero movies to dare tread in that direction. It won't win best picture without getting nominations for Coogler or the actors, but it will be the only one to get a sequel and have a lasting influence.

You get the sense that Momoa's personality shines through all the silly stuff in the -script and he really embraces his character like Gadot for WW and a lot of the Marvel actors. Wan directed his best yet and Mera is so adorable and gorgeous!

I didn't quote him, so maybe the Mods need to remove those reply posts. It still remains that he does not value his customers' private information. It could have been anyone who's done business with him before that gets doxxed if you innocently make him angry or getting caught in the crossfire like in this case. I would disagree that, "people here can post .......with ZERO accountability"

This isn't cool at all, exposing people's private information on the web out of spite. He even got the wrong guy, so it could be anyone's information who's bought from Mike before.

Yes, I agree you should share your art. The discussion is irrelavent if you have no intention of ever selling the art. My latest update only has 13 views in over 9 days, so it really doesn't matter if it's not A material popping up for sale.

For the buyer, the fresh to market piece has not been in many different collections before. Therefore the art has not been rejected for not being good enough to stay in a permanent collection. If the last owner kept it for 20 years, you won't get another chance at this piece for maybe another 20 years at 2038 prices. While the often traded piece could be had for a known price at any time. People tend to think that if a piece is not good enough for so and so to keep in their permanent collection, why should I buy it for more at auction?

We're talking about some high priced A type art, right? The piece that has traded hands a few times probably has already reached it's max dollar potential for anyone buying high to resell higher. You have to figure the well known BSDs were already approached with it privately or they already tried to get it/or even had it at some point while it was traded around. There is already a price valuation attached to it. So if they put it in auction, the bidding pool has been reduced to bidders who buy for the art that can still afford it or a dealer who see's a bargain and who's willing to sit on it for a while. If the auction winner tries to resell / flip this piece, the prospects for getting more money for it, especially from the known BSDs who already turned it down or had it before are none. They'd have to wait for the hobby to expand and new players come in to resell it. If the piece is fresh to market, there is a comp from the other piece being shopped around, but no actual price valuation attached. There is still the potential for the BSDs to go head to head in the auction. Of course, this is all hypothetical since no one is buying art for resale. What the question that should have been asked is: If there would be any difference in HA result when one piece that has not traded hands and shown on CAF for 20 years versus another similar piece that has also never traded hands but kept from the public eye for 20 years? For A level stuff maybe not. If it's from a well known collector in good standing, its pedigree could be a plus. If it's from some one/entity with a shady reputation, you may think there was some undisclosed restoration/alteration going on there to spend A level prices.

Heritage would be smart enough not to put two similar covers back to back. But the fresh to market one would get higher bids since the previous owners of the one that has passed hands would probably be out of the bidding unless they all had seller's remorse.

Sharing art on social media is making your collection even less private than putting it on CAF. You won't see the hobby expand if it's kept to CAF. If you just wanted to share a sketch from a lesser known artist, it is not appreciated on CAF. 10 views maybe? It gets buried there. So why not put it where you can actually show appreciation for the artist and his followers can see it and easily appreciate it too? Most of us don't have delusions of grandeur of having a great A+ collection that belongs in a museum and don't have their grail already so we don't want be to sized up by the content of the CAF gallery when trying to buy or trade for something.

I agree with every point you made. That Neal Adams. He see's his artwork being sold on Heritage for close to half a million dollars and thinks the artwork he produces now can get a tiny fraction of that. Who does he think he is?!?!? An older version of Jim Lee or something? He's no Trimpe, that's for sure. Asking for $5,000 is outrageous as he's only asking $4000 for the commission on blank covers and he's supplying the blank cover comic himself. You can buy one already done on Albert's site right now for less than that. Lee does know what he's doing. He knows these blank cover DK3 blank covers will get put on ebay for a $7000 asking price and even more if they get slabbed. Yes, there is one on ebay now. He's pretty greedy too, looks like he wants to feed his own kids and leave nothing on the table for resellers to make money off it to feed their kids. If you have a kid, feed your kid and don't let them starve because you were counting on the ROI of blank sketch covers or commissions. Haven't we already agreed on this board that commissions are for fans only and you can't count on getting your money back out from them? So I agree, in the end it is up to people if they want to get a commission, or buy something he has already drawn, or buy nothing. If no one wants a commission, is that supposed to teach him a lesson or something? He'll just draw and feed his kids as he's always done. It seemed to be working fine for 15 years before he offered to do commissions again just for this one specific show in Italy. Albert should be stripped of his Cabal card, he should have just offered this opportunity behind the scenes instead of opening this up to the public. Some nonsense about being fair to everyone or something. What does he think will happen when the situation can possibly only make 6 people in the world happy?

You can watch Jim draw live and get a sense of what limited backgrounds mean on his twitch channel https://www.twitch.tv/jimlee/videos/all He'll stream again live 3/31/18. If you got an account, you can ask what limited backgrounds mean and if he'll add dinner, dances, hire you to be a live in nanny, and reach arounds at that time. Jim has drawn sketches for free for fans in line before. So he understands not everyone can afford to pay those prices. With only 1000 tickets to the show over 3 days, it would figure most of the guests will have more time to possibly draw for fans??? That would make it worthwhile to pay the admission.

I got this on Albert Moy's mailing list: Albert has two extra rooms booked for San Diego Comic Con 2017 at the Residence Inn by Marriott in the Gaslamp Quarter. http://www.marriott.com/hotels/maps/travel/sanrg-residence-inn-san-diego-downtown-gaslamp-quarter/ That's walking distance to the convention center. Here are some of the details: The rate is $270 a night. They require at least a 4 night stay. You can get one or both rooms. Get more information by emailing albertmoy@aol.com

For new art that you saw sold on a website, there can also be sales tax that the buyer had to pay if they lived in the same state as the dealer, so the 25% above the sale price offer is only 15% above what they paid.

We already got a dealer that takes scissors to artwork and manipulates sales/auction data. We got room for another, right?

I would agree. When Man-Thing shows up in a post credits scene and DC is still scuffling to make their main heroes work on film, we'll start seeing Star-Lord prices for these things at auction.

That comes down to preference. There are a number of artists who do this sort of "1 of 1" print runs when their work is digital. At this point it's generally not as valued as highly as traditionally non-digital work. That said, more of the industry is certainly headed in that direction so who knows what the future will hold. It seems unlikely that everything goes 100% digital, but if a "1 of 1" is as close as you can get to an "original" it's a personal preference whether it's worth the asking price. I would rather ask the artist if they would do a hand drawn commission version of that image instead of buying an artist proof that could someday be reproduced/counterfeited. Scan and print technology can only get better with time.

Mike's words were, "I also want to say that I apologize for this profusely as it made many art collectors i've dealt with throughout the years question my integrity, and this issue will not happen again...." But his supporters/agents are contradicting Mike by saying it is not an issue because it's working within the rules and has the right to do this in the upcoming February 2016 HA auction. I really can't trust what Mike said and his apology then.

Actually, everyone's lots would be affected. If you won a piece from him, for sure. But the damages caused may be far greater than individual pieces sold. If you consigned materials to the same auctions, you might have realized lower prices. Legitimate bidders of your items were knocked out when paying higher shilled prices from Mike's lots so they couldn't afford to place a bid on your lots. Or those potential bidders saw a Mike lot that was performing below what was expected and decided to pass on your piece hoping to win his lots which then were shilled up.

Confirmed no yellow discount.