Rick2you2

It would have been nice to have a selector tab permitting a review of Sunday only additions for sale. I didn’t like going through the same pieces twice.

I just took it to mean that dealers set their prices as a function of cost plus hoped for profit, while knowing what they need to make money. If they guess wrong it can sit for years as unsold. I’ve “admired” some stalwarts like that.

Interesting how we sometimes disagree vociferously on things, and then end up in in the same place.

Actually, we don't know what the dealers are doing behind closed doors, but setting a price on eBay, standing alone, is just asking for a buyer to buy it. Nothing wrong with that. It is the collusive action of two seeming competitors acting togther where the problem lies. And by the way, manipulation of major commodities could theoretically be a violation, if someone could pull it off, but the more common situation (which is going on right now) is like where hospital chains buy up all the local competition and thereby control rate-setting. That is, there is a local component or narrow market at issue. The core of anti-trust law is the Sherman Act. This is from the FTC's website: I added the underlining: The Sherman Act outlaws "every contract, combination, or conspiracy in restraint of trade," and any "monopolization, attempted monopolization, or conspiracy or combination to monopolize." Long ago, the Supreme Court decided that the Sherman Act does not prohibit every restraint of trade, only those that are unreasonable. For instance, in some sense, an agreement between two individuals to form a partnership restrains trade, but may not do so unreasonably, and thus may be lawful under the antitrust laws. On the other hand, certain acts are considered so harmful to competition that they are almost always illegal. These include plain arrangements among competing individuals or businesses to fix prices, divide markets, or rig bids. These acts are "per se" violations of the Sherman Act; in other words, no defense or justification is allowed. Now if those dealers were effectively controlling the market on claim shows, and were privately setting prices, that would be a clear violation. But, they don't control the whole market, which lets them off the hook. On the other hand, why anyone is wasting their time watching those shows, when it is a safe bet the dealers are being careful not to step on each others toes, is beyond me. There are other sources and "fish in the sea". For Phantom Stranger pages, I'm not too worried. Given the demand for the character, I usually get what boils down to a discounted price--I mean, who the hell really wants them anyway?

If they don't, that could signal a slow shift downward in this overheated market.

No, they should not have that much freedom any more than wholesalers or manufacturers cannot have as much freedom as end-users. Ever hear of anti-trust law? It prohibits collusion in the market to restrain trade. Dealer sales to dealers which result in market price bumps sounds at least a bit suspicious. If dealers are engaged in practices to artificially keep prices high, that may be illegal. It is certainly something which deserves at least a spotlight of shame. This is as good as any. If a dealer says: “we set the prices”, then I will stay away. I don’t play in a high priced sandbox anyway, so I can be satisfied with “lesser” material.

Mostly, the undergarments, … with appropriate identifiers.

Why are you assuming full transparency? Do we know what these folks discuss privately, behind closed doors? Or decide to select for sale? What I don’t like is the feeling that combinations of dealers manipulate the market to keep prices up, and letting dealers publicly bid, and win, pieces may be part of the game. I don’t take quite the same stand as Vouduo, as I can’t make all the same assumptions, but he may be right.

“undermines trust”? Really? Trust dealers to do what? Not try to get the best price they can? This is a rigged market, at least at the higher end. Dealers buying and then selling the same pieces with a mark-up just makes it glaringly obvious. Those claims shows just boil down to free advertising, and a way to boost prices with extra visibility.

What’s that thing the bear is fighting? It looks like an old, wrinkled, wingless dragon with pig’s feet. Not iconic, for sure.

I don’t claim to have much expertise in this field, other than what I have read and some personal experience, but that sounds like overkill and an easy sale for the “expert”. If it were being displayed in a sunlit area, or involved markers, I would be more concerned, but more common, low-e glass and floating hinges would seem to be adequate. If you’ve ever seen the photo’s of Romitaman’s collection, I can’t imagine he was out spending $1,500 a piece on those. But, I could also be wrong. There are some people here who really know the right answer, like Aokartman. Maybe they could chime in.

I know it bothered me that it was still up, and still does, but I can’t really put my finger on why. It felt like a mix of “this is mine, not yours to advertise for sale” and “are you suggesting mine is fake by showing it even though I bought it from you?” It also makes me wonder if there are other things listed for sale that are long gone, reducing my interest in shopping from the dealer.

Is it pen and pencil, marker, or something else?

Ignore it. Technically, it is correct, and some people just like to look. It also might be being used to attract potential buyers to the other stock of the seller (like “bait and switch” ) l had bought a piece from Los Bros. about 5-6 years ago, and it is still up. If you really feel strongly, just ask it be marked “sold”, but that doesn’t mean the seller will comply.

That’s him, and that is my fear.

First, does anyone know if Jesus Hervas only works digitally? Second, anyone know how to reach him (or his agent)? I tried some things I found on line, but didn't receive a response.

There are a couple that have been listed in Comic Art Tracker for months, one of which is a two page spread (issue 5). They were just relisted for a bidding running another 6 days. They will probably go cheaply as no one has wanted them before (apparently). I am still looking for a page from issue 18 with the Phantom Stranger on it. That’s it.

He inked a lot of Romance titles, and is well appreciated for his work. But if you are wondering if inking Kirby, etc., also results in a price boost, no.

In fairness, point of light art issues aren’t rare. What he did is more dramatic, and that’s a common liberty if you pay attention. At least he got the right number of fingers for Conan. Good thing Cimmeria is a mythical land. Tulips don’t grow in shade.

The dark wall between the light hitting the sword and the orange spot should have some light on it. The area below the orange spot then descends into a pretty dark red, while the balance of the wall to the sword is just normal. I don’t think the light is parallel to the wall, but a bit in front of it. Otherwise the light hitting the sword wouldn’t shine backward.

Now, what about that sunlight hitting the wall above Conan’s head, as well as his sword, but the wall being dark in the middle?

Someone is only supposed to deduct the charitable portion of the purchase, that is, after deducting its FMV. And that would be?

That’s a queue I think I’ll skip.

If yours is the only actual OA from the first issue with the character, that should be a good enough distinction, but save your notes— who knows what will tickle someone later? By the way, lots of new characters show up in lots of books. They all don’t become the next Wolverine.

Also, a lot of it is the same old s**t. I have watched one cover change hands (mostly between dealers) from $3,000 to now $5,500. It was a marginal buy at $3k, which I passed on. I sure won’t buy it for $5.5k.