adamstrange Posted June 6, 2014 Share Posted June 6, 2014 The GCE 12 that sold on Sparkle a number of months back is in the current CC auction. Anyone remember the price it sold for back then? $2,577 last March. At the time that struck me as very high. I wouldn't be shocked if it went for less this time around. But I also wouldn't be shocked if it went for considerably more! Well, it should go for more...after all, it's part of the Toronto Riverdale Collection! What the heck is that all about? Are dealers now trying to call "collections" books that somebody bought as recently as last year? In that case, isn't every group of books a dealer buys from a collector a "collection"? It's not a new phenomenon nor is it limited to comics. For this Comic Connect auction they devoted a catalog to one person's collection. It can be a marketing ploy by the auction house or an ego trip or visual memento for the collector. For some art collections the seller negotiates specific criteria for their catalog even to designating the author, usually an art scholar. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sqeggs Posted June 6, 2014 Share Posted June 6, 2014 The GCE 12 that sold on Sparkle a number of months back is in the current CC auction. Anyone remember the price it sold for back then? $2,577 last March. At the time that struck me as very high. I wouldn't be shocked if it went for less this time around. But I also wouldn't be shocked if it went for considerably more! Well, it should go for more...after all, it's part of the Toronto Riverdale Collection! What the heck is that all about? Are dealers now trying to call "collections" books that somebody bought as recently as last year? In that case, isn't every group of books a dealer buys from a collector a "collection"? It's not a new phenomenon nor is it limited to comics. For this Comic Connect auction they devoted a catalog to one person's collection. It can be a marketing ploy by the auction house or an ego trip or visual memento for the collector. For some art collections the seller negotiates specific criteria for their catalog even to designating the author, usually an art scholar. The John Wise collection I can see, although even there, to be honest, I thought it was a little shaky because clearly he had acquired some of the books -- the Ruben Blades books, for instance -- fairly recently. But unless I'm missing something, the CGE 12 was acquired just last year. Seems really pushing it to say it was part of any "collection." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
adamstrange Posted June 6, 2014 Share Posted June 6, 2014 The GCE 12 that sold on Sparkle a number of months back is in the current CC auction. Anyone remember the price it sold for back then? $2,577 last March. At the time that struck me as very high. I wouldn't be shocked if it went for less this time around. But I also wouldn't be shocked if it went for considerably more! Well, it should go for more...after all, it's part of the Toronto Riverdale Collection! What the heck is that all about? Are dealers now trying to call "collections" books that somebody bought as recently as last year? In that case, isn't every group of books a dealer buys from a collector a "collection"? It's not a new phenomenon nor is it limited to comics. For this Comic Connect auction they devoted a catalog to one person's collection. It can be a marketing ploy by the auction house or an ego trip or visual memento for the collector. For some art collections the seller negotiates specific criteria for their catalog even to designating the author, usually an art scholar. The John Wise collection I can see, although even there, to be honest, I thought it was a little shaky because clearly he had acquired some of the books -- the Ruben Blades books, for instance -- fairly recently. But unless I'm missing something, the CGE 12 was acquired just last year. Seems really pushing it to say it was part of any "collection." I skimmed the story of the collector and the collection was put together over a couple decades. Once they decided to denote the lots with "Toronto Riverdale" it probably wasn't worth it to leave some out nor would they necessarily know which lots were bought recently unless they were purchased through c-connect. Ultimately, I doubt annotations like this have any material affect on the resulting sales price. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sqeggs Posted June 6, 2014 Share Posted June 6, 2014 The GCE 12 that sold on Sparkle a number of months back is in the current CC auction. Anyone remember the price it sold for back then? $2,577 last March. At the time that struck me as very high. I wouldn't be shocked if it went for less this time around. But I also wouldn't be shocked if it went for considerably more! Well, it should go for more...after all, it's part of the Toronto Riverdale Collection! What the heck is that all about? Are dealers now trying to call "collections" books that somebody bought as recently as last year? In that case, isn't every group of books a dealer buys from a collector a "collection"? It's not a new phenomenon nor is it limited to comics. For this Comic Connect auction they devoted a catalog to one person's collection. It can be a marketing ploy by the auction house or an ego trip or visual memento for the collector. For some art collections the seller negotiates specific criteria for their catalog even to designating the author, usually an art scholar. The John Wise collection I can see, although even there, to be honest, I thought it was a little shaky because clearly he had acquired some of the books -- the Ruben Blades books, for instance -- fairly recently. But unless I'm missing something, the CGE 12 was acquired just last year. Seems really pushing it to say it was part of any "collection." I skimmed the story of the collector and the collection was put together over a couple decades. Once they decided to denote the lots with "Toronto Riverdale" it probably wasn't worth it to leave some out nor would they necessarily know which lots were bought recently unless they were purchased through c-connect. Ultimately, I doubt annotations like this have any material affect on the resulting sales price. I guess it's all marketing and there is no attempt to get a CGC notation. Still, though, I think dealers ought to reserve "collection" for an OO group of comics or -- as with the John Wise books -- a group that has a significant number of key books. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
comicnoir Posted June 6, 2014 Share Posted June 6, 2014 (edited) The GCE 12 that sold on Sparkle a number of months back is in the current CC auction. Anyone remember the price it sold for back then? $2,577 last March. At the time that struck me as very high. I wouldn't be shocked if it went for less this time around. But I also wouldn't be shocked if it went for considerably more! Well, it should go for more...after all, it's part of the Toronto Riverdale Collection! What the heck is that all about? Are dealers now trying to call "collections" books that somebody bought as recently as last year? In that case, isn't every group of books a dealer buys from a collector a "collection"? It's not a new phenomenon nor is it limited to comics. For this Comic Connect auction they devoted a catalog to one person's collection. It can be a marketing ploy by the auction house or an ego trip or visual memento for the collector. For some art collections the seller negotiates specific criteria for their catalog even to designating the author, usually an art scholar. The John Wise collection I can see, although even there, to be honest, I thought it was a little shaky because clearly he had acquired some of the books -- the Ruben Blades books, for instance -- fairly recently. But unless I'm missing something, the CGE 12 was acquired just last year. Seems really pushing it to say it was part of any "collection." I skimmed the story of the collector and the collection was put together over a couple decades. Once they decided to denote the lots with "Toronto Riverdale" it probably wasn't worth it to leave some out nor would they necessarily know which lots were bought recently unless they were purchased through c-connect. Ultimately, I doubt annotations like this have any material affect on the resulting sales price. I guess it's all marketing and there is no attempt to get a CGC notation. Still, though, I think dealers ought to reserve "collection" for an OO group of comics or -- as with the John Wise books -- a group that has a significant number of key books. I'm tired of "collections". I have a collection, you have a collection. When I decide to sell will I insist on naming me after my books? Sure why not. The GCE 12 sold for $1950. Mister Riverdale took a bath. Edited June 6, 2014 by comicnoir Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sqeggs Posted June 6, 2014 Share Posted June 6, 2014 The GCE 12 that sold on Sparkle a number of months back is in the current CC auction. Anyone remember the price it sold for back then? $2,577 last March. At the time that struck me as very high. I wouldn't be shocked if it went for less this time around. But I also wouldn't be shocked if it went for considerably more! Well, it should go for more...after all, it's part of the Toronto Riverdale Collection! What the heck is that all about? Are dealers now trying to call "collections" books that somebody bought as recently as last year? In that case, isn't every group of books a dealer buys from a collector a "collection"? It's not a new phenomenon nor is it limited to comics. For this Comic Connect auction they devoted a catalog to one person's collection. It can be a marketing ploy by the auction house or an ego trip or visual memento for the collector. For some art collections the seller negotiates specific criteria for their catalog even to designating the author, usually an art scholar. The John Wise collection I can see, although even there, to be honest, I thought it was a little shaky because clearly he had acquired some of the books -- the Ruben Blades books, for instance -- fairly recently. But unless I'm missing something, the CGE 12 was acquired just last year. Seems really pushing it to say it was part of any "collection." I skimmed the story of the collector and the collection was put together over a couple decades. Once they decided to denote the lots with "Toronto Riverdale" it probably wasn't worth it to leave some out nor would they necessarily know which lots were bought recently unless they were purchased through c-connect. Ultimately, I doubt annotations like this have any material affect on the resulting sales price. I guess it's all marketing and there is no attempt to get a CGC notation. Still, though, I think dealers ought to reserve "collection" for an OO group of comics or -- as with the John Wise books -- a group that has a significant number of key books. I'm tired of "collections". I have a collection, you have a collection. When I decide to sell will I insist on naming me after my books? Sure why not. The GCE 12 sold for $1950. Mister Riverdale took a bath. What commission does CC charge? Although given they were willing to label this group of books a "collection," I imagine the consignor got a break on the usual fees. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
comicnoir Posted June 6, 2014 Share Posted June 6, 2014 The GCE 12 that sold on Sparkle a number of months back is in the current CC auction. Anyone remember the price it sold for back then? $2,577 last March. At the time that struck me as very high. I wouldn't be shocked if it went for less this time around. But I also wouldn't be shocked if it went for considerably more! Well, it should go for more...after all, it's part of the Toronto Riverdale Collection! What the heck is that all about? Are dealers now trying to call "collections" books that somebody bought as recently as last year? In that case, isn't every group of books a dealer buys from a collector a "collection"? It's not a new phenomenon nor is it limited to comics. For this Comic Connect auction they devoted a catalog to one person's collection. It can be a marketing ploy by the auction house or an ego trip or visual memento for the collector. For some art collections the seller negotiates specific criteria for their catalog even to designating the author, usually an art scholar. The John Wise collection I can see, although even there, to be honest, I thought it was a little shaky because clearly he had acquired some of the books -- the Ruben Blades books, for instance -- fairly recently. But unless I'm missing something, the CGE 12 was acquired just last year. Seems really pushing it to say it was part of any "collection." I skimmed the story of the collector and the collection was put together over a couple decades. Once they decided to denote the lots with "Toronto Riverdale" it probably wasn't worth it to leave some out nor would they necessarily know which lots were bought recently unless they were purchased through c-connect. Ultimately, I doubt annotations like this have any material affect on the resulting sales price. I guess it's all marketing and there is no attempt to get a CGC notation. Still, though, I think dealers ought to reserve "collection" for an OO group of comics or -- as with the John Wise books -- a group that has a significant number of key books. I'm tired of "collections". I have a collection, you have a collection. When I decide to sell will I insist on naming me after my books? Sure why not. The GCE 12 sold for $1950. Mister Riverdale took a bath. What commission does CC charge? Although given they were willing to label this group of books a "collection," I imagine the consignor got a break on the usual fees. Cc charges 10%. Unless the buyer uses a credit card. Then then seller gets nailed with the extra 3%. Under NY State law, they can't charge the buyer. Which is why the Clink is in Oregon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sqeggs Posted June 6, 2014 Share Posted June 6, 2014 Looks like they took about a $850 loss, if they have to pay CC the full seller's premium. I think that some years back a couple of Baker Church books were bought on HA and then resold for significantly less later on. I can't remember the dollar amounts, but they may have been larger than this loss. It is possible to lose money buying Bakers! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
comicnoir Posted June 6, 2014 Share Posted June 6, 2014 It's possible to lose money on any comic if you spend too much and flip too soon. I try not to panic and do deep breathing when I've overspent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sqeggs Posted June 6, 2014 Share Posted June 6, 2014 I reread the description of the Toronto Riverdale Collection in the CC catalog and he did legitimately accumulate some nice books. I agree with Adam Strange, though, that it's unlikely the hammer prices on his books were any higher because CC designated them a "collection." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sqeggs Posted June 11, 2014 Share Posted June 11, 2014 I notice that Metro has several copies of Bruce Gentry 5 for sale. They give the book a "Baker art" notation. Is that right? Is it the cover? Does appear a bit Bakerish, but I'm not sure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sqeggs Posted June 12, 2014 Share Posted June 12, 2014 After some near misses, finally picked up a copy of this one. Two Baker stories as well as the cover. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sqeggs Posted June 12, 2014 Share Posted June 12, 2014 With respect to Bruce Gentry 5, here's the cover (lifted from GCD). Not sure whether Metro is claiming this cover is Baker (possible, in my view) or whether some of the interior art is by him. Any thoughts? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
29dukedog Posted June 12, 2014 Share Posted June 12, 2014 With respect to Bruce Gentry 5, here's the cover (lifted from GCD). Not sure whether Metro is claiming this cover is Baker (possible, in my view) or whether some of the interior art is by him. Any thoughts? I dunno... the cover looks kinda Kamenish, to me. It could be another Iger Shop jam session, in which case Baker may have contributed. But which elements did he contribute, your guess is as good as the next guy's... (Cue next guy) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
29dukedog Posted June 12, 2014 Share Posted June 12, 2014 After some near misses, finally picked up a copy of this one. Two Baker stories as well as the cover. Nice catch, Sqeggy! I, too, finally scored a couple of Bakers I'd been after, waiting for just the right copies: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flex Mentallo Posted June 12, 2014 Share Posted June 12, 2014 (edited) With respect to Bruce Gentry 5, here's the cover (lifted from GCD). Not sure whether Metro is claiming this cover is Baker (possible, in my view) or whether some of the interior art is by him. Any thoughts? I dunno... the cover looks kinda Kamenish, to me. It could be another Iger Shop jam session, in which case Baker may have contributed. But which elements did he contribute, your guess is as good as the next guy's... (Cue next guy) Batter! Batter! Batter! Does the treatment of water compare with Seven Seas #5 - anyone? The girl's profile is faintly baker-ish, the guy's not IMHO. But I love the cover - due respect, what difference who it's by? Edited June 12, 2014 by Flex Mentallo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flex Mentallo Posted June 12, 2014 Share Posted June 12, 2014 That's a truly great cover. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
29dukedog Posted June 12, 2014 Share Posted June 12, 2014 Hey, Flex... I remember you telling me you used to collect mermaid covers. Do you consider Nightmare 13 to be a mermaid cover? Or even, a distant relative? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sqeggs Posted June 12, 2014 Share Posted June 12, 2014 With respect to Bruce Gentry 5, here's the cover (lifted from GCD). Not sure whether Metro is claiming this cover is Baker (possible, in my view) or whether some of the interior art is by him. Any thoughts? I dunno... the cover looks kinda Kamenish, to me. It could be another Iger Shop jam session, in which case Baker may have contributed. But which elements did he contribute, your guess is as good as the next guy's... (Cue next guy) Batter! Batter! Batter! Does the treatment of water compare with Seven Seas #5 - anyone? The girl's profile is faintly baker-ish, the guy's not IMHO. But I love the cover - due respect, what difference who it's by? What?! I'm speechless ... partly because I'm not sure I have a good answer. Oh, yeah, now I remember. Figuring out artist attributions is one of the fun things we spend waaay too much time on! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sqeggs Posted June 12, 2014 Share Posted June 12, 2014 That's a truly great cover. I agree. I think his Westerns are underrated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
