Frazetta painting on Ebay

[bocaratondefense]

Even the wealthiest collectors, who would never consider their hobbies as investments, would rather not simply waste their money. If we are certain that comic art is going to tank, then it would be unwise to continue to throw away money, even if that money is simply discretionary income that you can afford to lose.

[delekkerste]

Even the wealthiest collectors, who would never consider their hobbies as investments, would rather not simply waste their money. If we are certain that comic art is going to tank, then it would be unwise to continue to throw away money, even if that money is simply discretionary income that you can afford to lose.

 

Financially unwise, perhaps, but you can't forget the utility we get from owning and appreciating the art. For example, even if market value declines, the owner still gets to enjoy the pride of ownership, the benefit of admiring the piece hanging on his wall, and having people congratulate him on CAF about his great taste in art.

 

By the way, thanks for the supportive comments above, guys. (thumbs u

[Monster's Coll]

I just wish that someone with your obvious knowledge would try to add something from time to time, instead of constantly looking to subtract. (thumbs u

Ken,

 

The same arguments could be made the other way about the Krazy Krowd who only ever try to keep the hype going. Regarding your characterization that I am "constantly looking to subtract", if you mean subtract from the hype and hyperbole, sure. All I ever try to do is inject a dose of realism into a forum in which it is often lacking. I just try to call 'em like I see 'em and 'em if they can't handle what a bit player like me has to say.

 

While there certainly are differences between the business world and our hobby, as Tim (tth2) has said, human psychology is the one constant across both time and space - and that has always been the foundation of what I base my observations on in any market, whether it's stocks or paintings or pork bellies or comic art. There were plenty of people like yourself criticizing those who warned about the epic asset and credit bubble (e.g., me) and look how quickly it all unraveled. Everyone looks like a genius...until prices stop going up.

 

Gene,

 

Apparantly, you missed my point entirely, based on the above 2 paragraphs. It seems that you have a habit of applying your 'doom and gloom' view to everything. There is no middle ground. No matter what takes place, you seem to zero in on the things that may have perceivably sold 'weakly' and attempt to draw an analogy between those sales and the value of any other asset or commodity.

 

I'm asking you to give some perspective in the opposite direction. There has to be some things you see a positive in, investment wise, no? Why is everything always plummeting, dropping like a bomb or some other catastrophic event when it comes to your point of view on anything of value?

 

Speaking of psychology, that's another point I am trying to make... when someone of your 'status' on these boards continues to consistantly point out the perceived 'weakness' in anything related to our hobby, you are affectively altering people's perception through your words. You play a role in people's psychology when it comes to this stuff, believe it or not. When people that trust what you have to say, ala Cramer, hear you only talk about the world collapsing, people start to believe it. Follow me?

 

It can't be ALL bad, can it? If anyone has read your posts, it would certainly appear so.

 

Your Elvgren market analysis is completely wrong. Look at the date of the first sale you highlighted - 2006. That piece would easily have doubled by the time the market peaked in 2008, so the ensuing decline to March 2009 truly is epic in scale. Sorry to utterly lay waste to your thesis, but the highest priced lot in the June 2008 auction was also a re-sale and it sold for more than 5x as much as it did when it also sold in 2006, in case you don't believe the above. No way would that painting now sell for the runner-up bid in this market. Also, "Sailor Girl" was not the only fresh to the market piece - "Aw Come-On". a prime piece from 1953, was also new to the market and sold for a paltry $26K. Again, that's probably less than half of its summer 2008 valuation! No matter how you try to spin it, it's a CRASH by any other name.

 

See, now this is amusing... Some how my 'thesis', as you've qualified it, is absolutely WRONG. I like how my example which I will point out to be correct, IMHO - is not as you absolutely state, wrong.

 

Again, in this instance, I do not see things the way you do, which is apparantly why I MUST be wrong, right? The prices that were paid in the summer of '08 were completely absurd and were NOT, IMHO, indicative of the actual market value of Elvgren paintings as a whole. As you seem to like to do, every individual sale is pivotal to valuation, as though it's a stock ticker. It's not... I can drawn an analogy between this type of mentality and Obama getting on tv the other night saying that things are looking better because there was 3 positive days in a row for the stock market. Say WHAT? Does anyone with a brain believe this to be the case? I digress...

 

Which goes back to my entire point with individual sales or auction results - DO NOT MAKE A MARKET. You, of course, point out those absurdly high prices as being some sort of new bench mark in which all other sales should be measured by. In my opinion, this is a very elementary view of things, especially when it comes to art. Particularly something as personal as pin-up art. (Which I will be happy to explain what I mean by 'personal' if called on) So, now that the 'new benchmark has been set by the crazy prices paid in summer '08 used in your example, I am ABSOLUTELY WRONG and there is obviously an incredible plummeting of values. I beg to differ.

 

See, IMHO, the 'true' value of Elvgren originals lie somewhere in the middle. Much closer to 2006-07 prices, than summer of 2008. But since that 'possiblity' - ISN'T a possiblity in your mind, I MUST be WRONG.

 

If the sheer possibility that perhaps summer '08 for Elvgrens was an anamoly and prices are much more in the $25-45K range as is far more apparant when all the results are taken into account, then my 'thesis' is a little closer to correct than absolutely WRONG, no? ... how about a maybe? come on, be a sport...

 

Again, back to my point... you continually make statements as though whatever you say is 'fact', when that is simply NOT the case. See, I can talk in absolutes as well... If you were at least open to even the concept of there being another point of view that is contrary to your own and that your opinions are not facts, then perhaps this would all make sense to you.

 

I know that it's obviously a real problem finding any middle ground the way things tend to go - but, I went ahead and made a couple posts anyway. What was I thinking?

 

I never said that Elvgren was the entire market. But, there was plenty of evidence of weakness elsewhere. Why even try to deny it at this point? 99.9999% of asset prices in the world have weakened since last summer. I could print out a laundry list of disappointing prices and auctions - I even started a thread in The Water Cooler about it last year, but by now, everyone with their eyes open has gotten the message so the point has been made. <<<<

 

I never said that you did. In other words, what I said was, you have a habit of analogyzing every individual instance of perceived weakness you come across as a clear and absolute indicator that the end is nigh. Do you understand what I am saying, now? I also never denied that there IS weakness. I simply pointed out that your blanket analogies do not make any sense to me and are not 'factual', they are your opinion, even though you happen to state them as 'fact'. Please don't twist my words around.

 

If people with vested interests get angry at what I say, so be it. I'm in this hobby because I actually really love the art. I've never tried to make a dime off of it. I've made some really good friends in this hobby, but if any of them can't handle what a minor player like me has to say, then I don't need them as friends. I do know, both from public statements and from many, many private messages I have received from Board members over the years, that there are a lot of people who enjoy what I have to say and find it useful. And if some people disagree with me, troll me like KrazyKat or if I've ruffled some feathers, I guess that's just natural too.

 

Gene

 

I KNOW (see another absolute) that you LOVE the art. I know you are well liked here, thus the point of my mentioning your 'status' multiple times... Again, i'm not asking you to stop posting. I wasn't saying you don't have a right to your opinions... I like to read your opinions, as they are often insightful... i'm asking that perhaps we could hear some positive ones occassionally. That's all. I'd love to know what things you see an UPSIDE in. Why you feel buying art from a certain time period or artist or, I don't know... something, that you are happy about putting the $ into, from an investment stand point.

 

Oh, and I would appreciate if you would not disagree with my opinions in an absolutely wrong manner. There are those that will absolutely believe you and i'm absolutely certain my status on these boards will never reach yours. I have a looooong way to go to reach your post count and that seems to be a pretty important measuring stick on this board. (thumbs u

[Monster's Coll]

Gene, I just saw that you went and edited your post from 'completely wrong' to 'severely flawed' - without marking the post as edited.

 

I appreciate that.

 

-Ken

[Monster's Coll]

I don't usually wade into these discussions...but here goes. Gene is right and I think it's good that someone is saying it. The "buy what you like with income you can afford to lose" is really just the best advice anyone could give on these boards. Especially for people just entering the hobby or younger collectors. Most people are smart and "get it" but I know way to many people are still thinking that comic art is an investment that "can't lose" and I think that's absolutely nuts. Its a fun hobby, but a fringe hobby. I am still buying, and always a little more than I think I should be, because you know, it's fun, but it's money that I can afford to lose. I buy for nostalgia, not investment. OK back to the sidelines with me.

 

But see, that's not what Gene conveys in his usual posts. The post above that you reference is on it's surface a 'save face' attempt to dismiss all the posts he's made up to this point.

 

His posts are not about preaching to buy what you love with $ you can afford to lose... his posts are almost always looking at art as a commodity and then points out why it's such a poor one and that investing in it is foolish. To the point of his most recent position is - the only position to be in is 'cash'. I'm not making this up folks. Check his posts, he can't go back and edit them all.

 

Gene posts in absolutes and they are almost always in a manner that focuses on why prices are and should go down. All the while, he is BUYING.

 

Which is why this appears to be at least somewhat disingenuous to me... if Gene is steadily buying, all the while talking about how others shouldn't be unless they can afford to lose the $ = won't that by default at least slightly cause prices to be lower on items he wants (IE: Elvgren originals) so he can buy these things for less?

 

Perhaps i'm just looking at all this through 'doom and gloom' eyes? I have been reading a bunch of Gene's posts lately.

 

 

[delekkerste]

People can read my posts and your posts and decide which they think is a better representation of reality. You can spin things any way you like, but I think people are smart enough to see through it. Your conjecture that I have some kind of hidden agenda is laughable.

 

Gene

[ComicsAndCode]

Fantastic piece. Perhaps because of inexperience, I thought Frazetta's prime work went for almost seven figures.

 

 

This painting is great but it's not one of the ones that will go for 7 figures.

 

If this were The Deathdealer, Dark Kingdom, Conan the Barbarian, Conan the Destroyer, Frost Giant, Swamp Demon or something like Egyptian Queen or a few others you would see a fight at seven figures to be sure.

 

 

C

 

I doubt this. Can you provide a real-life example?

[Monster's Coll]

People can read my posts and your posts and decide which they think is a better representation of reality. You can spin things any way you like, but I think people are smart enough to see through it. Your conjecture that I have some kind of hidden agenda is laughable.

 

Gene

 

I find it amusing that you characterize my posts as a 'spin' on reality. Can't the same be said of yours? Thing is, I don't post daily about how this or that market is bombing... or making a bull run, for that matter. I simply decided to call it as I see it in the few posts I made. Something you can relate to.

 

Which is closer to reality? Who's to say... I do know that our discussion will cause people to think about it, instead of simply accepting your 'spin' as fact.

 

I have no idea whether you have an agenda or not, but your statements do make an impact and one that may help you save some $. Be it simply a by-product or not.

 

-Ken

 

[delekkerste]

Ken,

 

If our back and forth encourages people to think about things more, then it can only be a good thing. I still think you give me entirely too much credit, though - people have never blindly accepted my posts as fact. If anything, your posts may actually cause more people to consider what I have to say. Thanks for legitimizing what most here probably consider to be heretical and nonsensical hearsay. (thumbs u

 

Gene

[Monster's Coll]

Ken,

 

If our back and forth encourages people to think about things more, then it can only be a good thing. I still think you give me entirely too much credit, though - people have never blindly accepted my posts as fact. If anything, your posts may actually cause more people to consider what I have to say. Thanks for legitimizing what most here probably consider to be heretical and nonsensical hearsay. (thumbs u

 

Gene

 

Gene,

 

As I've stated from my 1st post on, your opinions do have a lot of value and I personally respect 'most' of them.

 

There are those, proven by way of their posts, that actually do blindly accept your posts as fact. Which is in part why I posted originally.

 

In the end, I would really like to read about your opinions that pertain to some of the positives to having $ invested in comic art or the like - and at the same time, a little less of the 'doom and gloom' stuff.

 

Thanks,

Ken

[comix4fun]

Fantastic piece. Perhaps because of inexperience, I thought Frazetta's prime work went for almost seven figures.

 

 

This painting is great but it's not one of the ones that will go for 7 figures.

 

If this were The Deathdealer, Dark Kingdom, Conan the Barbarian, Conan the Destroyer, Frost Giant, Swamp Demon or something like Egyptian Queen or a few others you would see a fight at seven figures to be sure.

 

 

C

 

I doubt this. Can you provide a real-life example?

 

 

One easy example is Frank's been offered in excess of $1 million for Death Dealer by more than one person and turned them down flat. One of the interested party's has a last name that rhymes with Schwarzenegger. And his offer was over 20 years ago. It's not exactly a secret in collecting circles either.

 

Or if you want an inflation adjusted $1 million dollar offer just watch Painting with Fire again and listen to Bakshi talk about DiLaurentis coming to Frank with $250,000 for one of his paintings in the 70's and Frank shutting him down before he could finish making the offer.

 

Doubt it. Believe it. Roll it in happy paper and smoke it. I don't own a single piece of Frazetta art (much to my dismay) so I have zero bias or personal interest in making things up.

 

C.

 

[CollectingFool]

Fantastic piece. Perhaps because of inexperience, I thought Frazetta's prime work went for almost seven figures.

This painting is great but it's not one of the ones that will go for 7 figures.

 

If this were The Deathdealer, Dark Kingdom, Conan the Barbarian, Conan the Destroyer, Frost Giant, Swamp Demon or something like Egyptian Queen or a few others you would see a fight at seven figures to be sure.

 

C

 

I doubt this. Can you provide a real-life example?

 

I remember in 2001 hanging out in San Diego with a very well known collector. He was annoyed because Ellie had just raised her prices on a couple of things he was looking at from $50K to $100K. I believe the exact quote from the collector was "Damn, I was going to buy two or three of them but now I'll have to settle for one or maybe two."

 

Also, I believe All-Star has been selling pieces for the Frazettas and I'm pretty sure they've announced $100K+ prices achieved for certain pieces.

 

Remember, most of the really important sales happen in private.

 

 

Ruben

http://www.collectingfool.com

 

[tth2]

I don't usually wade into these discussions...but here goes. Gene is right and I think it's good that someone is saying it. The "buy what you like with income you can afford to lose" is really just the best advice anyone could give on these boards. Especially for people just entering the hobby or younger collectors. Most people are smart and "get it" but I know way to many people are still thinking that comic art is an investment that "can't lose" and I think that's absolutely nuts. Its a fun hobby, but a fringe hobby. I am still buying, and always a little more than I think I should be, because you know, it's fun, but it's money that I can afford to lose. I buy for nostalgia, not investment. OK back to the sidelines with me.

 

But see, that's not what Gene conveys in his usual posts. The post above that you reference is on it's surface a 'save face' attempt to dismiss all the posts he's made up to this point.

 

His posts are not about preaching to buy what you love with $ you can afford to lose... his posts are almost always looking at art as a commodity and then points out why it's such a poor one and that investing in it is foolish. To the point of his most recent position is - the only position to be in is 'cash'. I'm not making this up folks. Check his posts, he can't go back and edit them all.

 

Gene posts in absolutes and they are almost always in a manner that focuses on why prices are and should go down. All the while, he is BUYING.

 

Which is why this appears to be at least somewhat disingenuous to me... if Gene is steadily buying, all the while talking about how others shouldn't be unless they can afford to lose the $ = won't that by default at least slightly cause prices to be lower on items he wants (IE: Elvgren originals) so he can buy these things for less?

 

Perhaps i'm just looking at all this through 'doom and gloom' eyes? I have been reading a bunch of Gene's posts lately.

 

Personally, I have always enjoyed discussions with Gene and count him as one of the friends that I've made on the Boards. Yes, his tendency to speak in absolutes (e.g., NO younger celebs/rich people ever purchase comics or comic OA) and be pessimistic sometimes drives me up a wall, but in a world where the tendency is for people to be cheerleaders towards the upside, it is always good to have a few naysayers, so long as they're well reasoned as opposed to just being bitter for having missed the train (e.g., JC).

 

He CAN be bullish on some things when he believes there is a reason to be bullish, and I wish I had taken more of his advice on investing in oil and other commodities back when we first met in person. But it's clear that right now he views OA and almost all asset classes as overvalued, so I'm not sure why you're trying to pressure him into saying something positive if he wouldn't believe it.

 

Finally, I think you're way off base with your accusations of him trying to talk down the market. First, I don't think he is. Second, and most importantly, even if he was trying to talk down the market, I think you're way overestimating his influence on the market.

[JONPAULJONES-migration]

The farce that is delicatessen stems not from his being a perma bear but his arrogance that because he trades for a living he has a special insight into markets generally and the collectibles market particularly. He can think I troll him all he wants but the fact of the matter is,..I call wildly_fanciful_statement when I see it.

 

Moreover, he is a liar in my book because he claims he doesnt view people who collect OA/ COMICS as sullying their hands and than consistently makes disparaging remarks like comics are just about men in tights and not to be taken seriously. The fact is,...he is one of the most unsophisticated and cultured ignoramuses and simply doesnt 'get' the importance and significance culturally/artistically of our medium. Ironically, me,..a defender of the medium gets chastised. Oh well.

 

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29693543/?GT1=43001 <---- Famous Person Buys Action # 1 by the way.

[Mighty Hal]

The farce that is delicatessen stems from his not being a perma bear but his arrogance that because he trades for a living he has a special insight into markets generally and particularly the collectibles market.

 

Whereas I've always thought that Gene was pretty pro-OA hobby and just trying to inject a little bit of his viewpoint into the discussion. I don't find him dismissive of collectors or the collecting of OA (come on, he's open and happy about being a collector himself) and I do think there is cause for a little pessimism right now.

 

At least, I think so because...the big dollar stuff is still bringing in big dollars but most of us aren't big dollar collectors. At least, that's my belief. If I told my wife that I was dropping $25,000 on a comic cover, she'd be dropping me. My purchases typically run at a much lower level and I've had to swallow hard the couple of times I've dropped a thousand or more.

 

As far as I'm concerned, the state of the market will be most accurately reflected in the success of mister-not-so-nice's posting on the marketplace. If he sells his stuff -- lower priced artwork, fairly priced and in my dollar bracket -- then I'll know that the market is healthy. If a lack of interest keeps the pieces in his collection, then I'll suspect that the market is soft.

[JONPAULJONES-migration]

The farce that is delicatessen stems from his not being a perma bear but his arrogance that because he trades for a living he has a special insight into markets generally and particularly the collectibles market.

 

Whereas I've always thought that Gene was pretty pro-OA hobby and just trying to inject a little bit of his viewpoint into the discussion. I don't find him dismissive of collectors or the collecting of OA (come on, he's open and happy about being a collector himself) and I do think there is cause for a little pessimism right now.

 

At least, I think so because...the big dollar stuff is still bringing in big dollars but most of us aren't big dollar collectors. At least, that's my belief. If I told my wife that I was dropping $25,000 on a comic cover, she'd be dropping me. My purchases typically run at a much lower level and I've had to swallow hard the couple of times I've dropped a thousand or more.

 

As far as I'm concerned, the state of the market will be most accurately reflected in the success of mister-not-so-nice's posting on the marketplace. If he sells his stuff -- lower priced artwork, fairly priced and in my dollar bracket -- then I'll know that the market is healthy. If a lack of interest keeps the pieces in his collection, then I'll suspect that the market is soft.

 

Hal,

 

The reason I am despised is because I have the gall to compare Rembrandt's with Romita, Picasso with Ditko, Kirby with Rothko or Warhol. I have always been clear that my belief that OA is a very good investment is predicated on a two pronged analysis. Firstly, the artistic symbols of American comic imagination are extremely relevant reflections of how man [America] viewed itself in the 20th Century. The zeitgeist captured in comic art is wholly relevant and WILL one day be recognized. The best of the best in this segment of art history is as valuable as the highest of all arts [Deli disagrees and thinks OA/Comics will never be viewed as fine art]. Secondly, OA is a commodity and hard assets commdties serve as storage container for wealth because our joke of a Federal Reserve system that deflates-inflates the money supply demands the market to coaleqsque capital into pools for protecting wealth. We are in a 25 year commodity bull run. Unimpaired hard assets not backed by debt are excellent investments. Token symbols with high brand exposure such as Super-man, Batman, Spider-man,..etc......will attract wealth.

 

I offfer balance and a long-term analysis. Deli merely propulgates his 'liquidity is drying up' mantra.

 

 

I am a force for the hobby. Deli is a self-aggrandizer.

 

Tis obvious to anyone paying attention.

[Nexus]

Obviously, Gene and Ken can speak for themselves, but since Gene has a spokesperson (hi Tim!)...

 

I'm fairly certain that when Ken talks about OA, he's only talking about the top-tier stuff. That segment has been remarkably resilient so far. Now...can this last forever? SHOULD there be a correction? We all know the logical answers, but until there's solid evidence that it's happening, I'll believe it when I see it. We were all looking to the November Heritage auction for proof...then February...I guess we'll now have to wait until May.

 

There's less money to be spent. I do expect values to soften. As someone who'd like to buy more, that's really not such a bad thing. If, however, we see wholesale dumping by collectors because of total loss of confidence...only then will there be a "crash". I don't expect anything that extreme to happen. People still love this stuff and are emotionally attached to it, no matter how much their 401(k)'s have shrunk.

 

Really, if things get so bad that my OA collection become worthless, the fact that I can't get my money back out of it is going to be the least of my problems.

 

For now, the hobby is something that I enjoy and a momentary escape from the real world. The extremist view points here have long become predictable and monotonous (and, for the record, although he is the anti-KK, I don't put Gene in that same class). It's like any debate about religion/politics...no one's ever going to change anyone else's mind, so we all talk just to hear ourselves talk.

 

Finally, "but what you love and can afford to lose" should be the motto for the hobby. But I've met a lot of collectors in OA, and all of them have looked like pretty responsible people. I've yet to meet (or hear about) the collector who's been ruined financially because of overindulgence in the hobby. Most everyone knows their limits. If that many people have grossly overspent, we'll see massive dumping soon enough. I don't foresee that happening.

[ComicsAndCode]

Fantastic piece. Perhaps because of inexperience, I thought Frazetta's prime work went for almost seven figures.

 

 

This painting is great but it's not one of the ones that will go for 7 figures.

 

If this were The Deathdealer, Dark Kingdom, Conan the Barbarian, Conan the Destroyer, Frost Giant, Swamp Demon or something like Egyptian Queen or a few others you would see a fight at seven figures to be sure.

 

 

C

 

I doubt this. Can you provide a real-life example?

 

 

One easy example is Frank's been offered in excess of $1 million for Death Dealer by more than one person and turned them down flat. One of the interested party's has a last name that rhymes with Schwarzenegger. And his offer was over 20 years ago. It's not exactly a secret in collecting circles either.

 

Or if you want an inflation adjusted $1 million dollar offer just watch Painting with Fire again and listen to Bakshi talk about DiLaurentis coming to Frank with $250,000 for one of his paintings in the 70's and Frank shutting him down before he could finish making the offer.

 

Doubt it. Believe it. Roll it in happy paper and smoke it. I don't own a single piece of Frazetta art (much to my dismay) so I have zero bias or personal interest in making things up.

 

C.

 

These are offers, but what about realized sales?

 

Also, is there more than one instance of a Death Dealer painting? If I am not mistaken, I remember seeing DD up for auction on Heritage (I believe) a while ago and closing at around 100K.

 

Don't doubt for one second a Frazetta painting reaching 250 - 500K...was not ready to believe they've reached 1 mil.

[spider9698]

There have been no Death Dealer oil painting sales. Frank and Ellie own all the paintings.

[comix4fun]

Fantastic piece. Perhaps because of inexperience, I thought Frazetta's prime work went for almost seven figures.

 

 

This painting is great but it's not one of the ones that will go for 7 figures.

 

If this were The Deathdealer, Dark Kingdom, Conan the Barbarian, Conan the Destroyer, Frost Giant, Swamp Demon or something like Egyptian Queen or a few others you would see a fight at seven figures to be sure.

 

 

C

 

I doubt this. Can you provide a real-life example?

 

 

One easy example is Frank's been offered in excess of $1 million for Death Dealer by more than one person and turned them down flat. One of the interested party's has a last name that rhymes with Schwarzenegger. And his offer was over 20 years ago. It's not exactly a secret in collecting circles either.

 

Or if you want an inflation adjusted $1 million dollar offer just watch Painting with Fire again and listen to Bakshi talk about DiLaurentis coming to Frank with $250,000 for one of his paintings in the 70's and Frank shutting him down before he could finish making the offer.

 

Doubt it. Believe it. Roll it in happy paper and smoke it. I don't own a single piece of Frazetta art (much to my dismay) so I have zero bias or personal interest in making things up.

 

C.

 

These are offers, but what about realized sales?

 

Also, is there more than one instance of a Death Dealer painting? If I am not mistaken, I remember seeing DD up for auction on Heritage (I believe) a while ago and closing at around 100K.

 

Don't doubt for one second a Frazetta painting reaching 250 - 500K...was not ready to believe they've reached 1 mil.

 

 

As was mentioned all the DD pieces are with Frank and Ellie. They aren't letting those go.

 

And to me, an offer that is turned down sets the minimum a piece is worth where as a realized sale (especially a public sale or auction) would set the actual market value for a piece absent strange sale circumstances.

 

I can't see market value of any of those pieces the Frazetta's turned down offers in excess of a million dollars on being less than what was already offered. It's a pretty good indicator that at least one person is willing to pay that price.

 

C