Hold onto your hats for the May Heritage auction....

[Bronty]

Well I suspect his whole ego and self worth is wrapped up in these pieces. I don't think rational decision making really comes into it that much. I don't know Jerry so I am probably venturing too much in terms of a guess, but that's what it looks like from 1000 feet away

[artdealer]

Jerry has a couple of incredible Mort Meskin Vigilante splash pages from the mid 40's.

 

God knows no one will ever be able to afford them though.

 

I suspect Heritage will get the material once Jerry passes from this mortal earth.

 

MI

[Terry Doyle]

I like Fred's comparison with fish ...though I must admit I prefer when my art actually smells the old paper or even better the old cigar !!!

 

Here ya go, Romain, one smelly fish . . .

 

 

 

 

How about a twice-up smelly fish . . . more impressive, huh?

 

[Terry Doyle]

I remember $70K as well.

 

Hope the buyer bought the piece for reasons other than it was "fresh to market". Or that it was relatively fresh enough for him. Anyway, the cover is strong enough on its own to justify the price. Congrats to the buyer (a sometimes poster here).

 

Although I understand the appeal of "fresh to the market" pieces to some collectors, the idea of it has never quite worked for me.

 

Whenever I've acquired artwork in the past, it's always been on the strength of the work - nothing else.

 

If I like the art, I couldn't give a damn if the work has been 'shopped around' or has remained unsold on some dealer's site for any length of time. My focus has always been on the art, not its history of availability.

 

I agree. I buy art because of the sentimental value it has to me as something I grew up with- if I like a piece, I like it. I don't dislike it because it has been around the block. I would actually prefer if the stuff I was after was constantly shopped around- that way I could find it easier.

 

Some years ago I had a dealer affix a "If you ever wanna sell, let me know" comment to a Russ Heath STAR SPANGLED WAR STORIES 'Dinosaur' cover I owned at the time. By all accounts, it was the only known surviving 'War that Time Forgot' cover out there (SSWS # 137).

 

An opportunity arose in which a long-sought-after-grail was offered to me, and I needed to raise appropriate funding.

 

I offered the Heath cover out. Not just to the dealer in question, but others.

 

I asked $10k, which was my purchase price of the art.

 

The dealer heard that the cover wans't being offered exclusively to him and, somehow, that put a dampener on my offer.

 

He gave me some spiel about how the 'general' offer of the art changed things for him.

 

Because of this, He wouldn't be prepeared to meet my full asking price . . . that if I gave him a 20% discount, that might make him want to buy the cover from me.

 

I just said that I never sold artwork at a loss . . . that I wasn't looking to make a profit - just to break even on my purchase price.

 

As it happened, I managed to raise funds for the purchase of my 'grail' elesewhere - and the Heath SSWS # 137 cover stayed put in my collection for a while longer (I eventually sold it to a friend, last year, at my full asking price). The dealer was never given the same opportunity again.

 

When my friend bought the SSWS # 137 cover from me, he didn't care that the art had been 'shopped around'. He was a fan of the work and appreciated it for the rarity and strength of the illustration - nothing else.

[Bronty]

I remember $70K as well.

 

Hope the buyer bought the piece for reasons other than it was "fresh to market". Or that it was relatively fresh enough for him. Anyway, the cover is strong enough on its own to justify the price. Congrats to the buyer (a sometimes poster here).

 

Although I understand the appeal of "fresh to the market" pieces to some collectors, the idea of it has never quite worked for me.

 

Whenever I've acquired artwork in the past, it's always been on the strength of the work - nothing else.

 

If I like the art, I couldn't give a damn if the work has been 'shopped around' or has remained unsold on some dealer's site for any length of time. My focus has always been on the art, not its history of availability.

 

I agree. I buy art because of the sentimental value it has to me as something I grew up with- if I like a piece, I like it. I don't dislike it because it has been around the block. I would actually prefer if the stuff I was after was constantly shopped around- that way I could find it easier.

 

Some years ago I had a dealer affix a "If you ever wanna sell, let me know" comment to a Russ Heath STAR SPANGLED WAR STORIES 'Dinosaur' cover I owned at the time. By all accounts, it was the only known surviving 'War that Time Forgot' cover out there (SSWS # 137).

 

An opportunity arose in which a long-sought-after-grail was offered to me, and I needed to raise appropriate funding.

 

I offered the Heath cover out. Not just to the dealer in question, but others.

 

I asked $10k, which was my purchase price of the art.

 

The dealer heard that the cover wans't being offered exclusively to him and, somehow, that put a dampener on my offer.

 

He gave me some spiel about how the 'general' offer of the art changed things for him.

 

Because of this, He wouldn't be prepeared to meet my full asking price . . . that if I gave him a 20% discount, that might make him want to buy the cover from me.

 

I just said that I never sold artwork at a loss . . . that I wasn't looking to make a profit - just to break even on my purchase price.

 

As it happened, I managed to raise funds for the purchase of my 'grail' elesewhere - and the Heath SSWS # 137 cover stayed put in my collection for a while longer (I eventually sold it to a friend, last year, at my full asking price). The dealer was never given the same opportunity again.

 

When my friend bought the SSWS # 137 cover from me, he didn't care that the art had been 'shopped around'. He was a fan of the work and appreciated it for the rarity and strength of the illustration - nothing else.

 

Well I'm surprised you're surprised the dealer felt that way. I can see his point. He's doesn't care about the strength of the illustration. He cares about making money and if you've offered it around at 10k its going to be harder for him to ask 15. From a collector's point of view freshness to market shouldn't matter, sure. But from a dealer's POV he wants to set the price. In effectively setting it for him you've already played one of the cards in his hand.

 

(Obviously you're fully within your rights to offer it to as many or as few people as you would like, but I can fully see why it changed things for him).

[Terry Doyle]

I remember $70K as well.

 

Hope the buyer bought the piece for reasons other than it was "fresh to market". Or that it was relatively fresh enough for him. Anyway, the cover is strong enough on its own to justify the price. Congrats to the buyer (a sometimes poster here).

 

Although I understand the appeal of "fresh to the market" pieces to some collectors, the idea of it has never quite worked for me.

 

Whenever I've acquired artwork in the past, it's always been on the strength of the work - nothing else.

 

If I like the art, I couldn't give a damn if the work has been 'shopped around' or has remained unsold on some dealer's site for any length of time. My focus has always been on the art, not its history of availability.

 

But what you'v

 

I agree. I buy art because of the sentimental value it has to me as something I grew up with- if I like a piece, I like it. I don't dislike it because it has been around the block. I would actually prefer if the stuff I was after was constantly shopped around- that way I could find it easier.

 

Some years ago I had a dealer affix a "If you ever wanna sell, let me know" comment to a Russ Heath STAR SPANGLED WAR STORIES 'Dinosaur' cover I owned at the time. By all accounts, it was the only known surviving 'War that Time Forgot' cover out there (SSWS # 137).

 

An opportunity arose in which a long-sought-after-grail was offered to me, and I needed to raise appropriate funding.

 

I offered the Heath cover out. Not just to the dealer in question, but others.

 

I asked $10k, which was my purchase price of the art.

 

The dealer heard that the cover wans't being offered exclusively to him and, somehow, that put a dampener on my offer.

 

He gave me some spiel about how the 'general' offer of the art changed things for him.

 

Because of this, He wouldn't be prepeared to meet my full asking price . . . that if I gave him a 20% discount, that might make him want to buy the cover from me.

 

I just said that I never sold artwork at a loss . . . that I wasn't looking to make a profit - just to break even on my purchase price.

 

As it happened, I managed to raise funds for the purchase of my 'grail' elesewhere - and the Heath SSWS # 137 cover stayed put in my collection for a while longer (I eventually sold it to a friend, last year, at my full asking price). The dealer was never given the same opportunity again.

 

When my friend bought the SSWS # 137 cover from me, he didn't care that the art had been 'shopped around'. He was a fan of the work and appreciated it for the rarity and strength of the illustration - nothing else.

 

Well I'm surprised you're surprised the dealer felt that way. I can see his point. He's doesn't care about the strength of the illustration. He cares about making money and if you've offered it around at 10k its going to be harder for him to ask 15. From a collector's point of view freshness to market shouldn't matter, sure. But from a dealer's POV he wants to set the price. In effectively setting it for him you've already played one of the cards in his hand.

 

(Obviously you're fully within your rights to offer it to as many or as few people as you would like, but I can fully see why it changed things for him).

 

Actually, the dealer also collects. He didn't want to re-sell the cover, he wanted it for himself.

 

In the days of the internet, and instantaneous connection with other collectors, selling art to the 'middle-man' is not a first option for many of us.

 

Certainly, I wouldn't consider taking a $2k loss on something I paid $10k for . . .

[Romain]

 

Actually, the dealer also collects. He didn't want to re-sell the cover, he wanted it for himself.

 

 

Doesn't every seller actually collect as well ? ?

[Romain]

 

How about a twice-up smelly fish . . . more impressive, huh?

 

 

Twice-up is better !!! That way I can see the flies ...

[Terry Doyle]

 

How about a twice-up smelly fish . . . more impressive, huh?

 

 

Twice-up is better !!! That way I can see the flies ...

 

[Terry Doyle]

 

Actually, the dealer also collects. He didn't want to re-sell the cover, he wanted it for himself.

 

 

Doesn't every seller actually collect as well ? ?

 

Many do.

 

In all fairness to Bronty, I should really have pointed out in my original post that the dealer wanted the cover for his own collection.

 

The gist of my story was that one moment someone wants your artwork . . . and that when it does become available, that same person's 'interest' is somehow diminished when there is no exclusive rights given for him to purchase.

 

It's a similar type of scenario to 'Mr Shoplifter' wanting my Captain Atom # 80 cover . . . but because it was 'shopped around', that somehow changes his desire for the art.

[Terry Doyle]

 

Actually, the dealer also collects. He didn't want to re-sell the cover, he wanted it for himself.

 

 

Doesn't every seller actually collect as well ? ?

 

Many do.

 

In all fairness to Bronty, I should really have pointed out in my original post that the dealer wanted the cover for his own collection.

 

The gist of my story was that one moment someone wants your artwork . . . and that when it does become available, that same person's 'interest' is somehow diminished when there is no exclusive rights given for him to purchase.

 

It's a similar type of scenario to 'Mr Shoplifter' wanting my Captain Atom # 80 cover . . . but because it was 'shopped around', that somehow changes his desire for the art.

 

A few years ago, Steve Ferzocco brought to our attention that a number of EC covers were being offered for sale by a friend of his who was not on the internet. Although Steve never mentioned who the seller was, he was acting on behalf of the late Don Lineberger (who tragically lost his life in recent times).

 

Amongst the selection on offer was Al Feldstein's cover art to WEIRD FANTASY # 14.

 

For a long, long time, that particular piece of art had been high on my list of must-have 'grail-like' items.

 

I tried my best to buy that cover, but timing was bad and I couldn't raise the funds.

 

Steve never found a buyer for the art.

 

Sometime later, the cover re-appeared for sale in a Russ Cochran art auction.

 

Again, I couldn't raise the funds to compete for the art.

 

And, again, the cover failed to sell.

 

Did all this 'shopping around', or the fact that it was no longer 'fresh to the market', diminish my interest in and love for that cover?

 

Heck, no. It just made me more determined than ever to acquire the art.

 

I contacted Russ as soon as I'd heard that the cover never sold, and a week later we'd hammered out a deal to our mutual benefit.

 

Had I not pulled out all stops to obtain that cover, the likelihood is that it would have remained in Don Lineberger's possession - and subsequently lost for all time . . .

[batman_fan]

I know for myself, if I see a page offered on a dealers site I like and it doesnt sell right away I start to get the mindset "it ain't going anywhere anytime soon so I can wait to pick it up". I almost never go back to buy it, but when it sells I think "darn I should have snapped it up when I had the chance". If I really love the page, I will grab it but for ones I like quite a bit but don't have that love attachment to, I seem to get stuck in this mindset.

[Bronty]

I remember $70K as well.

 

Hope the buyer bought the piece for reasons other than it was "fresh to market". Or that it was relatively fresh enough for him. Anyway, the cover is strong enough on its own to justify the price. Congrats to the buyer (a sometimes poster here).

 

Although I understand the appeal of "fresh to the market" pieces to some collectors, the idea of it has never quite worked for me.

 

Whenever I've acquired artwork in the past, it's always been on the strength of the work - nothing else.

 

If I like the art, I couldn't give a damn if the work has been 'shopped around' or has remained unsold on some dealer's site for any length of time. My focus has always been on the art, not its history of availability.

 

But what you'v

 

I agree. I buy art because of the sentimental value it has to me as something I grew up with- if I like a piece, I like it. I don't dislike it because it has been around the block. I would actually prefer if the stuff I was after was constantly shopped around- that way I could find it easier.

 

Some years ago I had a dealer affix a "If you ever wanna sell, let me know" comment to a Russ Heath STAR SPANGLED WAR STORIES 'Dinosaur' cover I owned at the time. By all accounts, it was the only known surviving 'War that Time Forgot' cover out there (SSWS # 137).

 

An opportunity arose in which a long-sought-after-grail was offered to me, and I needed to raise appropriate funding.

 

I offered the Heath cover out. Not just to the dealer in question, but others.

 

I asked $10k, which was my purchase price of the art.

 

The dealer heard that the cover wans't being offered exclusively to him and, somehow, that put a dampener on my offer.

 

He gave me some spiel about how the 'general' offer of the art changed things for him.

 

Because of this, He wouldn't be prepeared to meet my full asking price . . . that if I gave him a 20% discount, that might make him want to buy the cover from me.

 

I just said that I never sold artwork at a loss . . . that I wasn't looking to make a profit - just to break even on my purchase price.

 

As it happened, I managed to raise funds for the purchase of my 'grail' elesewhere - and the Heath SSWS # 137 cover stayed put in my collection for a while longer (I eventually sold it to a friend, last year, at my full asking price). The dealer was never given the same opportunity again.

 

When my friend bought the SSWS # 137 cover from me, he didn't care that the art had been 'shopped around'. He was a fan of the work and appreciated it for the rarity and strength of the illustration - nothing else.

 

Well I'm surprised you're surprised the dealer felt that way. I can see his point. He's doesn't care about the strength of the illustration. He cares about making money and if you've offered it around at 10k its going to be harder for him to ask 15. From a collector's point of view freshness to market shouldn't matter, sure. But from a dealer's POV he wants to set the price. In effectively setting it for him you've already played one of the cards in his hand.

 

(Obviously you're fully within your rights to offer it to as many or as few people as you would like, but I can fully see why it changed things for him).

 

Actually, the dealer also collects. He didn't want to re-sell the cover, he wanted it for himself.

 

 

Ah I see!

[artcollector9]

I think all this talk about 'fresh to market' usually means the seller is asking way above retail value...so the potential buyer is being asked to pay a larger premium in order to get what is perceived as 'first right of refusal'. I agree with Terry, my appreciation of a piece has nothing to do with how long it has been for sale. Many times, After a piece has been shopped and passed, I will be successful in picking it up for a fair price.

[artcollector9]

By the way Terry, that was a great move on your part, as you pointed out, Don tragically died in a house fire this past year, and from what I understand, much important art was destroyed as well.

[CollectingFool]

I see the value of "fresh to market" this way:

 

There are plenty of collectors out there (myself included) that have specific artists or titles of interest and have been collecting for many years. If something I once owned and sold for $5K and suddenly reappears for $15K a few years later odds are I won't be the least bit interested. If I passed on something at $3K in 98 and see it again in 2010 for $20K, I likely will pass again. That's how it is with the majority of the art that is currently on dealer sites I'd be interested in as well as a lot of the art on CAF.

 

So, for the most part, that puts me on the sidelines as far as art collecting goes. If however something truly fresh comes along then I become a player. Add a few more like me to the people already actively buying and your competition becomes steeper and higher prices can be achieved. "Fresh to market" removes the JADED factor from some collectors that don't go after other pieces.

 

 

[tth2]

After a piece has been shopped and passed, I will be successful in picking it up for a fair price.

But in effect, you`re also saying that you don`t want a piece that has been shopped and passed except at a discount.

 

I don`t think most collectors really don`t want a piece at all at any price because it`s been shopped and passed. They just won`t pay a premium for it, whereas they might pay a premium for a piece that is truly "fresh to market".

[Terry Doyle]

Some interesting thoughts . . .

 

My own game plan is that my interests in comic art were cemented a long time ago.

 

I've always known what I liked, and collected accordingly.

 

All this talk about 'fresh to the market' is incidental to me.

 

I've always judged the art on its own merits, not history of availability.

 

If something surfaces that is high on my 'wants' list, I'm interested.

 

If something 're-surfaces' (been in and out of collections or dealers' hands) that is high on my 'wants' list,' my interest remains unchanged/unaffected.

 

If collectors can turn round and say, "I like the art, but it's been around for a while and is not fresh to the market", I would certainly question their professed interest in the art. Maybe they're collecting to impress others and not satisfying their own needs . . .

 

 

[Terry Doyle]

By the way Terry, that was a great move on your part, as you pointed out, Don tragically died in a house fire this past year, and from what I understand, much important art was destroyed as well.

 

Roger Hill has been compiling a listing of Don's known collection. Sadly, many fine pieces have been lost for all time. Incidental to the loss of life, prematurely, but as this is our hobby it's only natural that we lament the loss of the artistic works also.

[delekkerste]

After a piece has been shopped and passed, I will be successful in picking it up for a fair price.

But in effect, you`re also saying that you don`t want a piece that has been shopped and passed except at a discount.

 

I don`t think most collectors really don`t want a piece at all at any price because it`s been shopped and passed. They just won`t pay a premium for it, whereas they might pay a premium for a piece that is truly "fresh to market".

 

I agree. The fact that a piece has been shopped and passed does not affect my appreciation and desire for a piece one iota. That said, if I know a piece has been shopped around and passed at a price, it may suggest that (a) the price is too high, and (b) there may not be much/any competition for the piece - and these things may very well influence how much I am willing to pay for it.

 

The fact that another piece is "fresh" to market may not influence my wanting to have it, but knowing that it has not been shopped around and the uncertainty factor of there possibly being someone(s) else out there who may be willing to pay as much or more for it, can certainly affect how much I offer for it.