Rick2you2

All he had to do was to draw it digitally in almost complete rough form, then trace (maybe even auto-trace in Illustrator) and finish in final form for submission. Then, the buyer would be getting the original published art and he would save the time by doing most of it digitally.

Any other possibilities? The only one I can think of is he decided he needed the money, and decided to ask for offers to recoup what he could.

They won't sell it for less than their purchase price, of course, but are hoping an offer will come in which is more than acceptable without taking the risk of posting a price. That, I consider greed. I generally won't respond to "open to offers" even if it means missing out on something I like.

I can't even read their menu. You may be right about the reference to a lot of other languages, since it popped up on the Invaluable auction site. I have to straighten this out.

Greed, and a dash of stupid.

I can use all the guidance I can get on this one. Your guess was accurate. Why doesn’t Septimus have their rules in English when they have so many other languages? Particularly, where the word balloons in the piece are in English? I don’t know anyone in Belgium, and wouldn’t know how to find someone. Are there commercial services that do the checking? If I go with Fed Ex, what happens? Does Septimus call Fed Ex for pickup, which then does additional packaging? I really do not want to fly there just to pick it up. The flight will cost more than the piece.

That’s another problem. The fine print isn’t in English. I have to register and ask for it, I assume.

Invaluable. Live auction in Belgium.

I am thinking of bidding on a piece in Europe, but the bidding requirements do not provide for shipping. Are there services who I can contact to pick up and ship the art here if I win? Is there some other way this is handled?

You should not talk down a piece, but facts are facts. The question of what it is vs. what you would pay for it are two different questions. If you like it, buy it. If you later decide to resell it, accurately start the facts and let potential buyers decide.

The artist would be legally incorrect. The copyright is on the “published” version—in this case, “published” does not mean printed or distributed but seen by another person as the final product to be reproduced. I am so tempted to refer to the artist’s view as like putting lipstick on a pig, doesn’t change it from being a pig, but the artist might misconstrue.

The poor don’t necessarily have bank accounts, nor can they afford the fees to maintain one. Cash transactions also preserve their funds. It is similar to the stink raised when some people were getting paid via debit card, and had to pay a fee to get the use of their money.

You already know a major reason is tax avoidance. This fear of cash will fade; it is simply too useful. But, there are other reasons.

That won’t last. The usefulness of cash will outweigh the risk, just like the risk of infection is giving way to protests. Legally, I think NYC and NJ were the first in the nation to impose this requirement.

No. Simply, no.

I would interpret that to mean “for sale” at the Donnelly Bros. rates.

Hato That sort of defeats the purpose of it. Why do you think there are check cashing companies? It isn’t just poor people who can’t afford a bank account.

Cash is legal tender for all transactions. In NJ, and NYC, it is now illegal to refuse to take cash (the laws are being phased in over the next few months). I happen to like to pay cash. It makes budgeting easier. When you run out, you are over budget. You will just have to take my word on this. But, there are parts of the business world which will always operate on a cash basis so long as they make paper money. Do you really think all those unemployed people are really unemployed?

The image that the artist first created, whether digital or analog, is the “original” for copyright purposes. He can make as many copies as he wants afterward—good luck trying to enforce an oral promise he won’t. What you basically are buying is a recreation of the original. For the future, it would help if he wrote something on the back saying it is a one off duplicate of the original, and he won’t duplicate it again, not so much for legal enforcement purposes (unless you have the foresight to buy from the next Jack Kirby), but it should add to the market value. IMO.

I disagree. I want to see original lines, knowing it was a real pen, pencil or marker. So no, I will continue to pass. And so will quite a few others on this board. Let me add that the artist owns the copyright, and he can legally print as many as he wants no matter what he agrees by contract (without an actual assignment of all ownership rights, which is different). The artist could get sued by the original purchaser for breach of contract, but who the heck is going to do that over the purchase of a print for a few hundred dollars? The damages calculations between copyright infringement and contract breach are different.

Don’t leave it at the airport gate and forget about it for a few hours.

Generally, no. A print is a print. There is a growing number of artists who only work digitally, and will offer one-off prints saying they are original art. Collectors still generally treat them as prints, but that may one day change.

I believe it was also the first maxi-series DC ever published. For years, you could never find any of that art for sale.

The guides don’t always match the final printed version. I have one by Neil Adams for Showcase 80, which I know is authentic, and there are some colors which are different.

When it comes to specialization, trust me, I get it. But even I will buy the occasional piece unrelated to the Phantom Stranger. I have not regretted any of them because they represent a moment to me that I will treasure outside the art (or, perhaps, a “remembrance of things past”). And isn’t that really a major part of collecting (and pricing)? A reliving of an older moment? So treat it as an exception to your general rule, and you’ll be fine.