The Voord

Yeah, we've had this discussion before, Dan, lol. As you may recall, all my bids went on interior panel pages from the same graphic novel. Averaging around $1,500 a page when I was letting HA bid on my behalf . . . Averaging around $500 - 750 a page when I switched to direct participation in the live bidding. Co-incidence? Who knows.

Ditto. I used to leave my high bid with HA, letting them compete on my behalf . . . and was finding that all my wins seemed to hover at or near my top price. I then started placing tracking bids, leaving the real bidding until the final moments of the live auctions participating directly in person . . . and found I was saving money on similar artwork wins when I was just leaving my high bids for HA to act upon. Make of that what you will . . . but I don't think I'll ever again be going the route of submitting my high-bids for HA to bid on my behalf ever again.

Not only is that nuts, it's also mean-spirited. End result for the 'winner': . . . and some sleepless nights, I would imagine!

Sad news indeed, by all accounts John was one of the nicest guys in the business . . . and I always admired him as an artist. He was top-notch. For the sake of full transparency, I would say that I definitely lean more heavily towards Steve Ditko's run on Spidey, but do remember being blown-away by John's debut on ASM, especially his cover art for ASM #39, which was beautifully illustrated and had tremendous impact (it remains one of my all-time-favorite ASM covers . . . simply stunning). As a replacement for Ditko, I can't fault Stan Lee's choice. John's run on the title, as artist, was outstanding . . . up there with the best of Marvel. Interesting to read John's thoughts on Spidey in the linked piece Brian posted, in particular the following quote: For about a year, Ditko and Stan were absolutely disagreeing on plotting. Ditko was plotting, and they weren't even talking. It already had probably gotten a little bit confusing to readers for about a year. I know I'm nit-picking here, but this is interesting to me as a point of discussion, and would say that the only confusion I'm getting is that if Ditko and Lee weren't even talking at the time (which is well documented), I can't see how they would be, "absolutely disagreeing on plotting" (unless Lee was complaining separately to others)? Also, as a (then) reader of the book, I was never confused by the plotting of Ditko's final year on Spidey . . . and it was that final year that gave us the much-loved Master Planner trilogy . . . along with # 37 that laid the groundwork for Norman Osborne's villainy that would soon lead to the big reveal of his Green Goblin alter ego. The wrap-up to the Green Goblin saga had been much-awaited. That John was handed that two-parter gave him the best possible start on the title. No-one was going to miss THAT storyline! Rest in peace, John. You will be sadly missed.

I'm in the UK, so work on GBP£s. Same price as the Frazetta book. So far . . . volume ones of ASM, FF, Avengers and now X-Men. I don't mind the early X-Men; it's what I grew up with. I know # 94 is the start of heavy interest in the title, but I'd pretty much stopped collecting Marvel in the early 1970s, so have never read the later X-Men stuff. Probably my loss, but I can't miss something I never had, lol!

The Taschen reprint editions of early Marvel titles are also well worth buying. Same size as the Frazetta book. The latest release, of X-Men #s 1 - 21, reached me Monday.

Picked this UK Movie Poster painting up about four weeks ago for the US equivalent of about $350. ADVENTURES OF A PRIVATE EYE (1977) movie poster painting (artist unknown). British (lame) sex comedy starring a whole host of British character actors popular at the time, whom I would imagine will be mostly unknown outside of my country. There's an acetate overlay containing text and character photographs, so I'm showing the art with and without . . . along with a photo of how the artwork looked in print.

She's got big (skull) eyes, lol!

This.

Yes, when work like this is performed, it's no longer the original original . . . it becomes the altered original. Personally, I'd likely shy away from from most things that have been changed at a later date, with the exception of clean-up, glue residue removal, deacidification, stat replacement and the like (that doesn't involve altering the actual drawings).

I'll turn my computer screen upside down . . . that might help!

Not forgetting your commission bait . . .

Just a gentle reminder that new members are always welcome to this FB group I created some years back, which is a good place for art enthusiasts who remember the halcyon days, before photo-montage became the cheaper option for studios, and talented illustrators created front-of-house paintings that would entice the would-be viewer to pay the admission price to a movie. Original MOVIE Art & Marketplace | Facebook Lots of great movie poster paintings are regularly put on display . . . and we also have posts or OA available for sale that, in many cases are a lot more affordable than comic-book artwork. In short, it's a good place to be if you always liked the movies. Personally, I took up movie poster artwork collecting in recent years. Always like the stuff, and a lot of art is surprisingly affordable . . . if you know where to look! A smattering of OA examples from my collection . . . all purchased in recent years:

Yes, fan of the series. I wasn't disputing that. I was leaning more towards his approach to a particular artist who, as Bronty pointed out, was an inker for only one issue. I felt he should have put in the effort to say something positive along the lines of, "Really like your work and I think you would be a perfect fit for my commission idea," . . . which obviously he didn't. In other words, make the artist feel good about himself . . . the flattery/sugar-coating Garf mentions . . . and he might feel good about accepting the job. Heck, Barney also says in one of his communications to the artist, "You also did a few issue of *blank* as well, right?" . . . which sounds as if he's not sure, and is not exactly presenting himself well to an artist he's looking to hire. He should know.

That's a well thought-out response, Garf, and presents a key element missing from Barney's communications (see emboldened text in the above quote extract). Most creative-types like to have their egos stroked . . . and I'm not seeing any appreciation for the artist's craft in any of Barney's messages to this unidentified artist. Instead, he says: "Most artists have gotten rid of their pages" Rubbish is something you get rid off . . . "released to the marketplace" might have been a better, less harsh, choice of words. Also, because Barney states he's had no luck in tracking down any published work from the series . . . it suggests to me that the artist in question was down the list of creators to contact who worked on the book (hardly first choice) . . . which is perhaps why the artist became irritated in later communications (everything seemed to be going okay until Barney's "got rid" comment, and things then begin to quickly sour). Putting myself in the artist's shoes (I'm trying to look at this from both sides), I'd be asking myself: "Does this guy (Barney) actually like my work . . . he doesn't say so . . . who else has he contacted before me?" As to the business of artist's materials . . . he sounds like he relies on tried and trusted materials he's used for a long time. Product lines do get discontinued . . . and new (replacement) materials would need to be tested by him to see what works best. Another thing people here might want to consider is that commissions (those that require time and effort) are usually intended for an audience of one (some commissions do end up as published pieces later on, as was the case with Mike B's Steranko piece . . . but I would imagine these are far and few between?). As an artist, what would you prefer . . . creating work that's seen and enjoyed by thousands . . . or divert your time and effort for the benefit of just one single person? I know where my priorities would lie. Sure, when the work later dries up, commissions can be a good source of income . . . but the mysterious artist sounds like he's very busy with regular work being fed to him. Been an interesting thread to follow, and it's always good to compare notes with other takes on the subject. I'm sure Barney is a decent guy, and I wish him luck in future commission requests. Hopefully, he will take something useful away from all this.

Maybe Tim was talking about a Kitchen Porter's job in his analogy?

The artist's already got a job. What was being offered to him was some side-work that, from the sound of it, he doesn't really need . . . or want.

Well, the OP started this thread with the title, 'How to lose Commission Requests and Alienate People' which kind of suggests to me that he knew he was on shaky ground and was prepared for flak. I'm on no-one's side . . . I don't know the OP and the identity of the artist is a complete mystery to me. I think the OP could have been a bit more tactful in his request . . . yeah, artists can be sensitive souls . . . and can only put myself in the artist's shoes. Would I have been thrilled to receive Barney's communication (and the way it was worded)? Probably not. You have a different take. Good for you. It's all opinion-based . . . and the OP was interested in feedback. He got it, and he can draw his own conclusions.

No, just trying to look at it from both sides.

Well, if it is consignment art . . . I woulda thought any dealer worth their salt would steer the consigner towards the realms of reasonableness on flip-valuation?

You hurt his feelings by implying he's a runner-up in the line-up of desired artists for that particular book, so he's not exactly commission-friendly to you. Maybe try some of the other artists who 'got rid'?

The mark-up in price of close-on $4K is excessive. The competition for that piece, nearly two months ago, fell below the auction price - so I'm struggling to see how the new ask so soon after the original sale can be justified? I get that dealers buy art to re-sell at a profit, and don't have a problem with that, but this is a bit of a jaw-dropper! Just my

I take it you simply asked CL the question?

Absolutely, do the maths! Had this scenario on my movie art FB group several years ago when I gave a heads-up to the members of a UK auction house offering-up something like 150 vintage OA movie paintings. One Italian collector was up in arms over the 25% BP and we had this discussion of factoring-in the surcharge into your hammer price bidding to take into account final overall price to stay in budget. Italian guy couldn't quite adopt the mentality, so refused to bid on any offering that included this 'outrageous' BP amount! I went into the auction with an overall budget in mind . . . factored-in the BP into my live auction bidding . . . and came away with five 'steals', well below what I was expecting to pay (all artworks sold, and many sold for very reasonable amounts). My only regret was that I didn't pursue more art! After the auction was over, Italian guy started enquiring about sold artworks he'd had his eyes on . . . that he could easily have won if only he swallowed his pride and did the maths! I just replied to one of his posts saying something to the effect of, "Well, if you're now looking for certain artworks re-surfacing, you'll very likely be paying a big mark-up in price over what they sold for . . . that including the dreaded (Shock! Horror!! Gasp!!!") 25% BP." He still didn't get it . . . * With apologies to any Italian guys on this forum . . . my Mr. Italian guy is probably a one-off.

As Tim has already advised, HA do hold art and will combine shipping to get your multiple wins under one all-in shipping charge . . . but you need to instruct them to place your wins 'on hold' until such time as you give them the green light to release, otherwise they will ship out individually.