Sad news about Illustration House 0

[artdealer]

Yeah, but I shouldn't get too involved in the IH debacle.

MI

[pinupcartoonguy]

Is he the guy (or maybe it's his dad) who runs a fencing school (or something like that) in NYC?

[artdealer]

Yup.

[Mephisto]

What where they teach you how to fence goods?

[comicartcom]

It's sad to hear such a thing happening at what is without question the gallery most responsible for bringing the field of illustrative art to the masses.

 

They've functioned for some 50 years as the best place to find the widest range of illustration art and the best shows of illustration ever to be seen.

 

I've known Walt Reed and in particular Roger Reed for many many years. My dealings with them were always exemplary both as a buyer and as a consignor and I'm quite surprised to hear such a story..

 

However.....

 

so far, we really only have "second hand" information. The principals on either side of the Peanuts tale have not commented here, not even the person who has been derailed in the consignment of their Peanuts art. So before I would make any judgements, I'll wait to see if either Roger Reed or the consignor of the Peanuts art comments personally before passing the death sentence.

 

On another level,, if Z.L., who I haven't spoken with in quite some time, actually wears a t-shirt and baseball cap while working in teh gallery during open hours should definitely clean up that act, without question..

 

Rich

[artdealer]

"Second hand information?"

What planet do you live on?

 

 

[artcollector9]

I've had mixed experiences with them. Once I placed an absentee bid, they lost it, I had a name, she swore up and down she didn't know me, they found the bid, changed the story. Another time I bought a high end piece and they were very professional. Now---who can trust them?? You would have to be nuts to consign to them...I'd be afraid they'd close shop and keep the art, or sell the art and not pay me.

[comicartcom]

"Second hand information?"

What planet do you live on?

 

 

edited due to later post in string

 

Edited May 20, 2009 by comicartcom

[Claudio]

Did you see the video on that linked page?

[comicartcom]

Did you see the video on that linked page?

 

I just watched the video.. So clearly there are some problems here.

 

for one.. she should be paid

 

secondly, if I was Roger Reed, I'd can the guy who said "this is all the money we have in the personal account right now". As a businessman, such things should never be said.

 

It's sad to see this happen..

 

What I wonder is why the consignor didn't go the route of legal action, which would be the fastest way for her to be paid what she is owed.

 

On another level.. item sells for 24k and Illustration House only takes less than 10% is an incredible bargain..

Edited May 20, 2009 by comicartcom

[Claudio]

Did you see the video on that linked page?

 

I just watched the video.. So clearly there are some problems here.

 

for one.. she should be paid

 

secondly, if I was Roger Reed, I'd can the guy who said "this is all the money we have in the personal account right now". As a businessman, such things should never be said.

 

It's sad to see this happen..

 

What I wonder is why the consignor didn't go the route of legal action, which would be the fastest way for her to be paid what she is owed.

 

On another level.. item sells for 24k and Illustration House only takes less than 10% is an incredible bargain..

Ha ha. It isn't that much of a bargain if the items sells for 24k and you get a little over HALF! Legal action will bring a swift resolution but it might not get her money if it brings about a bk and illustration house doesn't have enough assets. The way it is going now though, it looks very bad. Someone mention Madoff before and it is true. This is beginning to look like a ponsai scheme, unfortunately. I am sure it didn't start that way but that's where it ended up.

[comicartcom]

yes Claudio it is terrible if she only gets half her money.. However, if there is a written contract, it makes it difficult for the consignee to abrogate the tenets of said contract. Generally speaking, a court will issue a decision in favor of the consignor and all legal fees to be paid by the defendant. So Jthe plaintiff would get 100% of what was owed unless instead of proceeding through the courts, the 2 parties come to an "out of court settlement"

 

However in this case, obviously the consignor went to one of those TV station reporters who does those weekly segments of trying to get people's money from businesses where there is a dispute.

 

The problem with that is that it can be counter-productive: you're trying to get your money, but you may damage the ability of the other party to make money and thusly damage their ability to pay you.

 

Also, many times, one or two phone calls from an attorney can get you right to a conclusion, it's confidential and considerably less aggravating to all parties concerned

[artcollector9]

10% is high for a seller's fee today. They make the money on the buyer's fee.

 

Reed should have addressed the problem himself and not have an underling respond incorrectly.

 

THey should have called the lady and attempt to agree to a payout schedule--she might have agreed. Instead they didn't bother to call or write--pretty arrogant. Now they are screwed.

[CollectingFool]

The only thing outrageous about this incident is that it was televised and made public. I love how self-righteous people get all of a sudden when they are absolutely clueless about the people they deal with on a regular basis and usually pass as "good guys". There are a million stories about just about anyone that's been in the hobby for a while and they all make this incident pale in comparison. It's easy to knock IH now, especially since most people here don't deal with them. Ask around about your favorite art dealer before your next purchase, you might hear some unsettling things that will make you wish IH did sell more comic art.

 

Ruben

http://www.collectingfool.com

 

[Bronty]

Well I disagree. Non-payment is pretty cut and dried. And if lots of people are doing it that doesn't make it right.

[artcollector9]

People aren't being self righteous. Most people's eyes are wide open. IH showed a lack of integrity by not being honest with the lady and in fact attempted to NOT pay her, rather than to contact her with some sort of payout schedule. As a matter of fact, a well known dealer recently owed me 10K and had a problem paying me on time--he contacted me and suggested a longer payout with his apologies--I accepted and appreciated his forthrightness...and we are now square. IH being somewhat uppity and arrogant at times, well, when the mighty and (sometimes) arrogant fall, it usually draws a large crowd.

[CollectingFool]

I don't know why I bother really. I just wish some of the people who wrote me privately about this would post what they said. All I can say is if it weren't for the TV coverage, what IH did wouldn't even be a blip on the radar of the collected sins of people deeply involved in this hobby.

 

As a matter of fact, to me the initial intent is more important than the outcome when it comes to judging a person. I don't believe IH intended to screw anyone, they just made bad calls in who to pay off first and how to handle it. That to me can be forgiven unlike actions where the intent was to screw someone from the get-go.

 

Don't believe me, I know it's more fun to jump on the bandwagon and kick the guy that's down, especially if you already have an axe to grind against them. Besides, it's not like anyone in this hobby has ever been guilty of anything worse right? At least no one still in business right?? Right. Sure.

 

Ruben

http://www.collectingfool.com

[pinupcartoonguy]

I disagree. There's never an excuse to use someone else's money (the consignor's) for your own use.

 

Regardless of how it was exposed, IH is completely in the wrong here. They have no one to blame but themselves.

[artdealer]

When I had my problems about 25 years ago, taking from one to pay the other, believe me, everyone was all over my about. This was before the internet and email, but I still received lots of call and letters telling me what type of person I was and how I had to do the right thing.

 

What I did was not right,and I paid everyone I owe within a matter of 2 years, but some people since have resentment towards me.

 

So making the IH situation public is not outrageous. There are a number of people owed money who should be paid. I read stories all the time about how art galleries all over the country get sued for money owed to consignors, and the consignors win, or the owner of the gallery disappears over night.

 

What IH did is night right and making it public may make some others who they owe money, do something about it.

 

Now, I like Roger and don't wish him anything bad, but by doing what he is doing, it gives everyone else a tougher job of getting any art on consignment.

 

The matter of trust has been breached to some, and that might make some collectors wary of dealing with dealers, instead, trying to sell it on Ebay, where the bottom feeders won't pay for good illustration art. I don't put IH in the comic art dealer category, as they sell so little,and don't really count that atrocious comic art show of regurgitated art as being comic art dealers.

 

As I said, having been in that same boat as IH, I understand it, but cannot condone it, nor see anyway out for them, unfortunately.

 

Mitch I.

[Aman619]

Is Roger Reed a former illustrator himself? Who published a book on th egreat Illustrators fo the 20th century??