Interview with MIKE BURKEY--the art dealer's perspective on OCAL

[jjonahjameson1]

Long time listener, first time caller.

 

Among the many posts, this one stood out. I think a third-party civilian reading this thread, and seeking out the historical information available that underlies it, would come to a very different set of conclusions, namely:

 

1) Glen betrayed a friend.

2) Somehow, that friend got over that painful experience and currently does business with Glen.

3) Glen would do the same thing today...although he might feel differently given this thread.

 

I'm not sure how this information being shared with the comic art collecting universe could be viewed as 'bad intentioned'. Seems the opposite of that to me.

 

Just my two cents.

 

- Chris

 

Anyone invested enough in the hobby enough to be longtime readers of this forum is going to have some difficulty seeing it as a detached civilian. And that would include me, too. So, any take it is valid insofar as one's own response. And the sum of those responses ends up the "winner" in a sense.

 

Insofar as the take bends on who is or isn't a "friend" -- if money was not a factor and the OA world was all about friendship and a shared interest in art, then many civilians wouldn't think collecter 1 was being friendly holding onto such a high percentage of the art that his friends also want. And, of course, without the money angle there'd be no question that the guy who had the most clearly loved it the most the other guy should've backed off and collected some whole other thing that other guys were happier to part with.

 

Conversely, if it were all about money and not a bit about the art itself and friendship in sharing that appreciattion, then civilians would expect the argument to be very lawyerly and fall entirely on the wording of the contract, and they would expect the third parties arguing about it to fall on one side or the other based entirely on which of the two parties they felt was most likely to help them make money on OA deals in the future.

 

 

Grr...Hulk's head hurt!

[comix4fun]

Long time listener, first time caller.

 

Among the many posts, this one stood out. I think a third-party civilian reading this thread, and seeking out the historical information available that underlies it, would come to a very different set of conclusions, namely:

 

1) Glen betrayed a friend.

2) Somehow, that friend got over that painful experience and currently does business with Glen.

3) Glen would do the same thing today...although he might feel differently given this thread.

 

I'm not sure how this information being shared with the comic art collecting universe could be viewed as 'bad intentioned'. Seems the opposite of that to me.

 

Just my two cents.

 

- Chris

 

Anyone invested enough in the hobby enough to be longtime readers of this forum is going to have some difficulty seeing it as a detached civilian. And that would include me, too. So, any take it is valid insofar as one's own response. And the sum of those responses ends up the "winner" in a sense.

 

Insofar as the take bends on who is or isn't a "friend" -- if money was not a factor and the OA world was all about friendship and a shared interest in art, then many civilians wouldn't think collecter 1 was being friendly holding onto such a high percentage of the art that his friends also want. And, of course, without the money angle there'd be no question that the guy who had the most clearly loved it the most the other guy should've backed off and collected some whole other thing that other guys were happier to part with.

 

Conversely, if it were all about money and not a bit about the art itself and friendship in sharing that appreciattion, then civilians would expect the argument to be very lawyerly and fall entirely on the wording of the contract, and they would expect the third parties arguing about it to fall on one side or the other based entirely on which of the two parties they felt was most likely to help them make money on OA deals in the future.

 

 

Grr...Hulk's head hurt!

 

 

Short Version:

 

Loan* me your Keown art....hoarder.

 

 

 

 

 

 

*permanently...sucker.

[Ronan Killack]

Long time listener, first time caller.

 

Among the many posts, this one stood out. I think a third-party civilian reading this thread, and seeking out the historical information available that underlies it, would come to a very different set of conclusions, namely:

 

1) Glen betrayed a friend.

2) Somehow, that friend got over that painful experience and currently does business with Glen.

3) Glen would do the same thing today...although he might feel differently given this thread.

 

I'm not sure how this information being shared with the comic art collecting universe could be viewed as 'bad intentioned'. Seems the opposite of that to me.

 

Just my two cents.

 

- Chris

 

People invested enough in the hobby to be longtime readers can't always put themselves in the heads of a real civilian. But the emphasis on who is a friend or isn't may not cover all the bases. If money was not a factor and the OA world was all about friendship and a shared interest in art, then many civilians wouldn't think collecter 1 was being friendly holding onto such a high percentage of the art that his friends also want. And, of course, without the money angle there'd be no question that the guy who had the most clearly loved it the most the other guy should've backed off and collected some whole other thing that other guys were happier to part with.

 

Conversely, if it were all about money and not a bit about the art itself and friendship in sharing that appreciattion, then people civilians would expect people to argue entirely about the wording of the contract, based entirely on which of the two parties they felt was most likely to help them make money on OA deals in the future.

 

 

I literally have no idea what you just said.

 

Going back to your earlier post, I put your "civilian" theory to the test. I presented this scenario to my 7 year old daughter, who knows neither of the principals involved. I substituted a toy in place of the Romita art and framed the event as a deal between two classmates.

 

What does she think?

 

She immediately said she would be heartbroken if she was the "loaner" and that the "borrower" can't be trusted.

 

Next question: What if it happened many years ago?

 

Doesn't matter. Can't be trusted. (I didn't even mention that the borrower would likely do the same thing again, because I don't like it when she looks at me like I'm a dummy.)

 

That's her 7 year old civilian take.

 

Please throw your theory in the garbage. Thank you.

 

My point is that OA collecting as described here is a mix of friendship and business.

 

Your personal reaction to something is never invalid; it's how you feel. But a seven year old would only react if you describe it the way you described it -- meaning, essentially, that you gave her only the facts that supported your opinion and then even gave her your opinion and asked if she agreed with you.

 

If you told the same seven year old that a large group of friends all collected toys and that when toys became available, one kid ran ahead of the others and took 90 percent of the toys, the seven year old would have a diffrerent reaction. Depending on how you word it, you can easily make her very upset the first friend didn't "share" with her other friends.

 

And if you said to the same seven year old that a friend who had most of the toys offered to lend one of the toys to a friend for 9 cents and agreed the friend could keep it if they paid 18 cents, your seven year old would, again, have a different reaction.

 

And, again, that's without adding in an emotional conclusion equivalent to the conclusion you handed her. A carefully worded and leading question, such as "And if the friend with most of the toys tried to go back on her word and started trying to make all their other friends hate her, would that be okay?"

 

Now, to be clear, I am not saying it would be fair to couch the deal in those terms, either. It wouldn't. But it sounds equivalent to your example. The anger evident in your posts (using words like "garbage") indicates strongly that your seven year old almost certainly could tell how you felt and knew the answer you wanted her to give.

 

This situation is not about friendship or business. It's about both. If it were about childhood friendship, only, it would be fair to say that one guy hoarded stuff and cared about the stuff more than his friends. But it's not about friendship, entirely. It's about business, too. Is it fair to say that a guy should share more of the stuff just because he has so much of it, when the "stuff" is worth money that he can use to care for himself, his family and friends. In the end, they signed a contract, and one guy took advantage of a clause that enabled him to get the art below its market value at the time. What about when sellers delay buyers to see if the market value goes up? Does that off buyers? Sure. Has the seller then betrayed a friend?

 

If the story tells people that Romita art is great, that's great. If it tells them to be careful making a contract that prices an item a year in advance (turning the loan into a negotiated short sale), in case you think it's going up, then that is good.

 

If they take from it that the scarcity/value might be skewed because a large amount of it is in one place, then I can't say if that's good or bad.

 

But the anger flowing back and forth suggests a lot more under the surface than that.

 

I think the only guys who have any business being angry about this are the two guys involved, and neither of them appears to be angry, at least not any more.

 

 

 

 

 

This will hopefully be the last time I chime in, but since some of what I wrote was included in your response, I just want to be clear that I am not angry about the situation at all. Rather, I think it is healthy that this situation is now out in the open (at least in our little corner of the world) and people can come to their own conclusions about what took place and the participants level of trustworthiness today based on the information available.

 

But, I have to rebut your comment about 'the situation not being about friendship or business. It's both'. From my reading, that is not true. Based on the information available and Mike Burkey's communication regarding the event 13 years ago, this was not a business transaction. He did not want to sell, so he agreed to a favor for a friend. That is very different from what you are talking about.

 

Sorry if any anger was coming across - not the intent.

 

- Chris

[Tokay]

Come on Felix, we're buds. Sell me that Miller DKR commission...don't be a hoarder. You can use the money to care for yourself, your family and your friends.

 

 

This situation is not about friendship or business. It's about both. If it were about childhood friendship, only, it would be fair to say that one guy hoarded stuff and cared about the stuff more than his friends. But it's not about friendship, entirely. It's about business, too. Is it fair to say that a guy should share more of the stuff just because he has so much of it, when the "stuff" is worth money that he can use to care for himself, his family and friends. In the end, they signed a contract, and one guy took advantage of a clause that enabled him to get the art below its market value at the time. What about when sellers delay buyers to see if the market value goes up? Does that off buyers? Sure. Has the seller then betrayed a friend?

 

Ah, I see. So you're suggesting one guy had this coming to him because he hoarded all the Romita art and didn't share. The other guy is practically a hero, then. Like Robin Hood (minus the "gives to the poor" part).

 

That is a unique interpretation of the events. Is it OK to say you scare the mess out of me?

 

 

 

 

 

[Khazano]

 

 

Short Version:

 

Loan* me your Keown art....hoarder.

 

 

 

 

 

 

*permanently...sucker.

 

[bluechip]

This situation is not about friendship or business. It's about both. If it were about childhood friendship, only, it would be fair to say that one guy hoarded stuff and cared about the stuff more than his friends. But it's not about friendship, entirely. It's about business, too. Is it fair to say that a guy should share more of the stuff just because he has so much of it, when the "stuff" is worth money that he can use to care for himself, his family and friends. In the end, they signed a contract, and one guy took advantage of a clause that enabled him to get the art below its market value at the time. What about when sellers delay buyers to see if the market value goes up? Does that off buyers? Sure. Has the seller then betrayed a friend?

 

Ah, I see. So you're suggesting one guy had this coming to him because he hoarded all the Romita art and didn't share. The other guy is practically a hero, then. Like Robin Hood (minus the "gives to the poor" part).

 

That is a unique interpretation of the events. Is it OK to say you scare the mess out of me?

 

I didn't come close to saying that one guy had it coming or that the other guy was a hero.

 

But I do think some people here have trouble seeing a situation like that except in such extremes. One guy must be all wrong and the other must be all right.

 

And I was trying to say that's not the case. There are clearly shades of gray here (and not the kind that would make for good mommy porn)

 

And there is nothing with being a "hoarder," per se. Just as there is nothing wrong when pointing out someone qualifies as a hoarder.

 

But regardless of why you hoard something, you can't do it without keeping stuff from others or making them pay dearly for it. Nothing wrong with that, either. But when you do that you can't help but mitigate the idea that it's all about friendship and shared interests.

 

And, again, in case the idea was lost because it was a couple lines ago. There's nothing inherently wrong with hoarding. It's an extreme form of collecting, which everyone here does to some extent. Some hoard because they're collectors and just want as much as they can for themselves and some hoard because they're doing business and they see the items have potential to sell for much more than they paid.

 

It would be fair to say Mike hoards for both reasons, since he indicates as much on his own website. (Just as a guy that I know with a huge collection of specific Kirby art readily accepts the label of hoarder. He also accepts the effect that his hoarding has had on prices. And just as someone here joked about what could have occurred if Mike had hoarded other art instead of ASM Romita pages)

 

But, regardless of how much Mike himself might proudly own that he's a hoarder on his own website, I am sure that even implying he is will still spark outrage among some, because the statement doesn't include a condemnation of somebody -- whomever they want condemned. Or, in some cases, because outrage is their default emotion.

 

 

 

 

 

[Stonecutter69-migration]

 

That's entirely true, if you make up a completely false analogy and hand it to a kid he's going to get the wrong idea.

 

 

 

I think the easiest way to explain it to a child would be to simply say that in the story Burkey is the frog and Brunswick is the scorpion. Come to think of it, seems like the other gguy in the FF #53 incident was also the frog and Brunswick was again the scorpion. Weird.

 

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."

- George Santayana

[Bronty]

This situation is not about friendship or business. It's about both. If it were about childhood friendship, only, it would be fair to say that one guy hoarded stuff and cared about the stuff more than his friends. But it's not about friendship, entirely. It's about business, too. Is it fair to say that a guy should share more of the stuff just because he has so much of it, when the "stuff" is worth money that he can use to care for himself, his family and friends. In the end, they signed a contract, and one guy took advantage of a clause that enabled him to get the art below its market value at the time. What about when sellers delay buyers to see if the market value goes up? Does that off buyers? Sure. Has the seller then betrayed a friend?

 

Ah, I see. So you're suggesting one guy had this coming to him because he hoarded all the Romita art and didn't share. The other guy is practically a hero, then. Like Robin Hood (minus the "gives to the poor" part).

 

That is a unique interpretation of the events. Is it OK to say you scare the mess out of me?

 

But I do think some people here have trouble seeing a situation like that except in such extremes. One guy must be all wrong and the other must be all right.

 

 

I totally agree. Mike's version of events is very persuasive but I have trouble reconciling his account with the equally persuasive point that he must have known what he was signing and at least one clause speaks in terms of a sale.

 

I'm not able to convincingly explain away either point. So how does one even have an opinion (let alone a black and white one) with so little common ground between the accounts.

[Bronty]

 

That's entirely true, if you make up a completely false analogy and hand it to a kid he's going to get the wrong idea.

 

 

 

I think the easiest way to explain it to a child would be to simply say that in the story Burkey is the frog and Brunswick is the scorpion. Come to think of it, seems like the other gguy in the FF #53 incident was also the frog and Brunswick was again the scorpion. Weird.

 

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."

- George Santayana

 

 

FF53 incident?

[Ronan Killack]

This situation is not about friendship or business. It's about both. If it were about childhood friendship, only, it would be fair to say that one guy hoarded stuff and cared about the stuff more than his friends. But it's not about friendship, entirely. It's about business, too. Is it fair to say that a guy should share more of the stuff just because he has so much of it, when the "stuff" is worth money that he can use to care for himself, his family and friends. In the end, they signed a contract, and one guy took advantage of a clause that enabled him to get the art below its market value at the time. What about when sellers delay buyers to see if the market value goes up? Does that off buyers? Sure. Has the seller then betrayed a friend?

 

Ah, I see. So you're suggesting one guy had this coming to him because he hoarded all the Romita art and didn't share. The other guy is practically a hero, then. Like Robin Hood (minus the "gives to the poor" part).

 

That is a unique interpretation of the events. Is it OK to say you scare the mess out of me?

 

I didn't come close to saying that one guy had it coming or that the other guy was a hero.

 

But I do think some people here have trouble seeing a situation like that except in such extremes. One guy must be all wrong and the other must be all right.

 

And I was trying to say that's not the case. There are clearly shades of gray here (and not the kind that would make for good mommy porn)

 

And there is nothing with being a "hoarder," per se. Just as there is nothing wrong when pointing out someone qualifies as a hoarder.

 

But regardless of why you hoard something, you can't do it without keeping stuff from others or making them pay dearly for it. Nothing wrong with that, either. But when you do that you can't help but mitigate the idea that it's all about friendship and shared interests.

 

And, again, in case the idea was lost because it was a couple lines ago. There's nothing inherently wrong with hoarding. It's an extreme form of collecting, which everyone here does to some extent. Some hoard because they're collectors and just want as much as they can for themselves and some hoard because they're doing business and they see the items have potential to sell for much more than they paid.

 

It would be fair to say Mike hoards for both reasons, since he indicates as much on his own website. (Just as a guy that I know with a huge collection of specific Kirby art readily accepts the label of hoarder. He also accepts the effect that his hoarding has had on prices. And just as someone here joked about what could have occurred if Mike had hoarded other art instead of ASM Romita pages)

 

But, regardless of how much Mike himself might proudly own that he's a hoarder on his own website, I am sure that even implying he is will still spark outrage among some, because the statement doesn't include a condemnation of somebody -- whomever they want condemned. Or, in some cases, because outrage is their default emotion.

 

 

 

 

 

I'm pretty sure you did not intend to, but you just made Nexus' point...again. Your focus on Burkey's 'hoarding' reads as if you think it is his fault Glen took advantage of him. Just trying to understand what you are saying - but that certainly seems like what you are saying.

 

- Chris

[Bird]

FF53 incident?

 

It is quoted somewhere here when someone did the cut and paste with the comicart-l posts. It was another reported screw by Glen that Glen denied. It is here somewhere, look at the bottom of italic text.

 

[jjeanius]

FF53 incident?

 

It is quoted somewhere here when someone did the cut and paste with the comicart-l posts. It was another reported screw by Glen that Glen denied. It is here somewhere, look at the bottom of italic text.

 

If anyone finds it, please re-post. Thanks.

[comix4fun]

I think this is it...it was posted yesterday.

 

 

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/comicart-l/message/20605

 

San Diego Con Report...less Byrne debating!

 

Posted By:

willgabri.el@xxxxx.xxxx

Fri Aug 13, 1999 4:54 pm

 

..."FF #53 complete story...$45K!"

 

 

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

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/comicart-l/message/33677

 

Re: THE OTHER SIDE OF THE ROMITAMAN DEAL

 

Posted By:

ASTA99@xxxxx.xxx

Tue Dec 7, 1999 4:41 pm

 

At the last San Diego Con Brunswick went in w/ a fellow comicart-l

member to acquire the art to the complete FF 53 story. After the deal

Brunswick decided to keep the art to himself and compensated the partner

some other way. The partner was not happy. Shows you where Brunswick's

ethics lie (or lay), in his case probably lie.

 

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

 

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/comicart-l/message/202193

 

A bit of the old Kirby/Sinnott for MLK

 

Posted By:

glenbru62

Sun Jan 16, 2005 8:39 pm

 

In honor of Martin Luther King day Marvel decided to relaunch The

Black Pather series.

 

Continuing with that theme, I've posted the complete original story

to FF 53 on my comicartfans gallery. This is the second appearance

and origin story for Black Panther. Kirby and Sinnott at their

peak. Also updated a number of other galleries if you care to

check 'em out.

 

link:

 

http://outside-affiliatelinksnotallowed.com/68wde

 

Thanks,

Glen

 

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

 

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/comicart-l/message/259358

 

FF 53 COMES HOME. WELCOME BACK - KIRBY ART DAY!

 

Posted By:

glenbru62

Wed Apr 18, 2007 2:30 am

 

A special shout out of thanks to Dan "The Man" Forman. He sold me back the

FF 53 book that I had traded to him a few years back. He didn't have to

offer me first shot but he did. I really appreciate the gesture!

 

I sold a bunch of pages but kept my favorite seven. You can see them on my

CAF:

 

_http://qurls.com?i=2274_ (http://qurls.com?i=2274)

 

IMHO, this is Kirby/Sinnott at their best. I'm happy to get them back!

 

Enjoy!

 

Glen Brunswick

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

 

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/comicart-l/message/275602

 

Re: Realistic art pricing?

 

Posted By:

h_kosenkranius

Thu Jan 31, 2008 8:54 pm

 

 

--- In comicart-l@yahoogroups.com, "comicartwrangler"

wrote:

 

> Well, part of my problem Hans is that some of those prices did

indeed 'materialize' there. I mean, does it really make sense that a

Ditko Spidey splash sells for 80-90K this summer and now we're

talking about panel pages asking in the neighborhood of 1/2 that? Is

there any real market backing for Kirby FF panel pages going for

$20K+? Hey, if you put it out and it sells, then so be it. I just

think some of this is wishful thinking from some quarters backed up

with a PR campaign.<

 

The Ditko Spidey splash that you're referring to last summer was a

trade deal Gary. It didn't sell for cash. The highest Ditko Spidey

splash cash sale that I'm aware of is 65K. If we are to believe the

Comiclink Spidey #6 debacle of a few months back, then a Spidey #6

page has already sold for over 40K. I personally sold one Ditko ASM

page for 27K all cash last year. I know dealers that will testify to

Ditko ASM pages that have sold for all cash in the 20K+ range. The

Scorpion page from ASM #29 was 35K. With these prices all over the

map, how do you come with a 'realistic' price?

 

The same thing seems to be happening in the Kirby market. There are

already bonafide sales for Kirby/Sinnott FF pages in the 20K range. A

twice-up page w/Surfer sold in San Diego last summer for 22-25K all

cash. The "Doomday" page sold recently for 20K cash. The FF #57 page

in Heritage with Doom/Surfer and no FF just recently went for over

30K. Many of the better FF #53 pages have sold for all cash in the

teens and upper teens. These sales are known to most dealers(and

collectors too)Is that real market backing for a 20K+ asking price?

Is that unrealistic? You tell me.

 

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

http://www.comicartfans.com/GalleryPiece.asp?Piece=783867&GSub=11327

 

Brunswick, Glen :: FOR SALE

 

 

Title: FANTASTIC FOUR 53 p 12

Artist: Jack Kirby (Penciller)

Artist: Joe Sinnott (Inker)

Media Type: Pen and Ink

Art Type: Interior Page

For Sale Status: 26.5k -- SALE PENDING...

Views: 973

Comments: 4

Added to Site: 7/8/2011

[PrechterFool-migration]

What a buncha petty grand-standing soap-box preachers the lot of you are !!!!!

 

I cannot stand any more of your moral-self- flagellation and ethical jibber jabber

 

You elitist grand-standers with your moral clarity and pompous certitude !!!!!!

 

A pox on all your houses !!!!!!

 

 

[comix4fun]

What a buncha petty grand-standing soap-box preachers the lot of you are !!!!!

 

I cannot stand any more of your moral-self- flagellation and ethical jibber jabber

 

You elitist grand-standers with your moral clarity and pompous certitude !!!!!!

 

A pox on all your houses !!!!!!

 

 

 

You know Matt, that makes sense.

 

KK would be the one who knows the most about elitist grand standing and soap box preaching.

 

You held on to this screen name for longer than usual. Don't lose it now.

 

 

[bluechip]

This situation is not about friendship or business. It's about both. If it were about childhood friendship, only, it would be fair to say that one guy hoarded stuff and cared about the stuff more than his friends. But it's not about friendship, entirely. It's about business, too. Is it fair to say that a guy should share more of the stuff just because he has so much of it, when the "stuff" is worth money that he can use to care for himself, his family and friends. In the end, they signed a contract, and one guy took advantage of a clause that enabled him to get the art below its market value at the time. What about when sellers delay buyers to see if the market value goes up? Does that off buyers? Sure. Has the seller then betrayed a friend?

 

Ah, I see. So you're suggesting one guy had this coming to him because he hoarded all the Romita art and didn't share. The other guy is practically a hero, then. Like Robin Hood (minus the "gives to the poor" part).

 

That is a unique interpretation of the events. Is it OK to say you scare the mess out of me?

 

I didn't come close to saying that one guy had it coming or that the other guy was a hero.

 

But I do think some people here have trouble seeing a situation like that except in such extremes. One guy must be all wrong and the other must be all right.

 

And I was trying to say that's not the case. There are clearly shades of gray here (and not the kind that would make for good mommy porn)

 

And there is nothing with being a "hoarder," per se. Just as there is nothing wrong when pointing out someone qualifies as a hoarder.

 

But regardless of why you hoard something, you can't do it without keeping stuff from others or making them pay dearly for it. Nothing wrong with that, either. But when you do that you can't help but mitigate the idea that it's all about friendship and shared interests.

 

And, again, in case the idea was lost because it was a couple lines ago. There's nothing inherently wrong with hoarding. It's an extreme form of collecting, which everyone here does to some extent. Some hoard because they're collectors and just want as much as they can for themselves and some hoard because they're doing business and they see the items have potential to sell for much more than they paid.

 

It would be fair to say Mike hoards for both reasons, since he indicates as much on his own website. (Just as a guy that I know with a huge collection of specific Kirby art readily accepts the label of hoarder. He also accepts the effect that his hoarding has had on prices. And just as someone here joked about what could have occurred if Mike had hoarded other art instead of ASM Romita pages)

 

But, regardless of how much Mike himself might proudly own that he's a hoarder on his own website, I am sure that even implying he is will still spark outrage among some, because the statement doesn't include a condemnation of somebody -- whomever they want condemned. Or, in some cases, because outrage is their default emotion.

 

 

 

 

 

I'm pretty sure you did not intend to, but you just made Nexus' point...again. Your focus on Burkey's 'hoarding' reads as if you think it is his fault Glen took advantage of him. Just trying to understand what you are saying - but that certainly seems like what you are saying.

 

- Chris

 

Not what I'm saying.

 

You use the term "Glen took advantage of him" but gloss over the fact that I used a similar term. The fact that Mike said he wanted the item back when Glen paid the extra money to keep it means that Glen took advantage of a clause in their deal. But that doesn't mean Glen made no valid points.

 

Maybe you believe that if the situation were reversed, Mike wouldn't have held Glen to the 9K price even if the market tanked, and even if it was a year later and even if the contract called it a sale at 9K. But no one can say because that's not what happened.

 

It's putting words in my mouth to say that I said Mike "deserved it" because he hoarded art. It happened not because he hoarded art but because he signed a contract that didn't contemplate the art being worth more than 18K within a year.

 

The fact that he hoarded/hoards art is only relevant in terms of anyone painting the entire situation as if it's all about friends who share an interest in art and are just trying to help each other.

 

When I was a little kid you could still find old comics for very small amounts of money, and the supply seemed very limited. So it was much more about just having the books. In that world, if one kid had ten collector friends and he found ten copies of a key book for ten cents each, the other nine collectors wouldn't consider it fair, or consider the guy a friend, if he held onto all ten books himself and never let any of the other copies go. Now, when that same book today is worth thousands, an argument can be made that the reserve isn't fair -- that the other nine guys shouldn't ask their friend to give up valuable books just because he got lucky and/or smart enough to acquire ten of them. (Or, at least, that if he does, there should be some quid pro quo. And if he does give up some of the ten out of friendship to guys who say they just want the book, he'll be annoyed if he sees those friends turn around and resell them for the profit he could've made).

 

Both parties talked about the art as if it was something they just wanted, aside from its monetary value. And both seem to gloss over how much its monetary value was a factor. So, that puts shades of gray in both arguments. And the only thing truly black and white is the art itself.

 

[Nexus]

This situation is not about friendship or business. It's about both. If it were about childhood friendship, only, it would be fair to say that one guy hoarded stuff and cared about the stuff more than his friends. But it's not about friendship, entirely. It's about business, too. Is it fair to say that a guy should share more of the stuff just because he has so much of it, when the "stuff" is worth money that he can use to care for himself, his family and friends. In the end, they signed a contract, and one guy took advantage of a clause that enabled him to get the art below its market value at the time. What about when sellers delay buyers to see if the market value goes up? Does that off buyers? Sure. Has the seller then betrayed a friend?

 

Ah, I see. So you're suggesting one guy had this coming to him because he hoarded all the Romita art and didn't share. The other guy is practically a hero, then. Like Robin Hood (minus the "gives to the poor" part).

 

That is a unique interpretation of the events. Is it OK to say you scare the mess out of me?

 

I didn't come close to saying that one guy had it coming or that the other guy was a hero.

 

Buddy, as far as I can tell, you haven't come close to saying *anything*.

 

But I thank you for doing your part in prolonging this thread, !!

[bluechip]

This situation is not about friendship or business. It's about both. If it were about childhood friendship, only, it would be fair to say that one guy hoarded stuff and cared about the stuff more than his friends. But it's not about friendship, entirely. It's about business, too. Is it fair to say that a guy should share more of the stuff just because he has so much of it, when the "stuff" is worth money that he can use to care for himself, his family and friends. In the end, they signed a contract, and one guy took advantage of a clause that enabled him to get the art below its market value at the time. What about when sellers delay buyers to see if the market value goes up? Does that off buyers? Sure. Has the seller then betrayed a friend?

 

Ah, I see. So you're suggesting one guy had this coming to him because he hoarded all the Romita art and didn't share. The other guy is practically a hero, then. Like Robin Hood (minus the "gives to the poor" part).

 

That is a unique interpretation of the events. Is it OK to say you scare the mess out of me?

 

I didn't come close to saying that one guy had it coming or that the other guy was a hero.

 

Buddy, as far as I can tell, you haven't come close to saying *anything*.

 

But I thank you for doing your part in prolonging this thread, !!

 

I get the feeling that to you it's not "anything" unless it agrees with you 100% and that the situation is 100% black and white, one guy evil, other guy innocent victim,

 

[Nexus]

I get the feeling that to you it's not "anything" unless it agrees with you 100% and that the situation is 100% black and white, one guy evil, other guy innocent victim,

 

Not at all. I just have a hard time understanding what you've been trying to say. For example:

 

And there is nothing with being a "hoarder," per se. Just as there is nothing wrong when pointing out someone qualifies as a hoarder.

 

But regardless of why you hoard something, you can't do it without keeping stuff from others or making them pay dearly for it. Nothing wrong with that, either. But when you do that you can't help but mitigate the idea that it's all about friendship and shared interests.

 

And, again, in case the idea was lost because it was a couple lines ago. There's nothing inherently wrong with hoarding.

 

So, if I'm reading this right, there is "nothing wrong with being a hoarder". (Got it.)

 

And there's nothing wrong when pointing out someone's a hoarder. (OK, I'll accept your premise.)

 

But if you're a hoarder, "you're keeping stuff from others or making them pay dearly for it." (Hoarders don't sound very nice. Still with you.)

 

But there's "nothing wrong with that". (Huh?)

 

But when you do hoard "you can't help but mitigate the idea that it's all about friendship and shared interests." (Not sure, but this makes hoarding sound not so good.)

 

But "there's nothing inherently wrong with hoarding." (Wait, what??)

 

So...

 

Mike's a hoarder. A hoarder is someone who keeps stuff from others or makes them pay dearly for it. But there's nothing wrong with that. But there is. But there isn't.

 

Did I get that right?

 

Don't answer. I know you will. I'm getting a drink. Good night.

 

[mister_not_so_nice]

 

Mike's a hoarder. A hoarder is someone who keeps stuff from others or makes them pay dearly for it. But there's nothing wrong with that. But there is. But there isn't.

 

Did I get that right?

 

Don't answer. I know you will. I'm getting a drink. Good night.

 

(I know these aren't your words, Nexus. I just didn't want to quote that entire string)

 

If hoarders keep things for themselves, how do they also make others pay dearly? They have to either be "hoarding" or "selling"

 

If you're a hoarder, you hoard.

If you're making someone pay dearly, you're a seller.

 

This is too much for my military intelligence. I'm going to get some jumbo shrimp.