Rick2you2

Particularly the ones who have a box of Crayolas.

Nah, just curious what caught people's eyes. I actually like Benes' work.

Ed Benes drawings and Chris McJunkin sketch cards?

For years, I have tried to get a hard copy of a fanzine for which I have the cover and that I know was published—right down to the original publisher. I even have his identity as he has mentioned the possibility of doing a reprint. No luck.

Of course it is. He did advertise it as “manufacturer’s” suggested retail price.

Zero. For me, once I look at something as a potential source of profit, it no longer remains a hobby. I buy art to get away from reality, not to be looped back into another form of work by considering its future value. That also means I won’t spend a lot on any particular piece (say 5 figures and up). It loses its fun aspect to me.

That’s for a jury/fact-finder. We don’t have enough facts. Probably, the most important factor is whether he thought he was buying a product, or buying assistance in locating a product.

You really want a challenge? Here you go. Arthur Ranson from "Batman and the Phantom Stranger" graphic novel. This is what I call a "fake" panel page. The central and secondary graveyard sculptures, as well as the background, are all positioned in a way to continue into all three panel pages, like a splash page but with panel separations. Yet there are also three different figures of the Phantom Stranger at different locations. So, it may be that the same character is in 3 different places at the same time--or is he simply moving around the same place at 3 different times? Throw in the quality of the line work, and the lovely way it drips off the page. That should keep you busy.

Actually, they don’t have to sign it all to be bound by it. Agency law requires no signed writing. Its existence can be based on the facts and circumstances. So can fiduciary status (which is a disfavored interpretation). You can still be bound by it even if you don’t sign it but begin performance. I have this discussion regularly with contractors I represent (although not on agency status). Only if no performance and no signature is provided will the contracting be avoided. Real estate contracting is treated differently because it generally involves the purchases and sale of land. Also, states often have statutes governing real estate contracting.

That is a very nice piece. One of the downsides of today’s market, IMO, is that very good work isn’t necessarily high priced work, and not everything by a fan favorite is particularly good.

They are not the same, and yes you should expressly include the word. Both owe duties of loyalty and obedience, but a fiduciary is held to a higher standard. See the Content Authority, Agent vs. Fiduciary. Where financial matters are concerned, I would recommend the specific use of the word “fiduciary” as it is a disfavored interpretation, compared to “agent”. In other words, if you don’t expressly say it, you may not get it.

Not necessarily, unless you distinguish between a prelim and a sketch. I have a (a few) covers which came with 3 different sketches for consideration for the cover.

Not at all. I don’t care much for either one, unless they are very detailed, and I really wanted an example of the artist’s finished work, but could not find it at a reasonable price. Just out of curiosity, did the name “Coolines” ever come up?

Great literature, I presume.

I don’t agree with that. Fiduciaries have special duties under the law, like lawyers for example. You don’t have to be a fiduciary for the law to impose duties upon you. Anyone who intentionally commits a material misrepresentation of fact with knowledge that someone else will rely on it to his detriment commits classic fraud. Someone who accidentally misrepresents can be liable for negligent misrepresentation. Anyone who acts as an agent, whether by formal agreement or not, owes duties to the principal not to engage in double-dealing, but to work for the principal (with the existing legal relationship a matter of fact for a jury regardless whether there is a written contract). The law also imposes duties of “good faith and fair dealing” in any contractual relationship (at least in my states). Concealing material information from the Russian certainly sounds like it in this case. And, some states have Consumer Fraud laws which place special duties of disclosure and fair dealing on a seller which are beyond the common law (but they vary by state). Someone dealing with a NJ domiciliary who violates the Consume Fraud Act is liable for triple damages and attorneys fees. Not, however, for N.Y domiciliaries who have a different law. Then we hit equitable remedies. If someone is aware that another person is relying on them, and the other person knowingly takes advantage of that reliance, then agreements can be voided and restitution ordered even if the misrepresentation is not negligent. So, the Russian could get back the difference he paid to the procurer and what the procurer of the art bought it for because of the advantage taken. There are probably some more I could add to the list, but that should do to convince anyone at least in N.J. or N.Y. not to mess with shortcuts.

Here are the key points from the article (involving the suit against Sotheby's, the case against the agent was apparently settled in a Swiss court). The essence of your point is in the last quoted paragraph. The art purchaser's (Rybolovlev's) case hinges on the issues of reliance on Bouvier, Bouvier's knowledge of that reliance, and essentially taking advantage of it with the active cooperation of Sotheby's. I found Sotheby's defense to be disconcerting, to say the least, and in a US court would not be impressive if the Russian can prove his claimed facts. Adhering to industry practice doesn't mean a whole industry isn't in violation of basic legal principles and potentially liable. Moreover, knowledge can be inferred from the arguable results: "For years, Rybolovlev relied almost entirely on the collecting advice and negotiating skills of Bouvier, a Swiss private dealer better known in art circles for running an art-storage facility in Geneva. The Russian alleges Sotheby’s helped Bouvier source masterpieces to buy, helped hash out the deal terms and later reassured Rybolovlev that he was making savvy art purchases by writing gushy appraisals of the works, while knowing the collector was paying his go-between millions more than Bouvier paid Sotheby’s for each artwork. ... Sotheby’s said that it “strictly adhered to all legal requirements, financial obligations and industry best practices during the transactions of these artworks. Any suggestion that Sotheby’s was aware of the buyer’s alleged misconduct or intention to defraud Mr. Rybolovlev is false.” Bouvier, who last month settled his own legal dispute with Rybolovlev in Swiss court, has maintained that he did nothing wrong. His spokesman said Bouvier signed no contract with the collector and so was free to act in his own best interests as a private dealer and could charge Rybolovlev whatever he deemed appropriate for the art he resold. Bouvier won’t attend the coming trial, though he did provide a sworn deposition, the spokesman said." Those relationships between the Russian and the art procurer, and the procurer and the seller, and the seller's knowledge of the ultimate buyer, are what set the case apart from just "arbitrage".

Wall Street Journal has an article in today’s paper about it. After reading it, I agree with the Russian tycoon even if it upends the art market. When you use someone as your purchasing agent, you have a legitimate expectation that the agent will engage in full disclosure about a transaction with you and not trade on the account for his personal benefit. If “x” bought something on day 1 knowing that “y” was planning to buy it, and if x had an agreement with y to arrange for its sale to y, then I do have a problem with this. Now, if x did not have a prior agreement with y, then I am okay with it because y had no reasonable expectation that x was acting in his own interest.

Sounds a bit like arbitrage to me.

At least this one is obvious.

Oooo goody. Now we can jump into regression analysis. 😵‍💫

Median and mean? And while we are at it, what was the mode?

I liked it. As Peggy Lee sang: “If that’s all there is, then let’s keep dancing. Just bring on the booze, and have, a ball.”

Sounds fairly normal to me; I go through similar machinations. What generally tips the balance for me is rarity. If I know there are relatively few pieces by an artist, and the example is good, I am more likely to buy because I may never see it again. That has happened; it never shows up again in any form. I consider it a lesson learned so I don’t regret later. Generally, I use this approach regardless whether the price is within my comfort zone or not. If it is not a good example, but just an example, I’ll pass.

When I first started collecting, art was dumped in plastic tubs, and you would sort through them to find things. Good pieces, like covers by Adams, were kept separate, in smaller stacks. I also remember a young Sienk trying to sell New Mutants pages for around $60 each, and not getting takers. And, there was no internet. I also went to one auction where I bought a first page from a Spirit weekly, with the hand-crafted logo, for $450. He was still alive then, and pieces were almost never on the market. Times change.

I also like shapely, naked women and Korean TV, but this doesn’t seem like the place to go into it.