Production and Mechanical Covers - "Affordable" OA or Overreaching?

[Artemaria]

Here's the link -

 

http://www.romitaman.com/GalleryPiece.asp?Piece=4725&Details=1&From=Room

 

While I understand that everyone has to make a living, and I understand that there is some precedent for some historic Kirby mechanical covers hitting four digits, I find this latest trend to be somewhat surprising.

 

What are the group's thoughts on "not alot of art on it" but affordable "without a king's ransom" for only $6K for a copy?

 

Especially in view of the fact that not too long ago, these things could not be given away for $150 a pop.

 

Please do not misunderstand this to have any personal import with regards to the individual offering the item for sale. I personally like Mike, have met him at several conventions, found him to be extremely thoughtful and friendly and know him to be an honest and reputable business person.

 

The surprise is more at the status of a copy in the current OA pantheon.

 

Are there others with a similar reaction?

 

- A

[comix4fun]

Here's the link -

 

http://www.romitaman.com/GalleryPiece.asp?Piece=4725&Details=1&From=Room

 

While I understand that everyone has to make a living, and I understand that there is some precedent for some historic Kirby mechanical covers hitting four digits, I find this latest trend to be somewhat surprising.

 

What are the group's thoughts on "not alot of art on it" but affordable "without a king's ransom" for only $6K for a copy?

 

Especially in view of the fact that not too long ago, these things could not be given away for $150 a pop.

 

Please do not misunderstand this to have any personal import with regards to the individual offering the item for sale. I personally like Mike, have met him at several conventions, found him to be extremely thoughtful and friendly and know him to be an honest and reputable business person.

 

The surprise is more at the status of a copy in the current OA pantheon.

 

Are there others with a similar reaction?

 

- A

 

 

I have seen auctions for mechanical covers and production pieces. The difference between those and this piece is that:

 

1) This was the actual published cover, the fact that it includes a stat dead center on the piece doesn't mean this is anything but the piece used to put the book out that month. If there is not other original art to this TOS book then this 80/20 cover is "THE" original art.

 

2) Most of the mechanical or production pieces I have seen are copies of the piece in question and another original cover was what was used to publish the book. Meaning there is an original cover and there was a mech cover that both existed. In the case of this cover I think calling it a Mech cover is a misnomer.

 

3) There has been more than one auction in the last 5 years where a Silver Age piece of art, the main image heavily statted but with original art all around it has sold for significant dollars....there was a Kirby like this that sold for almost $4k something like 5 years ago....that wasn't really a mech cover either, it was an original cover with heavy statting.

 

4) A Gene Colan large art cover, if this stat were original art, would cost you 5 times what Mike is asking for this cover easily. An 80% condition discount sounds reasonable in perspective....especially given what past auction sales of Silver covers with statting command.

 

In looking at it, this isn't a color guide, or mech cover at all. It happens to be an original cover with a major stat in the middle, with a massive reduction in cost over a similar era cover without this problem.

 

It's not something I collect but if I were a fan of the genre, artist, and time period I would find paying 80% less for this piece and knowing it was the actual pubbed cover would make me look twice.

 

C

[Mister Trent]

Here's the link -

 

http://www.romitaman.com/GalleryPiece.asp?Piece=4725&Details=1&From=Room

 

While I understand that everyone has to make a living, and I understand that there is some precedent for some historic Kirby mechanical covers hitting four digits, I find this latest trend to be somewhat surprising.

 

What are the group's thoughts on "not alot of art on it" but affordable "without a king's ransom" for only $6K for a copy?

 

Especially in view of the fact that not too long ago, these things could not be given away for $150 a pop.

 

Please do not misunderstand this to have any personal import with regards to the individual offering the item for sale. I personally like Mike, have met him at several conventions, found him to be extremely thoughtful and friendly and know him to be an honest and reputable business person.

 

The surprise is more at the status of a copy in the current OA pantheon.

 

Are there others with a similar reaction?

 

- A

 

 

I have seen auctions for mechanical covers and production pieces. The difference between those and this piece is that:

 

1) This was the actual published cover, the fact that it includes a stat dead center on the piece doesn't mean this is anything but the piece used to put the book out that month. If there is not other original art to this TOS book then this 80/20 cover is "THE" original art.

 

C

 

Mike also has the original art (from which the stat was taken for the published cover) on offer at $32,000.

 

The original art looks as though it had the logo area removed and used for the published cover.

 

To my mind, the asking price is high (I saw a large art Kirby THOR cover sell on Heritage recently for a little over $20k).

 

My own feeling is that he should throw in the published cover with the original art cover (seeing as the logo for the published cover appears to have been removed from the OA cover).

 

I also noticed that Mike has put back up the AVENGERS # 41 cover for sale at $35,000. Interestingly, Buscema's # 52 cover (another Large Art piece) is currently on eBay with an opening bid of around $20k, with a BIN of around $26,000 . . .

 

'Original Art' cover

 

'Published' (mostly stat) cover

[comix4fun]

That would make a nice package having the two pieces together in one deal.

 

Also...this might qualify as one of the strangest editorial decisions I have heard of...the difference achieved was so minimal I wonder why Stan did this.

 

C

[Mister Trent]

Interestingly, Mike e-mailed me about the two Buscema covers I'd mentioned previously.

 

Mike is of the impression the AVENGERS # 52 cover currently on eBay is 'Small Art'.

 

I checked the description on eBay and the size listed is 53.5 x 37.5 cm (approx 21" x 15"), which does make it a LARGE ART cover.

[NelsonAI]

Artemis

 

Everything is collectible these days but at what price point?

 

The only mechanical cover that I personally have looked for (along with the color guides) is for the cover to ASM Annual # 12. This is my favorite Byrne cover featuring Spiderman vs the Hulk. I own the original cover art but it does not have any of the title or logo stats.

 

However, it has to be at a price I consider reasonable otherwise I would just commission someone to recreate the lettering and logos on an overlay for me.

 

Cheers!

N

 

[mrpunch0]

Original art for the published cover or not – I call it a waste of money.

 

Sure it looks like a good deal when you put it up against the price for the art the stat was shot from – but $6K for what is essentially a photo of the artwork? No thanks, you can have it.

[comix4fun]

Interestingly, Mike e-mailed me about the two Buscema covers I'd mentioned previously.

 

Mike is of the impression the AVENGERS # 52 cover currently on eBay is 'Small Art'.

 

I checked the description on eBay and the size listed is 53.5 x 37.5 cm (approx 21" x 15"), which does make it a LARGE ART cover.

 

Was this meant to be a response to Mike?

 

If it's not in response to Mike is it just to publically note he was mistaken about the measurement of a piece of art?

 

If it were me I would probably just email the guy.

 

C

[Mister Trent]

Interestingly, Mike e-mailed me about the two Buscema covers I'd mentioned previously.

 

Mike is of the impression the AVENGERS # 52 cover currently on eBay is 'Small Art'.

 

I checked the description on eBay and the size listed is 53.5 x 37.5 cm (approx 21" x 15"), which does make it a LARGE ART cover.

 

Was this meant to be a response to Mike?

 

If it's not in response to Mike is it just to publically note he was mistaken about the measurement of a piece of art?

 

If it were me I would probably just email the guy.

 

C

 

I did e-mail Mike back.

 

What makes you think I wouldn't?

 

I respond promptly to all my mails as a matter of common courtesy.

 

I'm making the point here to highlight the big differences in pricing (for two same size covers, by the same artist, in the same time-frame).

 

If nothing else, it illustates how prices can vary wildly for similar items. The fact that Mike got it wrong over sizing is incidental. (shrug)

 

I thought this was something the forum might want to note. (shrug)

 

Isn't that what it's all about . . . an exchange of ideas, views and opinions?

[Mister Trent]

It's not something I collect but if I were a fan of the genre, artist, and time period I would find paying 80% less for this piece and knowing it was the actual pubbed cover would make me look twice.

 

C

 

I suppose another way of looking at this is to see what the actual 'art' content is of the published cover (though I've not cropped away the logo stats):

 

$6,000

 

And here's the original art (which served as the source for published cover). I've cropped away the top portion, as it looks as though that part of the cover was removed and used to format the above published cover:

$32,000

 

I wonder if Gene Colan actually produced the extentions for the published cover . . . or was this the work of a staff-artist?

 

Would I actually want to pay (the bargain price of) $6,000 for a heavily-statted cover (even if the published version)?

 

Probably not.

 

For myself, it's not just about having the . . . template (?) from which the printed cover was reproduced. It's about the Original Art.

 

I like to look at a piece of original art knowing that the pencils and inks came directly from the artists' hands. As one day, in the long past, the penciler sat in front of a blank piece of illustration board and . . . with great skill and imagination . . . transformed that area of nothingness into an image of aesthetic appeal.

 

The pencils were then passed on to an inker to be embellished.

 

A stat just doesn't have that personal attachment to the artists.

 

I suppose $6,000 does sound like a bargain - when compared against the $32,000 price tag for the original drawing.

 

But you get what you pay for . . .

[r1982rhoads]

To be honest, I doubt I would buy the published version even if it were reduced from 6k to $100. As noted above, you don't know if it was Colan himself who did the extensions on the published version. And for the amount of actual art you are buying, you could get a nice Bronze age cover instead.

 

Someone was selling the foreign versions of comic covers on ebay these past few months. Most of those are 100% stats. Some, however are stats with extensions drawn beyond the stats, similar to the cover discussed above. They are selling for 30-100 bucks or so...which seems like a more reasonable range for a photo copy...

 

 

 

 

[Artemaria]

Thanks to all the posters for all the great comments. I appreciate that everyone understands that this is exclusively a market-based inquiry. I find myself agreeing with the people who believe that the stat should be either included with the original art for free, or sold for some extremely reasonable amount (low three figures).

 

But as a dealer, I can understand the psychological import of putting it out there for that price. There is the commonly used psychological phenomenon of "anchoring" which is often used by retailers to create value. This phenomenon is created by someone placing a value on something, let's say a gallon of milk, for $4.00. The retailer expects to sell few at $4.00. But then when there is a sale the next week on the milk for $3.75, the sales volume will increase significantly because after the anchoring, people believe that the milk is worth $4.00 and think it is a bargain at $3.75. That is because the people have "seen" the item sell for the higher price previously.

 

After a while, I'm sure the market will determine the value of these mechanical reproduction pieces (created by unknown artists) as it has for all others. In the meantime, there will not be any that will make it into my collection.

 

- A

[Mister Trent]

Thanks to all the posters for all the great comments. I appreciate that everyone understands that this is exclusively a market-based inquiry. I find myself agreeing with the people who believe that the stat should be either included with the original art for free, or sold for some extremely reasonable amount (low three figures).

 

- A

 

For $32,000, to purchase the original art version, you'd only be getting the drawing.

 

The upper part of the logo area appears to be a recently re-created stat, poorly executed (notice the whiteness of the upper area when compared with the creamy beige-like color of the OA). The contrast, to me, is quite jarring (for $32,000 you'd think the 'restoration' would at least be color-matched?):

 

 

In my opinion, both the original art and published cover are over-priced.

 

Also (as I've previously mentioned), it looks as though the upper (logo) area of the published cover has been cannibalised from the original drawing.

 

If I had an interest in owning the original art (I don't), I'd be looking towards re-uniting the original drawing (OA) with the upper portion of the published cover.

 

At a total price of $38,000, that would make for an expensive exercise.

 

It'll be interesting to see if either piece sells.

 

And as a side-note, I have noticed some high-ticket items on Mike's site appearing to be sold (or put on hold), only to re-appear a short while later as 'new' items (some sort of sales tactic, perhaps?).

 

Yes, I am aware that someone like Chris Caira believes these types of questions should be addressed to Mike Burkey directly (perhaps it was Chris himself who highlighted these discussions to Mike last week - which resulted in me receiving an e-mail from him about some of my comments?) . . . but Mike (who is a nice guy . . . done business with him on numerous ocassions . . . and certainly I've no axe to grind with him) may not necessarily give us the kind of response we'd want - as I'd suspect he'd be more interested in defending his price-structuring and stance as a dealer.

 

That's why, personally, I'm more interested in hearing the views of would-be buyers - or knowledgeable collectors on these forums. If, for example, I want to buy a car . . . I consult independent reports, rather than listen to the sales-pitch of the dealer who simply wants my hard-earned cash.

 

When we pay outrageous prices for items we want . . . we only have ourselves to blame when outrageous prices lead to even more outrageous prices.

 

$80,000 AMAZING FANTASY # 15 cover re-creation anyone?

 

Just my honest opinion . . . make of it what you will.

[r1982rhoads]

$80,000 for a Light Boxed Amazing Fantasy #15 cover re-creation

[comix4fun]

Yes, I am aware that someone like Chris Caira believes these types of questions should be addressed to Mike Burkey directly (perhaps it was Chris himself who highlighted these discussions to Mike last week - which resulted in me receiving an e-mail from him about some of my comments?)

 

Terry,

I don't have a problem with discussing art and dealers and prices. I really don't. I am just getting a strange prejudicial feeling about this from your posts.

 

To be straight on what I "believe". I believe if you want to ask someone a question it might work best to actually ask them the question instead of posting that question on a message board in comments that slide from mocking to somewhat derogatory.

 

And if I do ask those questions on a message board I certainly would not be shocked if the person I was asking the question to (in the most round about and indirect manner) answered me in an email.

 

As well...why would you think someone like me would have to tell Mike about these posts?

You posted these "questions" on a freely viewable public message board read by hundreds of people a day. This is a place where fans, collectors, dealers, and artists come to read what is going on in the hobby. I didn't have to point out anything to anyone, and since you were publically questioning everything from Mike's pricing, to his descriptions, to his terminology I would figure an email from Mike to you might something you were looking for if you wanted your questions answered.

 

 

The fact that ALL of the questions, ALL of the critiques, ALL of the laughing shots at description terminology are aimed at Mike is what is starting to feel alot like something other than straight forward doe-eyed questions. I am just waiting for the excruciating public dissection of every dealer's pricing on pieces which are deemed to be over-priced. Or is Mike the only dealer with pricing deemed "agressive" or "excessive".

 

So far all I have seen are shots at one dealer, and that dealer is the ONE DEALER that I have dealt with that has NOT tried to take advantage of me in my 15 years collecting. He's the one dealer who has been willing to be flexible almost to a fault where other dealers are strident just to be strident.

 

I could name several that are far more agressive in pricing, far less forthcoming with detailed descriptions (even if their terminology doesn't give you the same giggle)

 

 

And as a side-note, I have noticed some high-ticket items on Mike's site appearing to be sold (or put on hold), only to re-appear a short while later as 'new' items (some sort of sales tactic, perhaps?).

 

 

This is an example of exactly what I am talking about. This is a cheap shot. Period.

 

If you don't know what the details of the potential transactions are perhaps you should find out first. The one possible reason for a piece being on hold then being put back up for sale is that it's a "Sales Tactic"? That would make Mike a liar. Is that what you are purporting to say here?

 

It's not possible someone reserved the piece and reneged? Or someone placed it on hold and they could not agree on trade elements? Or the buyer could not give Mike someone adequate in trade if that was a portion of the deal? It has to be "sales tactic"?

 

The fact that this is the one possibility listed by you, that this is the only thing that popped into your mind doesn't lend very much credence to the "no axe to grind" comment you made.

 

 

Two last things.....you said:

I'd suspect he'd be more interested in defending his price-structuring and stance as a dealer.

and

rather than listen to the sales-pitch of the dealer who simply wants my hard-earned cash.

 

For someone without an axe to grind and who wants answers to his questions you have given yourself several excuses to not ask Mike anything directly about ANYTHING.

 

If you want the group's opinion and you think Mike might not give you the answers you want does that mean you don't ask him at all? Really?

 

Is there a reason you could not ask the group and ask Mike all these questions directly, at the same time?

 

You must be able to see that the combination of avoiding emailing Mike any of your questions on this matter and all of the shots (and that is what they are, let's be realistic) you have taken at him would lead most logical people to think there is something more to you opinion than simple fact finding and not something a little more personal.

 

There have been several high profile pieces listed on major dealer sites in the last month. Most with prices more laughable than the others, and almost all of them with little or no description to them. I have problems with lots of them which I have taken directly to the people selling the pieces. I did this because I actually wanted my questions answered, and the shortest distance between question and answer is a straight line....

 

Chris

 

 

[Mister Trent]

Chris

 

I'll get back with a more detailed response in due course (it's early morning here in the UK and I've a day's work ahead of me).

 

In the meantime, you should bear in mind that my posts are in response to threads started by others who specifically pointed towards pieces of art offered by Mike.

 

Same way that your earlier posts were in reponse to threads started by others.

 

You've participated in these threads, giving us your views.

 

So have I.

 

I'm sorry if some of my opinions are contrary to your own.

 

I can't necessarily relate to other dealers . . . unless they happen to carry inventories that are of interest to me.

 

Many don't.

 

Later . . .

[comix4fun]

Chris

 

I'll get back with a more detailed response in due course (it's early morning here in the UK and I've a day's work ahead of me).

 

In the meantime, you should bear in mind that my posts are in response to threads started by others who specifically pointed towards pieces of art offered by Mike.

 

Same way that your earlier posts were in reponse to threads started by others.

 

You've participated in these threads, giving us your views.

 

So have I.

 

I'm sorry if some of my opinions are contrary to your own.

 

I can't necessarily relate to other dealers . . . unless they happen to carry inventories that are of interest to me.

 

Many don't.

 

Later . . .

 

 

Ok Terry.

I have always valued your posts, and I certainly value you experience in the hobby. Your responses here are something beyond what I am used to seeing, and I want to explain why.

 

I have given my opinions and my thoughts, that is true.

My thoughts did not include making note of a part of a description that I thought funny or ill-worded. I don't know where mocking a description because you think it's worded funny is giving a viewpoint on the art.

 

I don't mind contrary opinions and I am not crazy enough to think I know all the answers, I just know that if I want to know something I go to the source. That was all I was saying.

 

Not doing that, and making snide comments questioning whether or not mike is lying about a piece being on hold, crosses the line between contrary opinion and attack. Doing it in a public forum can be extraordinarily detrimental to a person's business reputation and should not be done lightly.

 

I really do think we can get to the bottom of the issue, about the pieces of art and the questions you are asking without attacking someone personally, publically, and (frankly) with scant back up (your sales tactic comment).

 

C

[Mister Trent]

Chris

 

I've included your original post herewith - my responses are in emboldened type:

 

-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-

 

Terry,

 

I don't have a problem with discussing art and dealers and prices. I really don't. I am just getting a strange prejudicial feeling about this from your posts.

 

I'm sorry you get that feeling. Certainly, that was not my intention, I assure you. The thread/s concerned one dealer, so that's why my responses concerned one dealer.

 

To be straight on what I "believe". I believe if you want to ask someone a question it might work best to actually ask them the question instead of posting that question on a message board in comments that slide from mocking to somewhat derogatory.

 

Having re-read a number of my earlier posts, and in retrospect, I don't really think I had any questions I wanted to ask Mike!

 

So, specifically, what 'questions' of mine are you referring to? If I'm now overlooking anything, please remind me.

 

And if I do ask those questions on a message board I certainly would not be shocked if the person I was asking the question to (in the most round about and indirect manner) answered me in an email.

 

I agree, but - again -what questions are you referring to . . . there wasn't really anything I wanted to ask Mike, so please quote?

 

I have expressed a number of opinions and/or observations, but that's not really the same thing, is it?

 

As well...why would you think someone like me would have to tell Mike about these posts?

You posted these "questions" on a freely viewable public message board read by hundreds of people a day. This is a place where fans, collectors, dealers, and artists come to read what is going on in the hobby. I didn't have to point out anything to anyone, and since you were publically questioning everything from Mike's pricing, to his descriptions, to his terminology I would figure an email from Mike to you might something you were looking for if you wanted your questions answered.

 

Fair comment about Mike possibly reading the forums of his own accord.

 

In response to the member/s who originated discussions concerning Mike's offers of TALES OF SUPENSE and AMAZING FANTASY # 15 (re-creation) covers . . . I gave my views that I believed Mike's asking prices to be a lot higher than they should be (IMHO).

 

Similarly, in another thread about WATCHMEN pages (artwork which I have little knowledge about and no interest in), other members of the forum were quick to debate FMV on two consecutive pages of art offered on eBay with a high reserve/high BIN.

 

Are my own views on Mike's high prices not too dissimilar?

 

I never had a question about Mike's descriptions. If I did, perhaps you could remind me what it is I'm supposed to have questionned?

 

On several ocassions I did a 'cut and paste' job of a few of his written descriptions, which I posted for others to read. I happen to like Mike's write-ups, they make me smile. The first time I did this you actually approved and gave me the 'thumbs-up'.

 

The fact that ALL of the questions, ALL of the critiques, ALL of the laughing shots at description terminology are aimed at Mike is what is starting to feel alot like something other than straight forward doe-eyed questions. I am just waiting for the excruciating public dissection of every dealer's pricing on pieces which are deemed to be over-priced. Or is Mike the only dealer with pricing deemed "agressive" or "excessive".

 

If I offered a critique on the TALES OF SUPSENSE covers, it's simply because I'm passionately interested in certain pre-1970s covers. It's something I enjoy discussing (even if some of my views are not always sugar-coated).

 

As previously noted in an earlier message, I can only relate to a very small amount of dealers active in this hobby. Mike happens to be one of that small handful of individuals. And as Mike's recent offerings of two high-end covers prompted threads (by other members, please remember), it's difficult not to get passionately involved in the ensuing debates.

 

Another dealer on my (very) short list of favourites is Russ Cochran. I've been buying art from Russ for 26 years. Russ has a great method for selling art. He auctions it off . . . with realistic reserves. It's a great method . . . the buyers determine FMV. No Post-Mortems there . . .

 

So far all I have seen are shots at one dealer, and that dealer is the ONE DEALER that I have dealt with that has NOT tried to take advantage of me in my 15 years collecting. He's the one dealer who has been willing to be flexible almost to a fault where other dealers are strident just to be strident.

 

Like I said, I like Mike myself. Done a number of high-end deals with him. Found him great to work with.

 

I also like my best friend from over here in the UK. That doesn't mean that we always see eye to eye . . . sometimes we vehemently disagree.

 

But to get back to Mike . . .it doesn't mean I have to remain dumbstruck when I see his prices spiral unrealistically (in my opinion) to new heights. Or, do you think I should wince in silence?

 

I could name several that are far more agressive in pricing, far less forthcoming with detailed descriptions (even if their terminology doesn't give you the same giggle)

 

I'm sure you could. And if they became the subject of other peoples' threads, perhaps I'd have my pennyworth to throw in.

 

I seem to remember Steve Donnelly's name cropping up a number of times. Have a look back in the archives . . . you'll see I made contributions to those threads.

 

Similarly, when Hari Naidu was having trouble with Howard What's'name over a COMICO PRIMER/GRENDEL cover, I offered my support to Hari.

 

If you don't know what the details of the potential transactions are perhaps you should find out first. The one possible reason for a piece being on hold then being put back up for sale is that it's a "Sales Tactic"? That would make Mike a liar. Is that what you are purporting to say here?

 

No, I'm merely considering a possibility. Re-read my wording, I distinctly say, "a POSSIBLE reason."

 

It's not possible someone reserved the piece and reneged? Or someone placed it on hold and they could not agree on trade elements? Or the buyer could not give Mike someone adequate in trade if that was a portion of the deal? It has to be "sales tactic"?

 

Now that you mention those other considerations, I fully agree that they, too, are possibilities.

 

The fact that this is the one possibility listed by you, that this is the only thing that popped into your mind doesn't lend very much credence to the "no axe to grind" comment you made.

 

I should have considered those other possibilities you mention. To my shame, I didn't. I'm happy to concede on that point.

 

Two last things.....you said:

 

Quote:

 

I'd suspect he'd be more interested in defending his price-structuring and stance as a dealer.

and

 

Quote:

 

rather than listen to the sales-pitch of the dealer who simply wants my hard-earned cash.

 

For someone without an axe to grind and who wants answers to his questions you have given yourself several excuses to not ask Mike anything directly about ANYTHING.

 

If you want the group's opinion and you think Mike might not give you the answers you want does that mean you don't ask him at all? Really?

 

Well, it was the guy who started the thread who was looking for the group's opinions (I was trying to echo his sentiments). In one of his posts, ARTY goes on to say that he was interested in the MARKET reaction.

 

Is there a reason you could not ask the group and ask Mike all these questions directly, at the same time?

 

Maybe you should be asking ARTEMARIA? It was his baby . . .

 

You must be able to see that the combination of avoiding emailing Mike any of your questions on this matter and all of the shots (and that is what they are, let's be realistic) you have taken at him would lead most logical people to think there is something more to you opinion than simple fact finding and not something a little more personal.

 

Like I said earlier on, now that I've re-read my earlier posts, I didn't actually have any questions I wanted to ask of Mike. Observations or opinions are not really questions, are they?

 

There have been several high profile pieces listed on major dealer sites in the last month. Most with prices more laughable than the others, and almost all of them with little or no description to them. I have problems with lots of them which I have taken directly to the people selling the pieces. I did this because I actually wanted my questions answered, and the shortest distance between question and answer is a straight line....

 

Good for you!

 

You can't go a more direct route than a straight line, can you!!

[Artemaria]

Hi -

 

I started the thread to find out people's opinions on a certain phenomenon. Mike had a ready example of the phenomenon and that was the reason I used it. Unfortunately, I do not have the time or energy to scour the internet to find other examples from other sellers, although, if I had to guess, I would say some exist.

 

It was an essentially random selection because he had a site that had the phenomenon occurring at the time that I started the thread. If someone else had an example that I discovered, i would have used that example. The thread was about the market phenomenon and had nothing to do with the person.

 

The conflict on the boards mirrored my own thoughts on the topic, balancing the high price of a copy with a dealer's right to make a living. And I appreciated that. No one has directedly contacted me about this thread.

 

However, what I find somewhat disconcerting is that there appears to be an attempt at suppressing certain viewpoints on the boards. Tanatamount to saying "you're wrong," or you didn't do this the "right way."

 

These kinds of statements are disturbing because on the boards, which is a forum for public opinion, no ONE opinion is weighted more than any other. Everyone's opinion counts the same. There is no "wrong," or "right" way and telling other people such things on these boards undermines the purpose of them.

 

Other than foul language and patent repeated shilling, there do not appear to be any groundrules on the boards saying you can't complain about pricing, or you can't complain about this dealer, or you can't complain about that buyer. Indeed, the boards are filled with that kind of opinion exchange.

 

The free flow of ideas and opinions on these boards is a wonderful thing. If we lose the marketplace of free ideas that these boards attempt to create, through restrictions or outright censorship of ideas, then the boards will lose their relevance in this community.

 

Thanks again to everyone who contributed their thoughts to this thread.

 

- A

 

 

[comix4fun]

However, what I find somewhat disconcerting is that there appears to be an attempt at suppressing certain viewpoints on the boards. Tanatamount to saying "you're wrong," or you didn't do this the "right way."

 

There is no "wrong," or "right" way and telling other people such things on these boards undermines the purpose of them.

 

 

I suppose that these are directed at me, is this correct?

 

Suggesting someone is lying in the attempt to sell a piece of art without ever talking to or attempting to contact that person is pretty clearly on the wrong side of the "right/wrong" discussion.

 

Making statements about a person's honesty on a message board that can be read by anyone on the planet comes with a certain level of responsibility. To go strictly on assumption, never finding or even seeking the facts that led you to post a comment that suggests the seller did something less than honest is more than just wrong, it's reckless.

 

Terry's opinions on the pieces themselves and his analysis thereof is valuable, but that is not all Terry has posted.

 

Mocking Mike's description text is not a "viewpoint".

 

Suggesting he was dishonestly marking pieces "on hold" as a sales tactic is not an opinion, it falls under the category of accusation.

 

And being that this is a forum for open discussion we should all be responsible for what we post.

 

If a poster can call a dealer on the carpet for his actions we should be able to call the poster on the carpet if they do something that seems unfair, incorrect, or improper. Otherwise we are still suppressing a viewpoint, aren't we?

 

C