The Official "Does Anybody Know Where This Art Is?" Thread 10 10

[Koa]

 

Really? He bid the highest. If he didn't bid the beneficiary's of the auction would have received less money. I have zero problem with what he did.

 

 

I respect your opinion but I think If you are donating an item for auction I think it's bad form to "win" it.

 

I'm with LB, it doesn't matter who donates it, whoever bids the highest should win it, and the charity benefits. It's only a problem if the auction is "rigged" and someone was allowed to win something for way less than it should have gone for (e.g. by not allowing others to bid).

 

I don't sees problem with someone giving something away and paying market value to get it back.

 

Malvin

 

For some bidders it might change the dynamic of the auction. There are artists I'm such a fan of I would back down if they were in the room trying to reaquire a piece of art. I know I'm not the only one.

[Bronty]

he did nothing wrong whatsoever.

[The-Collector]

Re: The Joe Q/McFarlane 9/11 firefighter illustration

 

I'm pretty sure it's on Joe Quesada's wall. If I remember correctly he or his wife bought it off at the benefit art auction that followed the tribute book.

 

I know... disappointing ( wish it was on my wall too ).

 

Oh man. I think that's bad form for an artist to buy his own piece at a benefit auction... I remember it selling for under 5k but I couldn't get set up in time. It's one of my favorite pieces by either artist. One of the best ink jobs Todd ever did, IMO.

 

Really? He bid the highest. If he didn't bid the beneficiary's of the auction would have received less money. I have zero problem with what he did.

 

 

I respect your opinion but I think If you are donating an item for auction I think it's bad form to "win" it.

 

I would disagree strongly. I can not see how that is bad form. Can you explain why it is inappropriate?

[bffnut]

I could see it being inappropriate if the artist was somehow compensated as a percentage of what the art ended at. But I would guess that this was not the case in this situation, and none of the money he paid went back to him.

[malvin]

I could see it being inappropriate if the artist was somehow compensated as a percentage of what the art ended at. But I would guess that this was not the case in this situation, and none of the money he paid went back to him.

 

Unless he was just shilling it, even if a percentage goes back to him, nothing wrong if he wins (I get $5 for every $100 I spend, I'll spend $1,000!. except you will be out $950 so that logic makes no sense)

 

Malvin

[Koa]

Re: The Joe Q/McFarlane 9/11 firefighter illustration

 

I'm pretty sure it's on Joe Quesada's wall. If I remember correctly he or his wife bought it off at the benefit art auction that followed the tribute book.

 

I know... disappointing ( wish it was on my wall too ).

 

Oh man. I think that's bad form for an artist to buy his own piece at a benefit auction... I remember it selling for under 5k but I couldn't get set up in time. It's one of my favorite pieces by either artist. One of the best ink jobs Todd ever did, IMO.

 

Really? He bid the highest. If he didn't bid the beneficiary's of the auction would have received less money. I have zero problem with what he did.

 

 

I respect your opinion but I think If you are donating an item for auction I think it's bad form to "win" it.

 

 

I would disagree strongly. I can not see how that is bad form. Can you explain why it is inappropriate?

 

I'm going to preface this by saying I'm a big fan of Joe. I think he's a fantastic commercial artist. I'm not accusing him of anything illegal or immoral. i'm saying it's in BAD FORM. Etiquette.

 

Joe is a very nice guy and most likely wanted to make the most money for the charity as possible. Was it possible he was trying to pump up the bids for the 9/11 charity, probably. Joe is also a brilliant marketer. He propelled himself to the top of the comic book industry because he's a great promoter. Of course he promoted this auction as well as he could on every level.

 

I've been to a few charity auctions as I'm sure many of you have as well. What celebrities who donate auction items for charity typically do when they want to raise more money is add something on the spot and/or offer to match the winning bid.

 

Really? He bid the highest. If he didn't bid the beneficiary's of the auction would have received less money. I have zero problem with what he did.

 

That's an assumption. How do you know he didn't chase off bidders who felt he was shilling to get a higher price? Even if it was with good intention to raise money for charity, the PERCEPTION other bidders might take away could have hampered the price.

 

Edited April 23, 2014 by KingKoa

[lb jefferies]

Perception or not, I doubt that anyone is going to be chased off at a charity auction.

[Koa]

Perception or not, I doubt that anyone is going to be chased off at a charity auction.

 

You understand my point though.

[Koa]

Re: The Joe Q/McFarlane 9/11 firefighter illustration

 

I'm pretty sure it's on Joe Quesada's wall. If I remember correctly he or his wife bought it off at the benefit art auction that followed the tribute book.

 

I know... disappointing ( wish it was on my wall too ).

 

Oh man. I think that's bad form for an artist to buy his own piece at a benefit auction... I remember it selling for under 5k but I couldn't get set up in time. It's one of my favorite pieces by either artist. One of the best ink jobs Todd ever did, IMO.

 

Like I said, I'm not 100% sure it's the case, but I do seem to recall Joe Q mentioning this years ago on newsarama. Probably not too hard to confirm if someone can ask him at a con.

 

As for Joe Q buying his own piece, I'm fairly certain he mainly wanted it for the McFarlane inks. Hey, it's not every day that you can get Todd to ink your stuff so I totally get where Joe Q was coming from ( It prob didn't hurt either that it was Todd's best inking job since his Spidey heydays ).

 

Also, 5K wasn't cheap for a piece in 2001 or 02.

 

 

I think it was possibly the historic nature of the project as well as the desire to raise money for a worthwhile cause. That he brought Todd Mcfarlane back to Marvel after Todd said he would NEVER work for them again was a coup.

 

I agree it's one of Todd's best inking jobs. I think as a work of art it's one of the 10 best single images either has done. Very powerful. It's likely a once and a lifetime deal.

 

Edited April 23, 2014 by KingKoa

[Ironmandrd]

KingKoa: I believe you are using the word "shilling" (ie, "shill" or "shill bid") incorrectly here. Since this was a charity auction (so proceeds only to the charity), there was transparency and Joe's bidding on his own item was open and notorious, I don't see how it could be viewed as shilling or creating even the impression/perception of shilling.

 

From Wiki (emphasis added):

 

"Shills are sometimes employed in auctions. Driving prices up with phony bids, they seek to provoke a bidding war among other participants. Often they are told by the seller precisely how high to bid, as the seller actually pays the price (to himself, of course) if the item does not sell, losing only the auction fees. Shilling has a substantially higher rate of occurrence in online auctions, where any user with multiple accounts can bid on their own items."

 

"A shill is a person who publicly helps a person or organization without disclosing that they have a close relationship with the person or organization. "Shill" typically refers to someone who purposely gives onlookers the impression that they are an enthusiastic independent customer of a seller for whom they are secretly working. The person or group who hires the shill is using crowd psychology to encourage other onlookers or audience members to purchase the goods or services."

[Mephisto]

My IMPRESSION is sour grapes missing out on something that was available over a decade ago for a MERE 5K and the knowledge that it probably won't be pried away from the current owner anytime soon.

It's in BAD FORM to mess all over something that was done for CHARITY. I seriously doubt Joe had the clout to scare anyone off from a CHARITY auction at this time. It's not like Todd was bidding on it and chasing people off with his 3 million dollar baseball bids. This is quite frankly one of the dumbest things I have ever read on this board and is burgeoning to epically moronic proportions.

 

These are my opinions of the situation.

[Koa]

My IMPRESSION is sour grapes missing out on something that was available over a decade ago for a MERE 5K and the knowledge that it probably won't be pried away from the current owner anytime soon.

It's in BAD FORM to mess all over something that was done for CHARITY. I seriously doubt Joe had the clout to scare anyone off from a CHARITY auction at this time. It's not like Todd was bidding on it and chasing people off with his 3 million dollar baseball bids. This is quite frankly one of the dumbest things I have ever read on this board and is burgeoning to epically moronic proportions.

 

These are my opinions of the situation.

 

 

I think If you donate a prize to a charity auction you shouldn't outbid everyone. You think that's moronic and I think you're mistaken. I don't care if it's artwork or a Dinner date. You are donating an item to get people "in the seats" for a charity. if you go to an auction where a Dinner date with leo Dicaprio is a up for auction and leo outbids everyone, it's bad form. I don't think that's a moronic expectation to not have Derek jeter bidding on "batting practice with Derek jeter" at an auction (for example) but like I told LB, I respect his opinion otherwise.

 

I'm not ting on the charity at all OR on Joe. I think joe is a great guy. The post was not a personal attack on Joe or LB. i shouldn't have bothered engaging in a discussion on a message board rather i should have just called anyone who disagrees with me a insufficiently_thoughtful_person and left it at that. My bad.

 

 

 

 

 

Edited April 23, 2014 by KingKoa

[irchooker]

I can sort of see your point. But I prefer to look at it this way: lots of people would love a Walt Simonson Thor cover (or splash or page or anything), or some work by Terry Austin, or Jeff Smith, or Bill Watterson but all of these creators are notorious for not selling their artwork. You ask a creator to buy a piece of art from them and they say, 'No'. Case closed. No chance. You can be the jerk that emails them once a month to ask about it (though your email is likely going straight to spam at some point), but the artist wants to keep their artwork. This auction was a means to purchase the piece in question; but the artist just didn't want to sell it, so he bid against everyone to get it back. You still had a better chance than getting your hands on the Thor 337 cover, because it was an auction. In a way, it was Joey Q telling you 'No', but instead of saying 'No' he was raising his hand at the auction. But someone could have kept going, straight into McSpidey 328 territory if they had the stones. They could have won. But Joey Q did, because he wanted it back more. But people still had a chance.

 

I've known lots of collectors who would do anything to get a piece, heard lots of stories and seen lots of behaviour. Joey Q bidding on his own piece would have zero impact on many, many collectors to get the thing they wanted.

Edited April 23, 2014 by irchooker

[Nexus]

My IMPRESSION is sour grapes missing out on something that was available over a decade ago for a MERE 5K and the knowledge that it probably won't be pried away from the current owner anytime soon.

It's in BAD FORM to mess all over something that was done for CHARITY. I seriously doubt Joe had the clout to scare anyone off from a CHARITY auction at this time. It's not like Todd was bidding on it and chasing people off with his 3 million dollar baseball bids. This is quite frankly one of the dumbest things I have ever read on this board and is burgeoning to epically moronic proportions.

 

These are my opinions of the situation.

 

 

I think If you donate a prize to a charity auction you shouldn't outbid everyone. You think that's moronic and I think you're mistaken. I don't care if it's artwork or a Dinner date. You are donating an item to get people "in the seats" for a charity. if you go to an auction where a Dinner date with leo Dicaprio is a up for auction and leo outbids everyone, it's bad form. I don't think that's a moronic expectation to not have Derek jeter bidding on "batting practice with Derek jeter" at an auction (for example) but like I told LB, I respect his opinion otherwise.

 

I'm not ting on the charity at all OR on Joe. I think joe is a great guy. The post was not a personal attack on Joe or LB. i shouldn't have bothered engaging in a discussion on a message board rather i should have just called anyone who disagrees with me a insufficiently_thoughtful_person and left it at that. My bad.

 

 

 

 

 

Gotta say I agree with everyone else on this one. Ultimately, the goal was to benefit the charity. So whether it's Leo DiCaprio, Derek Jeter, or Joe Q, they may all be bidding to make sure a certain amount is achieved. For all we know, buying the piece back may not have been Joe Q's intention at all. I see nothing wrong at all in this scenario. Everyone in the room understands the purpose of the auction (i.e. a faux "competition" to raise money for a cause). Really, I think you're the only one who doesn't.

 

As well, I don't think you know what "shilling" means.

[J.Sid]

A tangentially related hypothetical

-------------------------------------------------

You consign a piece to Heritage. You expect it to sell for $3,000, but you don't put a reserve on it.

 

The day before it ends, it's sitting at $100 and you decide to "win it back" and just eat the seller's fees.

 

You announce to the board that you are going to try to buy it back, so it's not a secret anymore that you will be bidding.

 

 

Anyone have a problem with this? Does HA let you bid on your own item?

[Cogansway]

No Heritage does not let you bid on your own item but that doesn't mean you can't ask someone else to bid on it for you. Heritage strongly discourages reserve prices so I bet this happens way more than any of us suspect.

[Koa]

My IMPRESSION is sour grapes missing out on something that was available over a decade ago for a MERE 5K and the knowledge that it probably won't be pried away from the current owner anytime soon.

It's in BAD FORM to mess all over something that was done for CHARITY. I seriously doubt Joe had the clout to scare anyone off from a CHARITY auction at this time. It's not like Todd was bidding on it and chasing people off with his 3 million dollar baseball bids. This is quite frankly one of the dumbest things I have ever read on this board and is burgeoning to epically moronic proportions.

 

These are my opinions of the situation.

 

 

I think If you donate a prize to a charity auction you shouldn't outbid everyone. You think that's moronic and I think you're mistaken. I don't care if it's artwork or a Dinner date. You are donating an item to get people "in the seats" for a charity. if you go to an auction where a Dinner date with leo Dicaprio is a up for auction and leo outbids everyone, it's bad form. I don't think that's a moronic expectation to not have Derek jeter bidding on "batting practice with Derek jeter" at an auction (for example) but like I told LB, I respect his opinion otherwise.

 

I'm not ting on the charity at all OR on Joe. I think joe is a great guy. The post was not a personal attack on Joe or LB. i shouldn't have bothered engaging in a discussion on a message board rather i should have just called anyone who disagrees with me a insufficiently_thoughtful_person and left it at that. My bad.

 

 

 

 

 

Gotta say I agree with everyone else on this one. Ultimately, the goal was to benefit the charity. So whether it's Leo DiCaprio, Derek Jeter, or Joe Q, they may all be bidding to make sure a certain amount is achieved. For all we know, buying the piece back may not have been Joe Q's intention at all. I see nothing wrong at all in this scenario. Everyone in the room understands the purpose of the auction (i.e. a faux "competition" to raise money for a cause). Really, I think you're the only one who doesn't.

 

As well, I don't think you know what "shilling" means.

 

I think I'm the only one in this conversation that understands what donating art actually means.

 

No where is buying your own art back at a charity discussed or recommended because it's not.

 

http://www.artbusiness.com/auctips.html

 

http://www.artbusiness.com/auctips2.html

 

 

Edited April 23, 2014 by KingKoa

[Nexus]

My IMPRESSION is sour grapes missing out on something that was available over a decade ago for a MERE 5K and the knowledge that it probably won't be pried away from the current owner anytime soon.

It's in BAD FORM to mess all over something that was done for CHARITY. I seriously doubt Joe had the clout to scare anyone off from a CHARITY auction at this time. It's not like Todd was bidding on it and chasing people off with his 3 million dollar baseball bids. This is quite frankly one of the dumbest things I have ever read on this board and is burgeoning to epically moronic proportions.

 

These are my opinions of the situation.

 

 

I think If you donate a prize to a charity auction you shouldn't outbid everyone. You think that's moronic and I think you're mistaken. I don't care if it's artwork or a Dinner date. You are donating an item to get people "in the seats" for a charity. if you go to an auction where a Dinner date with leo Dicaprio is a up for auction and leo outbids everyone, it's bad form. I don't think that's a moronic expectation to not have Derek jeter bidding on "batting practice with Derek jeter" at an auction (for example) but like I told LB, I respect his opinion otherwise.

 

I'm not ting on the charity at all OR on Joe. I think joe is a great guy. The post was not a personal attack on Joe or LB. i shouldn't have bothered engaging in a discussion on a message board rather i should have just called anyone who disagrees with me a insufficiently_thoughtful_person and left it at that. My bad.

 

 

 

 

 

Gotta say I agree with everyone else on this one. Ultimately, the goal was to benefit the charity. So whether it's Leo DiCaprio, Derek Jeter, or Joe Q, they may all be bidding to make sure a certain amount is achieved. For all we know, buying the piece back may not have been Joe Q's intention at all. I see nothing wrong at all in this scenario. Everyone in the room understands the purpose of the auction (i.e. a faux "competition" to raise money for a cause). Really, I think you're the only one who doesn't.

 

As well, I don't think you know what "shilling" means.

 

I think I'm the only one in this conversation that understands what donating art a charity auction actually means.

 

No where is buying your own art back at a charity recommended.

 

http://www.artbusiness.com/auctips.html

 

http://www.artbusiness.com/auctips2.html

 

It's not discouraged anywhere, either. You have no point.

[Eric Seffinga]

Hate to dogpile, but gotta concur with everyone else. I see no bad form, poor etiquette or anything else in what was done. Furthermore it happens in charity events all the time. Not generally around activities (batting with someone), but around donated objects, physical things, ALL THE TIME! I have never seen motivations questioned before. Ever. Wow.

 

Obviously the person that owns the item has nothing to gain by bidding on it at all, other than being a decent human being and wanting to see the maximum that can be realized for the charity. So they go out of pocket. Essentially making a cash donation, since they owned the object in the first place! And people CAN and DO bid against such donors, and even win. Everyone goes in understanding what they are there for. To donate to charity. There's nothing wrong with that whatsoever.

 

 

But we are soooo far off topic now....

[vodou]

Obviously the person that owns the item has nothing to gain by bidding on it at all, other than being a decent human being and wanting to see the maximum that can be realized for the charity.

Well not quite 'nothing'. By pushing the price up when it might not be otherwise...they are increasing their own tax deduction (a gain by a different name). One could say, sure but winning it back is the same as just writing the check outright to the charity. Except for the intangible notoriety of also achieving x price for z piece at charitable auction. That's brand advertising, which is measured and valued in whatever ways it is. Evidently the FB and Twitter IPOs depended heavily upon just that sort of 'value'

Please don't dogpile on me. I'm not assigning motive here (or anywhere) to anybody, bringing it up only because it hasn't been brought up yet and is a key component of charitable giving. We all know charitable contributions would drop immensely -across the board- if that deductible component disappeared. It's a big deal. Likewise brand marketing always has been and always will be huge. That's why every comic published -save vanity projects?- has a company logo somewhere on the cover. Brand recognition and enhancement.