PhilipB2k17

I’ve seen bargains before that I wasn’t interested in owning, and would only buy to flip - so I passed. I am not into flipping. It’s hard enough finding good value on the pages I wa t to buy without speculating and going through the whole flipping process. Done find that enjoyable, which is fine. I don’t.

Poly glass is just Itoya’s brand name for their polypropylene sleeves. They’re inert and acid free. Not as good as Mylar, but the art is less at risk than old comic book newsprint. It’s generally on much higher quality paper stock. They also come with an acode free backing board.

Unless you DIY, quality framing costs a lot of money. I have a local art gallery that I have gotten quotes from (they will do it 100% right and actually appreciate comic art) and it’s not cheap. Unless you have art that’s more valuable than the frame, it’s not worth going whole hog on archival materials, museum glass etc.

Here's what the IRS said about like-kind exchanges after the new tax law went into effect. Nutshell: OA collectors are SOL. https://www.irs.gov/newsroom/like-kind-exchanges-now-limited-to-real-property

I don’t think the IRS is going to go after small time hobbyists on this. Also, Idont know what your basis is in the Miller or Byrne X-Men pages. If they are worth less then what you paid for them, there’s no capital gain. My example was where one of the pages appreciated quite a bit in value before the exchange.

The Frank Springer cover to G.I. Joe #32 is up on eBay right now. Has a BIN of $8000. https://www.ebay.com/itm/Marvel-G-I-GI-Joe-32-Cover-Original-Comic-Art-Frank-Springer/153401217845

Yes it does, if you use the "Polyglass" protectors. In any case, the best storage method is to keep them in a cool, dry, dark place (unless on display, of course). I am just amused by this thread, because I have just enough art to fit into one Itoya, plus a few larger ones I store in mylar sleeves with backers, in an art case in a locked closet.

I think the tax code should exempt the first, say, $5K to $10K from the capital gains tax on the sale of collectibles. Or at least tax it at a much lower level, so you’re not taking the fun out of collecting things for small time regular folks.

The IRS does. They go by FMV, or get an art appraisal. If you just make it up to deflate the asset value, that’s tax fraud.

If you bought a piece for, say, $100 ten years ago, and it’s current fair market value is now, say $5000 - yes you get taxed if you make an in-kind trade for a piece of art worth $5000. You realized a capital gain. That said, the small time collectors are not going to be on the IRS’s radar. But the big fish might be, at some point. Also, too, if you keep your art until death, your family will get a very nice reward. They can sell off your collection and get the stepped up basis of it’s value when you die. So they don’t get taxed on it.

Lim's Silver Surfer and IG pages carry a premium. Meanwhile, late Starlin cosmic Marvel art is actually (weirdly) undervalued.

Was apparently a gift by a John Romita to a kid’s father. The father gave it to his son, who had it framed and it was hanging on a wall at his parents’ House since 1981. https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidseideman/2019/02/19/after-24-years-on-boys-bedroom-wall-spider-man-original-cover-art-now-at-auction-for-75k/#3be9077b444d

It looks like Lichtenstein got Vinnie Colleta to ink his versions.

i.e. all those "Missing" Silver Age Marvel early key covers.

When I said I had a source who said it wasn't Marie Severin, I was talking about Mike. LOL! He told me this story (minus the John Buscema, and guilt trip part) at a con several months ago. I figured he would have some degree of info on it. So, there it is.

Except the Cover is Kirby, not Ditko.

What if it was...George Lucas?

Anyone want to bet he already sold it to someone else, and had to get it back from that other buyer first?

Something just occurred to me. (I feel like Michael Corleone when he saw the rebel blow himself up with a captain of the Cuban military command in Godfather II.) Why would the "buyer" in this case ship back the 8-1/2" x 11" color photo copy of the art back via a giant package designed to fit the original larger painting? He's literally overpaying postage to ship back the art in a larger package to trick the seller into accepting it so as to complete the Paypal refund process. (Unless Paypal requires you to ship it back in the same package, in which case never mind!). That piece of information, alone, would be enough for me to believe the seller over the buyer in this dispute. There would be absolutely no reason in the world to ship the piece back in the larger package, unless you were trying to scam the person on the other end. UPDATE: If, on the other hand, the buyer did ship the 8-1/2" x 11" print/copy back in a regular, appropriate-sized package, why would the seller accept it if he knew who it was from, and knew it was supposed to be the returned art? (It was tracked, right?). It would seem pretty easy to verify the package sizes, and shipping labels, etc. (By the same token, it would make no sense for the seller to send a smaller print vs the larger painting in a larger package that fits the painting. He gets no benefit out of it, because the buyer would find out it's not the painting and have the ability to ship it back via the Paypal case process.)

Leaves open the question of who the donor was. I've heard it was both Lee and Severin from different sources. But, if Severin's children, for example, donated it then technically she could say Severin wasn't the donor, right?

So the story about how ASM #1 art "hit the market" in that story is different than the one I've seen here, and elsewhere. A dealer was cold called, and met the seller in a public place? And it was sold for $10K?

I've yet to sell a single one of my pieces, and I have actually declined to buy art that I knew was undervalued in the market, that I didn't otherwise really like, just to flip it. That's too much effort and work for a hobby I want to be fun. I don't want to buy stuff I don't really love or enjoy just to commoditize it. Yes, I know I could do that and build up a war chest for art I do like, but as I said, that turns the hobby into something less fun for me personally. Some folks are OK with doing that, or think it's fun. but, I don't. That said, I do think about the value of a piece I am buying and while I am willing to pay a premium (somewhat) directly to an artist (or via his or her rep), for a piece, I am not going to do that with a dealer or on CAF or eBay via the second hand market. I'm fine with "overpaying" a bit for something if the money goes directly into an artist's pocket, though.

I was just playing devil's advocate to the absolutist position taken here that the seller in this instance has absolutely no reason to lie.

If what you are saying is true, he wants to protect a lot more than his reputation. He wants to avoid jail.