Rick2you2

I see Anthony is having a special one on Monday in which any “reasonable” offer will be considered. That reminds me of a quote in my law school textbook in torts from a 1923 Harvard Law Review article pointing out that it was called the “reasonable man” standard (back then) because there was no such thing as a “reasonable” woman. I wonder what a “reasonable” price might be?

After the kerfuffel here, I decided to watch about half that show. What was particularly interesting to me is what people are willing to do in front of a camera to get attention. What are those weird clips between offerings? Who makes them? Should I even ask why Bill is wearing a fake Viking hat? As for the art, admittedly the cheaper offerings, I thought most of them were probably worth what was sought, and they did have some artists with real skills, even if I didn’t know who the hell they were. Perhaps they could create more interest if they gave more background on the artist and/or piece. There was also a cover for $1,000 I liked, but, not enough to regret missing the live show. Still, if I have time to kill, I would take another crack at it. I think they need to figure out if they want to put on an art show or a sketch comedy. Perhaps they can find an artist who would be willing to take a shpritz of seltzer in the face if they can’t sell one of his pieces.

You can mark it as for sale if you want.

Sounds like it's now worth watching.

But, the worst day of the year to try and find new stuff.

When you use the term agent, can you be more specific? Like an entertainment or literary agent who negotiates with publishers of first run stories?

...for less than the cost of an arm and a leg.

I have actually been looking for another one for a while, if it had PS in it. Except for his WW work which I don’t like.

The short answer is no, I don’t. What I wrote was directed at Felix’s pricing practices. Here is the longer answer. In the law, there are 2 basic roles a person can have when dealing with someone else: agent or independent contractor (technically, there are a few more, like quasi-arbitrator or dual agency, but I’ll save that for another day). An agent is legally obligated to follow the principal’s directions, an independent contractor is not. A dealer is the very epitome of an independent contractor: the dealer buys and sells on its own account. An agent does not. The agent can make recommendations to a principal, but must do what he/she is told or terminate the relationship. Felix is an agent who has a philosophy favoring volume sales at “reasonable” prices. He makes his money based on an unknown mix of percentages of sales price or lump sum amounts. He undoubtedly recommends pricing to his clients to move the material—a sensible approach for those artists generating a lot of new material and building name recognition. For established and desired artists, like Bruce Timm, why leave money on the table by seeking less than the maximum and sparing the artist extra work? Now if an artist didn’t like his agent’s approach, he can always say no and leave it to the agent to decide whether to continue as an agent. But, if an independent contractor owns the art, he can set the price as high or as low as he wants. The only activities I have seen agents involve themselves in this field are sales of existing art and commissions. I would expect them to be involved in reprints, unless that is already governed by their contract with a publisher. Could they be doubling as Scott Boras’s in the baseball world? Yes, but I would hope they use an attorney for anything besides percentage numbers and raw dollars.

Price shouldn’t matter if you really want something, and can afford it, unless you are also interested in its investment potential or feel the price is so high it will interfere with your enjoyment of it (which can happen). You only live once and you can’t take it with you. So, what the hell, be happy.

Honestly, I may go with Johnny Journeyman. There are times when the True Artistic Legend doesn't hit a home run, or even a double. He/she may be having a bad day or perhaps the -script prevents the artist from showing their skill. Likewise, journeymen can sometimes produce beautiful work. Art shouldn't be evaluated substantially based on the artist's reputation even when the price of it often seems to be heavily influenced by that reputation. Doing so isn't much different than signature collecting.

No. The ones I tend to enjoy the most were the ones that were hardest to find, or were discovered as a surprise (like thinking the artwork was digital, and then finding out it was traditionally made). Overpaying for a piece based on then-current market conditions doesn't really affect me as I simply won't spend the money on it if it doesn't fill a gap at a level I will pay. For my most expensive pieces, I'm generally proud I spent the money, but it doesn't really color my attraction for them.

I think you need to narrow the question a bit. If I paid more than 100% over comparable pieces, would it make me change the way I look at it? And, assume the purchaser is buying it to keep and not to sell eventually.

I’ve had my little beauty for years.

I doubt there will be a total crash. But, I do expect segmented market pieces to slip. All that great stuff being sold, for the most part, may represent people cashing out instead of seeking upgrades. The burning question is how many new buyers of high end stuff are either entering the market or existing buyers are still buying at higher prices.

Any Phantom Stranger art? It's not going anywhere; I've had pieces for over 40 years.

Been there, done that. In my case, it was because I wasn’t sure I would find a better one from the same artist or book. Almost as bad: buying up a bunch of mediocre pages because a bunch of them appear for sale, and you figure you might as well stock up in case they are useful as trade bait (never) or will one day shoot up in collector appreciation (still waiting, very patiently). But then, you skip a piece because it’s only so-so, or a little too much, and you never, ever find another one by the artist or from the book. Those are the ones which really make me nuts. Even worse if they were cheap. Who needs life’s little aggravations when we are so good at creating our own?

I don’t have goals each year for the simple reason that my primary range is so narrow, I have to see what comes up, and for me, it’s impossible to guess. This past year I admirably filled that zero goal because very little came up for my consideration. After lots of years of primarily collecting Phantom Stranger art, there just hasn’t been much for sale by or from artists already represented in my collection or would be improvements to the collection. I missed a couple I would have liked but for the price; continue to pass on some where I just don’t care for the artist or the page, or the price sought for it is way out-of-whack (a low price can certainly make an unwanted piece wanted); learned that some pieces I wanted can’t be acquired because the artist doesn’t sell, or the damn art is just an e-print (“artist’s proof”). All told, I only added about 8-9 published pieces, only 4 of which increased the represented artists I have. Maybe I will do better next year. 😪

I think Taylor makes a legitimate point: it's something that separates fine art from commercial art (including OA). Fine art is self-contained: you admire the picture for the picture. Commercial art, however, is designed to sell something. As an example, consider the Saturday Evening Post.The cover pictures may be loved for the imagery, but those covers were selected by the publisher to sell the magazine. With comics, the cover entices the reader to buy it, while the internal pages sell the story to the reader. Same thing with ads that mix imagry and text. The one thing that the whole story allows the viewer to do is appreciate how well the artist (and writer) has matched the plot with the art. You can't get that without the whole story. I think strip art more easily shows the importance of selling the story with imagry. Just ask a Peanuts buyer. Same principle. With that said, there is nothing wrong with admiring OA like fine art. Lots of us do. It powers the hobby. And getting a whole book together is expensive--not worth it for a whole lot of stories. But yes, I do think that having the whole story gives you a better "picture" of the quality of the art.

Can we block key words, like acetate?

I keep debating with myself whether to offer my 2 cents or not, but here goes. I don’t think you can realistically compare the two. Occasionally, I will see a comment that the combined price should be 60% pencils and 40% inks, but on the rare occasions I have seen them both priced separately, the total is pricier than expected. People also often seem to prefer the inks even if there is general acknowledgement about the importance of pencils—like building a house without a frame, but some pencils are so light on detail they may as well be prelim’s. Then, there is the problem of electronic pencils by the artist you really want, but all you can get are someone else’s inks. Or the artist who does both and there is no one else’s pencils. So, in terms of valuation, consider them sui generics: focus tightly on comp’s involving the same mix of pencils and inks by the same artists, and extrapolate as needed. But, consider the old school method a poor way to value the new stuff.

As I have said before, so much skill, so little talent.

But if I went down that road, wouldn’t it mean that I would end up owning one of his pieces of art? Why would I want that?

As I recall, he was white. One version of his costume was a full body wrap.

Ever see the famous John Byrne blank page?