grapeape

On 9/9/2019 at 7:16 PM, Shemp said:

I guess we all have a different definition of living...

Shemp did you...did you highlight the dead guys in bold black..?

C o l d  b l o o d e d 

2 hours ago, Will_K said:

I'll admit that I looked up the word.

+ 1

43 minutes ago, batman_fan said:

I have been working in the tech sector for about 33 years, during that time I have generated dozens of patents for various companies I have worked for.  Every company had you sign something when you were hired that they owned anything you invented while working for them.  You didn't have to sign it but if you didn't, you didn't get the job.  I made maybe $100k total off all the patents I did from what the company paid you per patent but the company made literally hundreds of millions of dollars off the patented ideas plus lawsuit settlements for infringement cases.  My take is I accepted a job where I knew what I was agreeing to upfront.  That said, anyone using wireless or wired connections to the internet can send me a check since your data is 100% passing through something I had a handle in developing.  Let me know and I can send you my paypal user name .

I’m not giving you money. You’ll probably just “waste” it on Schulz dailies and Sundays.

1 hour ago, hippiecop said:

Grapeape, you are becoming one of my favorite reads here on the OA forum !

Keep up the interesting,well thought-out, and humorous posts !!

Thanks friend. I appreciate that.

26 minutes ago, vodou said:

The historical position Houses have taken is that the consignor is presenting the object for consignment on good faith with proper unencumbered title, unless other evidence presents itself (not that the House would go looking, ever, mind you).

1. This was always BS.

2. It all tends to fall apart under scrutiny, and spectacularly so.

3. Tread carefully with this "auction houses are going to have to..." stuff. They would most likely just walk away from that part of their business instead. Imagine the hot air rushing out of that balloon for all the bag-holders

Coincidentally, just finished this book this morning over coffee:

It's ancient (pun intended!) news now, being published in the late 1990s and most relevant to things now resolved but then in motion re: Medici and Symes, but nonetheless a great read. And insight into what you can and cannot expect Houses to give a flying fig about if it might impact their most important clients or their fee takings.

HA, CLink, et al may all be super-duper stand-up where Christie's and Sotheby's were not, but...I lean toward skepticism in all things

Precisely. It’s absurd I know. we’re clearly working in circles where in many cases we collectors know more than the auction houses. 

The “Kirby” recreations and on and on. Skepticism is prudent and knowing that money drives so much of the shady parts of what we love about art collecting is crucial.

19 minutes ago, ESeffinga said:

All I wanted to add was how very easy it is to hypothetically spend, or give away someone else’s money.

All the self-righteous rhetoric in the world can’t tell anyone here what they would actually do, were they put in the same position. 

It looks different, feels different and undoubtedly is different when it’s other people trying to browbeat you into what they think you should do.

In this hobby you might as well also tell people what to collect, how to collect it, how to store it, keep it, look at it, etc.

Good luck with that. The rest is just (to paraphrase) dancing about architecture.

yes sir! It's not always obvious. It's a casual throwaway line or two. "There are people....." "authenticity" "question"

ESeffinga I'm sure you recognize some of the arguments in this thread and in the Purchase of the Year  SWAMP THING 37 thread. Many hands in the pockets of the buyer of the ST 37 cover. In this BM 251 thread to some it seems obvious and "moral" to collect a tax or dictate a percentage to be given to the artist. This thinking is exploding beyond these threads but we'll leave it there. No warnings needed for things we're not allowed to say here. Under the circumstances I believe some of us made a rational defense of the ownership of our art. Yourself included.

3 hours ago, BCarter27 said:

I don't think this is a case of blanket virtue signalling on my part. I'm saying this money should come from the seller and not the buyer and not from some random donation from such as I... and not in a vacuum either, but rather in the case of an effective "found money" six-figure windfall on a piece with a possibly shady sales history.

(With all of the politics being thrown around in this thread -- property rights, socialism as a dirty word, etc. -- you'd think I was trying to restart the October revolution! I'm not suggesting burn the whole hobby down to the ground. No matter how much people want to turn any discussion into a battle of idealogues and absolutes and catch each other out with "gotchas", there are always extenuating circumstances and context. You have to take these things a case at a time -- both in real courts and the court of opinion. Please let's not fall into those internet traps here.)

In cases when you have Nazi-stolen or any stolen art, it is a much more difficult situation for the recent buyer who has just shelled out FMV than it is for the previous owner who bought the thing years ago at a much smaller cost basis.

If I were a potential bidder on this, due diligence would definitely include making sure that Adams and his future estate wouldn't have a potential claim on it. I might request the consignor pay Adams for a COA just for peace of mind going forward.

"Strong arm", pressure, whatever you want to call it... I think Adams is taking the only course of action available to him. And I think he was put on the spot in the moment in a live broadcast without some non-existent PR person standing over him.

This is an artist whose work many of you purport to love to the tune of tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars. So I am a little shocked at the lack of empathy or respect for him -- "antics", "pound sand", etc. We're not talking about McFarlane who is able to kick back due to his toy empire. We're talking about a guy who still goes to every con to presumably pay the bills and engage with his fans.

And without Adams, guess what? The entire OA hobby would probably be non-existent (or its birth delayed by many years.)

I don't think enough people here are putting themselves in his shoes. This is his life's work. And these pieces of it keep popping back up for headline, industry-building sales at a time when it is only natural to be looking back and taking stock.

Are there any other artists or writers in here who want to comment? Those are the people I feel can offer further perspective on this.

You say that if you were bidding on Neal’s art it would be good to have him approve so that he or his estate would not later claim ownership.

At first glance that would seem prudent. However should art collectors use due diligence with every piece of art out there on the market concerning the dateline and provenance of ownership?

Should we seek out the living relatives of all the great artists who’ve passed away? Do they have a claim or issue on the art I want to buy. Will they pursue me legally after I buy. Did Romitaman do his due diligence on the page he’s selling me?

if I try to sell do I do the same? To avoid some artist or relative showing up a month before my presumably owned and paid for art goes to auction.

Im arguing for Neal to privately speak to consignors and auction houses if he must to avoid interference.

I’m asking Neal or other artists to reveal which pieces were stolen? 

List ALL individual stolen art pieces.

Not blanket lists suggesting all your pages could be in question when you know that simply isn’t true.

Don’t hit me again with statute of limitations boardies please. Don’t insist this is Neal’s only course of action please boardies.

The only way collecting-buying-selling- trading comic art works is if the parties involved have trust. If this BS continues along with other nonsense ( fake art, criminal behavior like forged signatures on art) we will lose our way. The seas are rough and I’m looking for calm.

I do empathize with Neal. I’m almost always on the artists side. I would however betray common sense by not calling Neal out.

i will give you that the question Neal was asked maybe put him on the spot. Never the less his response was telling and mirrors an attitude of belligerence and cuteness when it comes to negotiating.

Mitch noted a rage about stolen art. Mitch notes a more reasonableness when Neal was reminded of just how much art was sold on his behalf.

This argument never was about what Neal may or may not be due. 

Its calling out Neal for interference. Neal is a smiling, jovial sometimes grumpy beloved man. A genius artist.

I am a fan and a collector. I’m standing up to Neal because he is thinking only of himself and what he deserves.

He’s doing what he has to do.

Im pushing back because I don’t want to traffic in Neal’s work if there’s the slightest chance I’ll be accused  of thievery. No one will come to me after I pay for a piece of art and “ask” for a percent and get it.

I won’t be bullied.

No one will come to me when I want to sell something I own and paid for and “ask” for a consulting-authentication fee and get paid.

I won’t handover the “protection” money.

I love Neal but if any artist, or estate is going to approach me for a bite you better

( 1 ) Show me proof of ownership

( 2 ) Show me the police report with my art listed as your stolen art 

You can see where this is going. Auction houses are going to have to help establish a data base with legal status of everything bought or sold in their auctions. Every page splash and cover.

How would we possibly establish such a thing? All art held privately or circulating on dealer web sites at this point should be clear of any cloud or suspicion.

Any living artist or estate for deceased artists should publicly present a list of any disputed art. Maybe the auction houses as well as CAF fan based web sites publish that list for the good of all.

Even if the statute of limitations has passed. Then at least we can have a civil discourse on all the different solutions offered up here.

The resolution of any disputed past statute of limitations would take place between artist- estate and seller-rep.

99% of these situations would rely on a resolution recognizing that it’s the owner not the artist- estate that will decide if they will act out of generosity.

Generosity.

If I were to give Neal anything, it would be based on generosity.

Not obligation.

Whether artist, collector, buyer or seller we must represent the collecting of original comic art with passion, integrity and positivity. 

Neal the passion collectors feel for your work or any other artists work fuels the demand for what you are doing everyday. I truly believe that interfering with the presumed integrity of buying and selling in this hobby will be damaging using the current approach.

In turn it can effect what your doing everyday selling art to fans. Your COAs mean nothing to me honestly. What if the OA market collapses?

I can study the lines on your work and determine a real or fake. It’s what I do. Please chill out and enjoy what you’re doing. Your fans like me are not your enemy.

I’m asking for everyone to play nice. It’s not fair for me to buy something or sell something and have the Ghost of Opportunity visit my wallet. 

Like Mitch suggested list individually what is stolen or....... 

43 minutes ago, vodou said:

It's interference.

I like that word for this situation. 

INTERFERENCE 

Spot on Gene. The assumption that every collector bought art for a song and now stands to make MASSIVE profits is rubbish.

Neal if BM 251 is stolen file the police report and demand HA stop the auction.

Approaching HA or  publicly asserting that the bidding could be less than stellar without your blessing, not cool.

Neal, IS THIS YOUR COVER ? Was it stolen? Should it be returned to you?

if so take the proper legal steps or go radio silent. It’s not ok to manipulate an auction. If you can negotiate privately and someone feels compelled to pay you off....I can’t do anything about that. 

Collectors think about this. If artists or estates can strong arm consignors and auction houses for percentages of sales or percentages of auction fees on a regular basis, it’s not good for this “thing of ours.”

A one off is one thing but this sounds like the standard MO lately. 

On 9/7/2019 at 7:07 PM, dirtymartini1 said:

 

Neal Adams was doing a live Q&A on FB tonight from a comic book store. I asked his thoughts on the final hammer price of his iconic cover to Batman 251. He responded that he was still in talks w the seller to verify that it was real and the actual OA cover. Until then he couldn't actually say. Ill leave it right there. 

Here is the link. I believe it was around the 42 min mark. 

 

Thank you for posting this video. Turned out to spark some interesting thoughts.

13 hours ago, Superhero said:

 

I stared at the 251 recreation on Neal's site for several years knowing the original cover was well beyond me so I eventually picked it up.  link below.  It is a great piece.  I confirmed with him that it was all him.  The title/logo/trade dress are stats on a separate overlay.  I talked to Neal about it for a while.  At that time, he didn't know if the original cover still existed or who might have it.   Interesting thing is I know he did it in the late 90's early 2000s but he dated the certificate of authenticity when I purchased it instead of when he actually drew it. 

 

https://www.comicartfans.com/gallerypiece.asp?piece=807921

You could ask Neal to write you a short letter saying something about “when” he actually made your recreation. He might do it and maybe for a charge.

 Is that the one and only recreation of the 251 ?

There seems to be a question...in some people’s......

There seems to be a question, of the authenticity of that cover. There’s some question....I’m hoping to settle that question, but I cannot at this time so.

I think it could go for a million dollars.But the authenticity in question I don’t see how it can do anything like that. But..we’ll see what happens.———Neal Adams (see the video above 42-44)

I’ve spoken today with a high level HA rep. The cover is 100% without a doubt the real original art cover. 

Neal has raised the issue of authenticity with HA recently...same as he did with the GL GA cover. So......Neal if I win the cover I’ll let you take a picture with me and the art, for 10%

1 hour ago, vodou said:

That's usually where Brian Peck comes in (and a point I very much agree with). Oddly...John Byrne...famously perma-butthurt on this entire subject...never wants to go near the downside discussion.

It’s a touchy subject for artists. John Romita has handled this with the most grace. I admire him greatly.

I love to support artists in any way I can. I prefer buying directly from them if and when possible.Ive kept every sketch or drawing obtained by artists for the personal memory and out of respect.

if artists today can keep the rights to their work, the art, that’s great. Anyone who listens to minute 42-44 of that clip should be able to understand where this is going. We don’t need adversarial relationships via a vi collector and artist. Save the bile for the companies that hired you  and help make changes. Don’t let them take advantage. Sort it out in contract before your artistic journey.

Exciting times for HA and the Batman 251 Cover. There’s a thread on the subject and a video with Neal Adams discussing  the “authenticity” of said cover. On the thread video see minute 42-44.

1 hour ago, Randall Dowling said:

I think you guys are being pretty hard on the guy.  It’s not like he made a fortune drawing comics for Marvel and DC.  His work is broadly loved and now, almost 50 years later, he’s despised for wanting a small percentage of the hammer when his artwork sells for a thousand times what he was originally paid for it?  It’s not greed.  This isn’t even a new phenomenon.  This issue has come up in other art markets (although as yet, it’s still unresolved).

I try to imagine how it would feel if I spent much of my career making a living drawing artwork for commercial purposes just to see someone make $100,000 selling that artwork many years later that I only got paid $500 for.  I think that would feel pretty lousy.  And I don’t see anything wrong with him asking for a fee when it gets resold.  I hope he gets it.

BTW, you’re talking about the guy that arguably broke his career going to the mat for Jerry Siegel and Joe Shuster, fighting to get those guys recognition and compensation when they were nearly destitute.  Maybe somebody should go to the mat for Neal now.

I know sentimental feelings are there for the artists. I have them. I want a balance though. Ask John Romita and all these other artists. No one thought these pieces of art board were going to be worth 2 cents. 

The value for the artists is what they are able to do now. I don’t know what Neal makes a year. I do know this. He’s working Cons, has a website. Fans do support his talent and legacy and want to buy from him directly.

I wish Neal the best:

2 hours ago, Lucky Baru said:

For me it comes down to whether or not you’d want a beloved member of your family selling something for $ 800.00 only to find out it was worth $ 50,000.00+.  I wouldn’t want my mother being the seller in that type of hypothetical sale.  Oh, and I wouldn’t want the buyer in my hypothetical sale teaching ethics to my child either.

Lucky if this art was up in mums attic and she invited the buyer in to make her a fair offer on an item she wasn’t sure of.....and he smiled and said I’ll give you $800 that would be dubious.

Paying a dealer his asking price is all that’s required. Absolute zero moral ethical breach here.

if you go out tomorrow to buy a home for  $80,000 and your research tells you it’s worth $800,000 are you going to tell the seller to take more money from you?

I feel bad for the seller because he didn’t do his job. Know your business. He by no means was robbed.

i feel great for the buyer. You can’t even with certainty talk about money on this piece until the new owner sells it. 

Fear and greed dictate many of the valuations given to art. If you’re selling you pray you’re not giving it away for a song. When you’re buying you pray you’re not over paying.

If you don’t want to be a slave to fear and greed know your art and.buy what you love.That seller went home happy he got full asking price for something that’s been likely laying around his store or office for twenty years. 

If he ever finds out he’ll be devastated. .

That’s true. My thing with Neal is he has a chip on his shoulder. I met him with my brother over 2O years ago. My brother asked how much a commission of Batman would be and Neal said $600.

my brother took a second to digest the asking price and Neal lost it. “Hey, you wanna go online and see what people are selling my stuff for?”

It took us both back. We’ve been advocates for artists. I personally would always prefer buying from an artist or their family directly so they get the best benefit. But Bronty you know the reality of this “thing of ours” ha ha. It doesn’t always work that way.

Not just us but other collectors have mentioned how Neal can come off defensive sometimes. I said as much as you in that Neal’s bread and butter is the commission work. The conventions. At the Con in Hollywood photos $30. 

Hey more power to Neal. I really want him to do well. Neal please remember your fans. We are not your enemy. Neal can be a real sweet guy but I have felt that sting in the way he talks sometimes where he feels ripped off. That “no one gets it.”  Listen to the auction from minute 42-44 its revealing.

No matter what I’m a huge fan but adversarial feelings between fans and artists is bad for everyone.

I am paraphrasing from that video but Neal says he likes to work on today’s projects and stay in the present. Some of these COA moves seem to undercut that sentiment.

I wish him well.

To the consignor I wish you well. I can’t tell you what to do but I know what I would do. 

Come on November get here already.

2 hours ago, Bronty said:

Neal's human, and we can all be a little greedy at times.   When a lot of money is involved many of us will perform some fancy mental gymnastics to convince ourselves we have a right to a cut of it.    

I'd like to think that if I were Neal I'd realize that my windfall isn't big prices on covers I sold long ago, its selling commissions all day long for prices other artists would be overjoyed to get, but maybe it would all get clouded in my head.    A lot of artists don't really understand their market.

 

24 minutes ago, Bill C said:

I think there are more than enough general OA / Adams experts who will be able to tell that this is his line, and the original piece.

I also think anyone willing to drop the $ on this will likely be experienced enough with OA to know this is legit, no matter what Adams says.

I don't think his words/what he's hinting at will age well, and am not sure how much they will cause damage to the OA over time. I think the important players (involved with serious bidding) will likley see through this.

The guy may be potentially pulling some shady stuff, but so many artists do things of low character, and so many of us can separate the artist from the art. Especially the artist's actions decades removed from the creation of their prime stuff.

I know nothing of the seller, so can't speak for them. I only know in my current situation, if I had a piece for sale and an artist was leaning towards a cut in this fashion, I wouldn't give it to them as it not only is low character and getting one over on me, but also setting a horrible precedent for other shady artists to follow.

(All this is said with me assuming the worst about Adam's words, and assuming the piece is legit. I may be incorrect on either front)

It just feels like he’s leaning on the consignor.In fairness he didn’t publicly ask for a percentage on this one. I am also of the opinion that the collector that would buy this would see through the authenticity nonsense.

However I am taking a stand the same way I would if two neighborhood fellas walked in to my store and told me “Don’t worry, we are here now so no need for anything to go wrong. You’ll be safe so long as you give Bobby the envelope every two weeks.”

5 minutes ago, Bronty said:

Yeah watching that was pretty cringey.    You can see his wheels turning as he's speaking.

 Bronty I’ve taken 2 hot showers in the last hour to wash away how I feel about this grotesquely off putting shakedown.

15 hours ago, dirtymartini1 said:

 

Neal Adams was doing a live Q&A on FB tonight from a comic book store. I asked his thoughts on the final hammer price of his iconic cover to Batman 251. He responded that he was still in talks w the seller to verify that it was real and the actual OA cover. Until then he couldn't actually say. Ill leave it right there. 

Here is the link. I believe it was around the 42 min mark. 

 

Between minute 42-44 Neal clearly calls into question the authenticity of the cover. He infers that there are people calling into question if it’s authentic. 

He throws it out there that if authenticated (by Neal) it could sell for one million dollars. But he doesn’t see it happening if the authenticity of the piece isn’t resolved.

Very bad form Neal. Your expertise 100% not needed here. Read between the lines the artist implies that he can be the key to drive a $1,000,000 final hammer. Or....he can make enough noise to cause doubt and wreck the auction.

Neal you are one of the best artists in comics history. Let it go man. These old pages and covers are only worth this much, (and I take the liberty to speak for a good portion of CGC boardies) BECAUSE WE COLLECTORS ARE INSANE !! Bonkers !! 

Neal I sat through 50 minutes of that auction to hear your own words. Time to start thinking about your legacy. You had 3 drawings in that auction. $500 each and the auctioneer and camera man have no idea if they come with your “COA.” When do the bidders find out? After they buy? Associated with rubbish.

And have to love the auctioneer describing one of the books as “almost near mint.” 

When the caller asks Neal “what do you think the final bid will be on your cover?” The camera man talks over the first part of Neal’s response. Shut up “money” the most intriguing thing to come out of this 55 minute torture fest is Neal’s response. SHUT UP !!!

Absolute rubbish Neal. You are playing a foolish game with the HA auction as an influencer. I want to enjoy this auction remembering that this was IMHO the best cover you ever made. I want your name to be in a positive light when BM 251 lights up the HA scoreboard.

i have no stomach for this public gamesmanship. You can’t have your cake and eat it too. You’re reaping huge rewards selling to thirsty fans like us. Stop inferring that every older piece coming up for sale might be stolen from you or not authentic. Stop.

Now knowing a bit more about what’s going on any thoughts on the over under $1,000,000?

1 hour ago, NelsonAI said:

Translation:

I will sign a Certificate of Authenticity for 10% of the gross proceeds similar to when the Green Lantern 76 original cover art was auctioned off.

If Consignor is willing to pay, that's great for Neal.

 

I guess not certifying it could place doubts on authenticity and hurt bidding on the art. However the stunning art work speaks for itself. Neal knows that's 100% his piece. I can't blame him for trying but I can't help feeling a bit put off by it if that's his move. Were he to continue later publicly casting aspersions say if unable to meet/make a deal with the consignor that could negatively interfere with the legitimacy (bidding)on the cover. With or without Neal's approval I do believe we're going to see a moon shot final bid.

3 minutes ago, comix4fun said:

It’s like when u hit submit on a CAF COMMENT AND IT POSTS FOUR TIMES.