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

[Nexus]

Hi Felix,

 

First off I think people should read the comicart-l not some cut and paste that has been editted by someone--even if you think the original posts would do me some good. This was 13 years ago and I'm sure I'm not rembering it exactly as it happened.

 

I did ask you not to cut and paste for two reasons which I made clear to you. First, I told you that I didn't want to reopen an arguement with Mike. I explained to you that sometimes when you are going over an old disagreement with someone that your old points of view tend to rear their heads and you find yourself back in an arguement again. I explained to you that Mike and I are fine with things now and wanted to leave it at that.

 

Second, I told you that I'm trying to do some good for the hobby with my blog and that I was concerned that this kind of chatter, albeit 13 years old, might hurt my chances to get other people to do interviews. That I didn't want the distraction from the work that I'm trying to do to get information to the comic art community.

 

That's all there was to it--as I explained.

 

Glen

 

I was not going to edit any of the posts, so don't suggest I would have. There were over 100 posts on the matter, and just about all of them were favoring one side. Frankly, anyone reading the entire thread is likely to be influenced in that direction, if they weren't already leaning that way. But I wasn't going to post anything other than what you and Mike wrote. A total of five posts, in their entirety. That was it.

 

I'm not saying they would do you any good, but it's better for you than having everyone read everything.

 

To address your other points: Although you did later say that you didn't want to get into it with Mike again and were worried that this might hamper future interviews, your first request was to keep this from the public. That's in the e-mails. Also, I'm not sure why this would hurt your chances for more interviews, unless you've had similar history with other collectors/dealers.

 

I still believe letting your and Mike's posts represent your respective positions is the fairest way to review the events of that time, without outside influence. Those five posts can still be shared with readers here, but if you still don't want that, just say so. I don't understand why you wouldn't, when you say you still stand by your actions, but I'll let you decide.

 

 

 

[Pirate]

too bad you can't go into the hall of shame for just being a human being.

[CollectingFool]

I went back and re-read a bunch of old Comicart-L messages and the one conclusion I made is...

 

I miss having Jeffrey Jones around and participating in these group discussions. Now there was a passionate true fan of the medium and full of stories.

 

 

 

 

[MyNameIsLegion]

 

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/comicart-l/message/33403

 

Posted By:

MikeBurkey@xxx.xxx

Sun Dec 5, 1999 5:23 am

 

I will tell the whole group this........

 

Chris emails or I.M.s me nearly EVERY night of the week, and we talk and

discuss possible deals ALL THE TIME!!!!!

we are almost there, so don't think I haven't been trying, ask Chris of

all the guys with ASM Romita art pages, who is the one who has at least been

TRYING to work things out so he can get something?

 

I have about 300 ROMITA Spiderman pieces of artwork that I will sell or

trade, ( I would much RATHER Trade, than sell though, just at the moment, I

do not want to sell any AMAZING Spiderman pages.

 

I got somewhat taken advantage of a month ago by a fellow Comicart-L

member, when he pleaded with me to sell a complete Romita ASM book to him

last year.

I told him I couldn't sell the book, so He asked me if he could pay me a

money amount to hold as collateral, and if I would LOAN him the book for 1

year, so he could enjoy the artwork. He said if he could just own the art for

just 1 year, he would VERY MUCH appreciate it, and send it back to me.

I figured that this would be good, in that this fellow gets to enjoy

looking at his favorite Spiderman story of all time and I don't mind because,

I get a bunch of money to use as I please for 1 full year, without paying

interest on it, AND.... I STILL get my artwork back!

Well,........ I tell my lawyer what I am planning on doing, and he tells

me that I should have a contract so that I am covered in case something

happens adversely with my artwork. So in the contract, I did put in there

that if for some reason the person who i am loaning my story to does NOT give

me my artwork back after a year, he must pay a 100% penalty fee.

so anyway, AS per our agreement, I send the money back that was given to

me as collateral so i can get my book back this past November, and my friend

from California, (We have been friends for 5 years prior to us doing this

deal) He calls me up and tells me he is KEEPING the story and he is going to

send me the money I sent to him, AND he will pay me the 100% penalty fee as

well.

I realize I ultimately got a reasonable retail price for my story, but I

also, know, as well as he KNEW, that the story was never, EVER for sale, and

that I lent him this story as a friend and I expected the story back, as a

friend SHOULD expect from another friend, RIGHT?

I PLEADED with my friend for several days to do not do this to me, but he

felt that the contract said he could keep it if he paid a penalty fee, and

that was what he chose to do.

And I guess this is true, and that maybe according to the contract, he

COULD do this, BUT, we BOTH agreed, I was just LENDING him the book, and the

contract was made mainly to cover for cases of "ACTS OF GOD." But again, my

lawyer told me to put the penalty clause in their as well, just in case he

didn't want to give it back, and this is what happened. This leaves a VERY

BITTER taste in my mouth, but what am I to do?

I want to emphasize, that myself and the other guy have been GOOD

friends for 5 years, and he still wants to be my friend, and I still want to

be his friend, i just wish I hadn't been taken advantage of, when I was told

I'd be getting my original Spiderman book back after a year, when we both

full well knew that the story was NEVER FOR SALE!!!!

I don't want any bashing of this other guy or myself, i just want to

point out that because of things like this happening to me, and the GREAT

LOSS I feel knowing that this art is gone from my collection, AGAINST my

will, I don't want to part with any Amazing Spiderman artwork right now!!!!

 

But again, I do have a FEW HUNDRED JOHN ROMITA Spiderman original artwork

pieces in my collection, That I would consider parting with for a collector

that just HAD to have some Romita Spiderman artwork, just email me....ANYBODY

, and I'll see what I can do! It's NOT from AMAZING Spiderman, it's NOT gonna

be cheap, but it IS Romita Spiderman!!!!!

I STILL have some GREAT John Romita penciled AND inked Spiderman pages

all signed by John Romita on my website,

href='http://www.theartboard.com/romitaman/'>Romitaman Original Art

and

priced I feel VERY reasonable, and they are 20 YEARS OLD, and I've not had a

great deal of response for them, I am somewhat baffled by this, as John

Romita only penciled AND inked himself only 17 times on Amazing

Spiderman!!!! issues 42-48, 108-115, and 119. Now Tony Mortellaro and Jim

Starlin did backgrounds on the later ones, but that is VERY little all Romita

art to find out there for sale.

Again, I hope I don't sound stuck up or anything because of not wanting to

part with items from my personal collection, which I've worked MULTI-HUNDREDS

of hours each year to find and acquire.

I feel I am VERY good to everybody I meet, and actually because of

being TOO nice sometimes to certain people, you sometimes get taken advantage

of, But that's what happens when people know you ONLY collect one thing.

So I hope there is no bashing on either side because of what happened, but

I just wanted to get it out, as to why I choose to hang onto what I am

allowed to hang onto, and I've earned the right to hang onto, not to mention

the countless hours of hard work I've put into this hobby!

Best

Mike (Anybody have any Romita ASM art drawings? Sketches? pages? Or strips?

they want to sell? I'm interested, and I'll pay VERY WELL! Especially now

with all this extra $$$$$$$ i have !!!!) Burkey

[MyNameIsLegion]

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/comicart-l/message/33587

 

Posted By:

Glenbru@xxx.xxx

Tue Dec 7, 1999 1:29 am

 

Wow! It is amazing to me how quickly people can swallow a story from one

person's point of view and can condemn the other without ever hearing their

side. It really makes me worry about what is printed and broadcast in our

media as truth. May none of you ever have to experience condemnation before

being heard.

 

Mike began his complaint with a basic untrue assumption that he lent me the

Romita book as a friend as if he was doing me a favor.

 

This was never the case. What Mike and I entered into was not a simple loan

based on friendship. It was a business agreement or contract that Mike was

profiting from. Had this been an actual favor to a friend Mike would have

lent me the book free of charge for a year. There would have been no need

for a contractual agreement and I would have never had to send Mike any money.

 

Instead I sent $9000 to Mike's friend on his behalf. Mike's friend gave him

a few thousand dollars worth of art in exchange for the money. This was a

business arrangement that Mike benefitted from and was paid for. This was

not a favor between friends. Mike and I created a legal contract and we

both agreed to be bound to all, not some, of it's terms. One of the terms of

the agreement was this penalty clause:

 

"Or I refuse to sell the artwork back to you at the end of exactly one year

then I will incur a 100% penalty of an additional $9000 which I would then

owe to you."

 

There is no vagueness in this sentence. It is very clear what the intent of

it was. Anyone who signs an agreement (which Mike did) who is competent

knows what this sentence means. If Mike never meant to sell the art to me we

could have made the penalty 100,000 dollars or any other amount. It was Mike

and his attorney who picked the amount of the penalty.

 

Mike set a price to sell me the art! This was no "Act of God" clause. In

fact in the contract there was a seperate "Act of God" clause which called

for me to compensate Mike an additional 50% if the art was destroyed. The

penalty clause was always seperate and was dictated by Mike and his attorney.

I simply executed that clause at the end of our contract. I paid Mike the

additional $9000 and honored my end of the agreement. There was no foul play

here. I paid Mike a premium as described in our mutual contractual agreement.

 

Mike is unhappy because he didn't expect prices on Romita art to jump as high

as they have this year. Last year 18k would have been a hugh premium for the

Romita book. This year it is only a small premium. That is why he inserted

a final price of 18k into the contract. He would have been happy to sell it

for that amount then. Now that prices have increased by 50 to 75% he changes

his tune. When you agree to something contractually you have to stick to it.

That is what adults do.

 

Thanks for listening,

Glen Brunswick

[MyNameIsLegion]

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/comicart-l/message/33608

 

Posted By:

MikeBurkey@xxx.xxx

Tue Dec 7, 1999 4:49 am

 

 

 

DOUBLE WOW!!!!!!

 

 

NOW I'VE HEARD IT ALL, LET ME TELL YOU!!

 

 

LET ME CLUE YOU INTO A FEW FALSEHOODS IN GLEN BRUNSWICK'S STATEMENT HERE TO

THE LIST, SINCE I HAVE JUST READ HIS POST

 

Wow! It is amazing to me how quickly people can swallow a story from one

person's point of view and can condemn the other without ever hearing their

side. It really makes me worry about what is printed and broadcast in our

media as truth. May none of you ever have to experience condemnation before

being heard.

 

Mike began his complaint with a basic untrue assumption that he lent me the

Romita book as a friend as if he was doing me a favor.

This was never the case.

 

OH MAN GLEN COME ON!!!!! IS IT EVERY DAY A GUY SENDS A COMPLETE 20 PAGE

AMAZING SPIDERMAN BOOK TO ANOTHER GUY, FOR, EVEN AT LAST YEARS VALUES WAS

THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS BELOW MARKET VALUE? GIVE ME A FREAKING BREAK HERE!!!!!

WHAT DO YOU THINK? DO YOU THINK I TWISTED "YOUR" ARM TO PLEASE TAKE

THIS ROMITA BOOK FROM ME?

THAT IS REALLY LOW!!! WHEN I THINK OF ALL OF YOUR PHONE CALLS LAST YEAR

WHEN YOU KEPT BEGGING ME TO SELL YOU THE ASM 115 STORY, I GET SICK!!!! I

TOLD YOU IT WAS "NOT" FOR SALE. PLEASE GIVE ME A BREAK WITH THAT GARBAGE!

 

What Mike and I entered into was not a simple loan

based on friendship. It was a business agreement or contract that Mike was

profiting from.

 

WHAT??!!! IF IT WAS NOT BASED ON FRIENDSHIP, THEN DO YOU THINK I WOULD SEND

A COMPLETE ROMITA BOOK TO AN ENEMY?

 

Had this been an actual favor to a friend Mike would have

lent me the book free of charge for a year. There would have been no need

for a contractual agreement and I would have never had to send Mike any

money.

 

GLEN, IF YOUR STATEMENT YOU SAY ABOUT ME TAKING THE MONEY IS TRUE ON

YOUR PART, THEN WHY DID WE HAVE A CONTRACT? WAS THE CONTRACT MADE TO SELL

YOU THE ARTWORK?....."NO" IF I WERE GOING TO JUST SELL YOU THE BOOK AS YOU

STATE, THEN WHY WAS THERE EVEN A CONTRACT MADE UP? WOULDN'T I HAVE JUST SOLD

YOU THE BOOK WITHOUT A CONTRACT? ISN'T THAT HOW PEOPLE SELL ART, BY JUST

SELLING IT?

IN THE CONTRACT WHICH YOU DREW UP, YOU ASKED ME TO ACCEPT 9000.00, AND

THAT I'D GET THE BOOK BACK SO LONG AS I SENT YOU THE MONEY BACK WITHIN THE 1

YEAR TIME FRAME.

 

THIS IS NOT THAT HARD TO COMPREHEND!!!

GLEN, I WAS STUPID ENOUGH TO ACCEPT 9000,00 COLLATERAL ON THE STORY,

DO YOU REALLY THINK THAT I WOULD HAVE SENT YOU THE BOOK FOR FREE?

I AT LEAST WANTED TO HOLD ONTO SOMETHING OF VALUE WHILE YOU WERE ENJOYING

THE BOOK FOR THE 1 YEAR TIME FRAME WE AGREED TO IN THE CONTRACT.

 

 

Instead I sent $9000 to Mike's friend on his behalf. Mike's friend gave him

a few thousand dollars worth of art in exchange for the money. This was a

business arrangement that Mike benefitted from and was paid for. This was

not a favor between friends. Mike and I created a legal contract and we

both agreed to be bound to all, not some, of it's terms. One of the terms

of

the agreement was this penalty clause:

 

GLEN, ANSWER THIS QUESTION: DID I EVER TELL YOU THE BOOK WAS FOR SALE

WHEN I SENT IT TO YOU FOR THE 1 YEAR TIME PERIOD? OF COURSE NOT!!!!

IF I WAS LETTING YOU OWN THE BOOK FOR KEEPS, THAN WHY EVEN HAVE A ONE

YEAR CLAUSE IN THE CONTRACT AT ALL IF IT WAS GOING TO YOU FOR KEEPS?

CMON!!!! COMMON SENSE CAN TELL YOU THAT IT WAS A LOAN, YOU KNEW THE BOOK WAS

NOT FOR SALE WHEN WE DID THIS WHOLE AGREEMENT.

 

 

"Or I refuse to sell the artwork back to you at the end of exactly one year

then I will incur a 100% penalty of an additional $9000 which I would then

owe to you."

 

YES, AS I STATED BEFORE, THIS WAS THE CLAUSE PUT INTO THE CONTRACT BY MY

LAWYER, HE WANTED TO PROTECT ME JUST IN CASE THIS GUY "TURNED OUT TO BE A

SLEAZEBALL" AS MY LAWYER PUT IT BACK THEN.

 

I GET A REAL KICK OUT OF YOUR STATEMENT, THE "ENTIRE' CONTRACT STATES THAT

THE BOOK COMES BACK TO ME WHEN I RETURN THE 9000.00 TO YOU AFTER 1 YEAR. DID

YOU THINK "THIS" WAS PUT INTO THE CONTRACT AS A SIMPLE LITTLE PLOY? THE

"ENTIRE" CONTRACT EXCEPT THE PENALTY CLAUSE READS THAT YOU MUST SEND THE ART

BACK WHEN YOU RECEIVE YOUR 9000 BACK.

 

There is no vagueness in this sentence. It is very clear what the intent of

it was.

 

I ALREADY SAID SEVERAL TIMES THAT THE PENALTY CLAUSE STATED THIS. THIS IS

"NOT" NEW NEWS!!!!

GLEN, PLEASE TRY TO THINK BACK TO LAST OCTOBER WHEN YOU KEPT CALLING

ME FOR SEVERAL NIGHTS ASKING ME WHAT IT WOULD TAKE TO GET THE STORY OUT OF

ME.... I KEPT SAYING, "I'M HONESTLY SORRY, BUT I CAN'T PART WITH THE STORY, I

LOVE IT TOO MUCH."

A YOU CAME UP WITH SEVERAL CASH OFFERS AND I DECLINED THEM ALL!!

SO YOU CAME BACK "BEGGING" AND ASKED ME IF I COULD LOAN YOU THE BOOK

FOR A YEAR AND YOU SAID THAT, "AT LEAST I CAN SAY I OWNED IT FOR A YEAR"

WHICH IS A VERBAL QUOTE, THOUGH IT ISN'T IN WRITING, IT WAS SAID BY GLEN LAST

YEAR.

 

Anyone who signs an agreement (which Mike did) who is competent

knows what this sentence means. If Mike never meant to sell the art to me

we

could have made the penalty 100,000 dollars or any other amount. It was

Mike

and his attorney who picked the amount of the penalty.

 

GLEN IF I HATED YOUR GUTS, I'D HAVE PUT THAT 100,000.00 PENALTY

CLAUSE IN THE DEAL.

IF I EVEN REMOTELY THOUGHT YOU WOULD SCREW ME OVER, I'D HAVE DONE IT,

BUT I NEVER "EVER' THOUGHT YOU WOULD DO THIS TO ME!!! I DON'T PUT 100,000.00

CLAUSES LIKE THAT INTO CONTRACTS WITH FRIENDS!!!!! BECAUSE IF SOMETHING

HAPPENED TO THEM AND THEY COULDN'T GET ME THE MONEY, THEY COULD LOSE THEIR

HOUSE, OR SOMETHING OF THAT NATURE IF I PLAYED HARDBALL WITH THEM!!!

I'M SORRY TO SWEAR LIKE THIS BUT THAT WAS A TOTAL wildly_fanciful_statement LYING

STATEMENT ON GLEN'S PART.

INITIALLY THERE WASN''T EVEN A PENALTY CLAUSE IN THE ORIGINAL CONTRACT,

AND WHEN I TOLD GLEN MY LAWYER WANTS ME TO PUT THE PENALTY CLAUSE IN THE

CONTRACT, HE MOANED AND GROANED ABOUT IT. THIS SHOULD HAVE TOLD ME FROM THE

BEGINNING THAT SOMETHING BAD WOULD HAPPEN.

 

GLEN, YOU YOURSELF SHOULD BE A LAWYER!!!!!

 

WHEN I TOLD YOU I WOULD AGREE TO THE CONTRACT THAT YOU WROTE UP, AND MY

LAWYER OKd , I TOLD YOU THAT THE 9000.00 AMOUNT YOU WERE SENDING ME MEANS

ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO ME AS YOU WILL 100% GET YOUR 9000.00 BACK AS THE STORY

IS "NOT " FOR SALE!!!!

I WAS "VERY" CLEAR IN STATING THAT I WAS DOING THIS FOR YOU BECAUSE I

KNEW THIS STORY MEANT A LOT TO YOU, AND THOUGH I WAS NOT PARTING WITH THE

STORY FOR "any" AMOUNT, I WOULD LET YOU ENJOY IT FOR THE 1 YEAR, WHICH AGAIN,

"YOU" CAME UP WITH IN THE CONTRACT.

ALL THROUGHOUT THIS PAST YEAR, I KEPT TELLING GLEN TO PLEASE TAKE THE

STORY TO THE COPY STORE AND MAKE LASER COLOR COPIES OF THE BOOK, SO HE WOULD

HAVE SOMETHING TO LOOK AT UNTIL I WAS READY TO SELL HIM THE BOOK IN THE

FUTURE. I EVEN TOLD GLEN THAT "I" WOULD MAKE THE LASER COPIES AND SEND THEM

TO HIM IF HE DIDN'T HAVE TIME TO MAKE THEM

AGAIN GLEN, I KNOW THIS IS HARD FOR YOU TO UNDERSTAND, BUT "FRIENDS" DO

THINGS LIKE THIS FOR FRIENDS.

I HAD ABSOLUTELY "NOTHING" TO GAIN OVERALL BY DOING THIS DEAL WITH YOU,

AND I HAD "EVERYTHING" TO LOSE, AND THOUGH I DID GET A DECENT SUM OF MONEY

FOR THE BOOK, I "STILL" GAINED VERY LITTLE AS THIS MONEY IS A MAKEUP FROM

YOU FOR TAKING MY BOOK AGAINST MY WISHES, AND AGAINST THE BASIS OF OUR

CONTRACT.,

 

 

Mike set a price to sell me the art!

 

THIS IS A DOWNRIGHT LIE LIE LIE LIE LIE~!!!! SHAME ON YOU GLEN!!!!!!

 

THERE WAS NEVER EVER ANYTHING IN OUR CONTRACT THAT STATES I WAS SELLING YOU

THE BOOK, YOU LIAR!!!!!

 

I NEVER SET THAT 9000.00 FIGURE, YOU DID, I TOLD YOU THE ART WAS NOT FOR

SALE!!!!!!! I JUST AGREED TO HOLD ONTO 9000.00 WHILE YOU WERE LOANED THE

STORY, AND ACCORDING TO THE CONTRACT SO LONG AS YOU GOT YOUR 9000 BACK, I'D

GET MY ART BACK. VERY EASY TO UNDERSTAND I THINK

 

BOY IT IS EASY TO LIE ONCE YOU'VE TAKEN WHAT YOU WANTED ISN'T IT?

I STILL CAN SEE YOU BEGGING ME AND PLEADING WITH ME LAST YEAR WHEN

YOU ASKED ME IF I'D AGREE TO THE CONTRACT.

REMEMBER GLEN, YOU SAID TO ME: CMON MIKE!!!!! YOU ARE IN A NO LOSE

SITUATION!!!!!! YOU GET $9000.00 INTEREST FREE TO USE FOR A FULL YEAR AS YOU

PLEASE!!!!! AND SO LONG AS YOU SEND IT TO ME BEFORE A YEAR IS UP, YOU GET THE

BOOK BACK!!!"

SO PLEASE GLEN, DON'T TRY TO TWIST THINGS AROUND.

 

SO WHAT IF I LENT THE MONEY TO PETE KOCH FOR SOME ARTWORK, I WAS ALLOWED

TO DO WHATEVER I WANTED WITH THE 9000 REMEMBER. DON'T TRY TO PLAY GAMES LIKE

THIS!

 

This was no "Act of God" clause. In

fact in the contract there was a seperate "Act of God" clause which called

for me to compensate Mike an additional 50% if the art was destroyed. The

penalty clause was always seperate and was dictated by Mike and his

attorney.

 

I simply executed that clause at the end of our contract. I paid Mike the

additional $9000 and honored my end of the agreement.

There was no foul play

here.

 

NO FOUL PLAY? NO FOUL PLAY? GLEN, PLEASE SHOW ME IN THE CONTRACT WHERE

IT STATES THAT THE ART IS TO BE SOLD TO YOU? PLEASE DO THIS, I JUST GOTTA SEE

IT AND I'LL BELIEVE IT!!!!!!

 

I paid Mike a premium as described in our mutual contractual agreement.

 

 

THROUGHOUT THIS WHOLE ENTIRE YEAR, I'VE DONE A FEW DEALS WITH GLEN BY SELLING

HIM ARTWORK, EVEN 3 NICE ROMITA SPIDERMAN PIECES INCLUDING 2 COVERS, AMONG

THE 3 PIECES,

AFTER EVERY DEAL ESPECIALLY IN SAN DIEGO THIS YEAR WHEN I GAVE YOU

GLEN IN PERSON, THAT VERY NICE ROMITA ORIGINAL SPIDERMAN GOBLIN COLOR PIECE,

I ORIGINALLY KEPT TELLING YOU IT WASN'T FOR SALE, BUT THEN I FIGURED HECK,

THIS GUY REALLY LOVES THIS STUFF LIKE ME, SO I SOLD YOU IT FOR 500.00 "LESS"

THAN THE OTHER IDENTICAL ONE I SOLD TO SOMEONE ELSE THE SAME DAY!!!! . AND

AFTER I TOLD YOU I WOULD ACCEPT YOUR 400.00 FOR THIS OUTSTANDING SPIDERMAN

PIECE, YOU SHOOK MY HAND, AND YOU ALMOST HAD A TEAR IN YOUR EYE AS YOU

THANKED ME FOR SELLING YOU THE PIECE, AND, IN JEST, I TOLD YOU THAT I WAS

GIVING YOU A GOOD DEAL ON THAT PIECE BECAUSE I WANTED TO MAKE SURE YOU WERE

TAKING GOOD CARE OF MY AMAZING SPIDERMAN #115 STORY.

AND GLEN'S "EXACT" WORDS TO ME WERE "DON'T WORRY MAN, I'M NOT GONNA

YOU!!!" AS YOU SHOOK MY ONE HAND WITH "BOTH" OF YOUR HANDS!!!

 

Mike is unhappy because he didn't expect prices on Romita art to jump as

high

as they have this year. Last year 18k would have been a hugh premium for

the

Romita book. This year it is only a small premium. That is why he inserted

a final price of 18k into the contract. He would have been happy to sell it

for that amount then. Now that prices have increased by 50 to 75% he

changes

his tune.

 

HOW ON GOD'S GREEN EARTH CAN YOU SAY SUCH A DOWNRIGHT IDIOTIC STATEMENT LIKE

THIS!!!! ( I'M TRYING REAL HARD NOT TO SWEAR!!!! )

HOW DO YOU KNOW I WOULD ACCEPT "ANY" AMOUNT FOR THE STORY? " OH MIKE

WOULD HAVE BEEN HAPPY TO ACCEPT THE MONEY LAST YEAR, BUT NOW HE WON'T BECAUSE

PRICES HAVE GONE UP. "

AND PLEASE QUIT LYING ABOUT THE FINAL 18k AMOUNT THAT "I" INSERTED INTO

THE CONTRACT, "YOU" INSERT THE 9k AMOUNT INTO THE CONTRACT, I INSERTED THE

PENALTY CLAUSE, AND I ALSO TOLD YOU AT THE TIME THAT THE MONEY AMOUNT COULD

BE ANYTHING, IT DIDN'T MATTER, YOU WERE GETTING YOUR 9k BACK. BECAUSE MY

STORY WAS "NOT" FOR SALE!!!

 

IT'S AMAZING HOW A CONTRACT TALKS 'ENTIRELY' ABOUT THE ORIGINAL ART BOOK

BEING ON LOAN TO GLEN FOR 1 YEAR, BUT BECAUSE MY LAWYER PUTS IN A PENALTY

CLAUSE SO I DONT GET SCREWED........ I GET SCREWED "BECAUSE" OF IT!

 

I'D LIKE TO LET ALL OF THE COMIC ART-L MEMBERS THINK THIS OVER:

 

"IF i WAS GOING TO JUST 'SELL" GLEN THE STORY, AS HE CLAIMS, WHY DID WE

EVEN HAVE A CONTRACT? WHY DIDN'T I JUST "SELL" HIM THE STORY IF IT WAS FOR

SALE? WHY THE CONTRACT?

 

 

I DID THIS DEAL AND CONTRACT WITH GLEN, AS 1 FELLOW ART COLLECTOR,

LETTING ANOTHER ART COLLECTOR ENJOY HIS FAVORITE COMIC STORY OF ALL TIME, FOR

1 YEAR.

I HELD ONTO AN ARBITRARY MONEY AMOUNT (9000), I RETURNED IT LIKE THE

CONTRACT STATED I HAD TO DO SO THAT I'D GET ME BOOK BACK, AND GLEN TELLS ME

AFTER 365 DAYS OF ACTING LIKE HE IS MY BEST FRIEND, THAT HE IS NOW KEEPING

THE BOOK???!!!

 

THERE HAD TO BE A CONTRACT MADE UP!!

 

WHAT WOULD HAVE HAPPENED IF GLEN DIED OVER THE COURSE OF THE PAST YEAR?

 

WHAT WOULD HAVE HAPPENED IF I HAD DIED OVER THIS PAST YEAR?

 

THE BASIC CONCEPT OF OUR CONTRACT WAS SO THAT I "WOULD" BE GETTING MY BOOK

BACK, THAT'S WHAT THE CONTRACT WAS FOR.

 

YES, THE PENALTY CLAUSE WAS PUT INTO THE CONTRACT, "BUT"....... IT ALSO

STATED THAT SO LONG AS GLEN GOT HIS 9000.00 BACK BEFORE ONE YEAR, I'D GET MY

BOOK BACK!!!!!! DOES THIS SOUND LIKE I WAS SELLING THE BOOK TO GLEN? I

THINK NOT!!!!!

 

When you agree to something contractually you have to stick to it.

That is what adults do.

 

WHEN I FIRST POSTED THIS STORY TO THE COMICART-L LIST ON SATURDAY NIGHT, I

WAS JUST EXPLAINING TO PEOPLE WHY I CHOOSE RIGHT NOW TO NOT PART WITH MY

ROMITA AMAZING SPIDERMAN ART FROM MY COLLECTION.

 

I ALSO STATED THAT WHAT GLEN BRUNSWICK DID BY TAKING MY BOOK FROM ME

AGAINST MY WISHES AND AGAINST THE ENTIRE BASIS OF THE CONTRACT, WAS WRONG!!!!

 

WHAT GLEN BRUNSWICK DID TO ME: WAS IT LEGAL? MAYBE.....BUT WAS IT

IMMORAL? "YES" WAS IT WRONG, "YES" WAS IT DEVIOUS..."YES"

 

AGAIN, I HAVE SOMEWHAT RESIGNED MYSELF TO THE FACT THAT MY STORY IS QUITE

POSSIBLY GONE.

AND I WILL SAY THAT I DID FOR YOU GLEN, A VERY VERY IMMENSE FAVOR BY

LETTING YOU HAVE THE ASM 115 BOOK FOR A YEAR, AND THIS IS WHAT YOU DO TO

ME!!!!!

I HOPE ONE DAY YOU ARE ON THE "OTHER" SIDE OF SOMETHING LIKE THIS, AND

THAT YOU HAVE TO ACCEPT BEING TAKEN ADVANTAGE OF, BY SOMEONE YOU THOUGHT WAS

A FRIEND, AND SEE HOW YOU FEEL AFTERWARD!

 

THE BOTTOM LINE HERE IS, AND I JUST ASK YOU THIS ONE SIMPLE QUESTION GLEN,

AND I ASK YOU TO "PLEASE" BE HONEST AND SEND YOUR ANSWER TO ME AND THE LIST:

 

THE QUESTION IS: "WHEN I AGREED TO SEND YOU THE ORIGINAL ARTWORK TO

THE COMPLETE AMAZING SPIDERMAN #115 BOOK LAST YEAR, DID I SEND YOU THIS

BOOK WITH THE INTENT THAT I WAS SELLING IT TO YOU?

 

WE BOTH KNOW THE ANSWER WAS "NO", AND IF THIS IS SO IN YOUR MIND,

THEN I DESERVE TO GET MY BOOK BACK FROM YOU, PLAIN AND SIMPLE.

DO I THINK YOU WILL DO THIS? "NO"

 

DO I THINK IT IS THE RIGHT THING FOR YOU TO DO? "YES"

 

BUT THEN AGAIN, ONLY FRIENDS WOULD DO SOMETHING LIKE THIS!!!!!

 

BEST

 

MIKE (I'M GLAD I WAS BROUGHT UP TO NOT HATE THY NEIGHBOR, OR I'D BE THINKING

LIKE DOING WHAT ENRICO, A GOOD GUY, POSTED TO THE LIST!!!) BURKEY

[MyNameIsLegion]

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/comicart-l/message/33634

 

Posted By:

Glenbru@xxx.xxx

Tue Dec 7, 1999 9:52 am

 

 

This matter is now closed for me. I stand by my original post. I have done

the honorable thing, the moral thing and the right thing regarding my deal

with Mike Burkey. Every word I wrote is true and I stood up for myself and

came forword despite being unfairly harrassed by some list members. Frankly

I did a bold thing that I think a lot of you might have trouble doing under

the same circumstances. I intend to continue to enforce the contract that

Mike and I signed and hold him to our agreement.

 

Thank you to those of you who came forward and e-mailed me that you support

me in this matter. It was nice to know that some clear thinkers exist on

the list who don't cave in to the lynch mob mentality.

 

It is evident to me that Mike is a popular guy on the list. His friends,

however, will not deter me from doing what I believe is not only the legal

thing but the just thing as well.

 

I will no longer be discussing this matter on the list. Mike, if you would

like to discuss this further you can call me any time. Maybe we can get back

to the matter we were discussing last week. If not, well that is for you to

decide.

Thank you all for your concerns.

Best,

Glen

[MyNameIsLegion]

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/comicart-l/message/33763

 

 

Posted By:

MikeBurkey@xxx.xxx

Wed Dec 8, 1999 8:53 am

 

 

 

I am going to type EXACTLY what the contract says EXACTLY!!!!!!!!

 

PLEASE email me, ANYONE who would like to see an EXACT copy of the ORIGINAL

CONTRACT by SCAN!!!!!

For some reason My computer will NOT ALLOW me to go to my AOL webspace?

But it will let me send scans!!!!!

 

Now, once again, my point to letting people see this is NOT to decide if I

can legally get my book back, I know that no matter what happens, I'd have to

SUE Glen Brunswick to get it back.

 

The reason I am posting this contract is for people to DECIDE:

 

"Do YOU feel that after reading this contract, was the story meant to

be SOLD to Glen Brunswick or was it a LOAN to Glen Brunswick?"

Thanks

Mike

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

-------

 

October 27, 1998

 

 

Mr.Mike Burkey

 

 

Re: Original art to Amazing Spiderman 115, complete book by John Romita Sr.

 

Dear Mike,

 

Per our conversation, this letter will confirm the understanding between us.

I will pay your friend, Pete Koch, $9000 (Nine Thousand) dollars as

consideration for the above referenced original art. I will keep the art in

my possession for a period of exactly one year. At the end of one year you

can buy the art back for the same sum of $9000.

 

If at the end of exactly one year you are unwilling or unable to buy the art

back then the art will be mine to keep or sell or do with in any way I see

fit.

 

The year will commence on the day that I send Pete Koch the check for $9000

and will end exactly one year from that date.

 

If I violate this agreement between us and attempt to sell the art prior to

one year or I refuse to sell the artwork back to you at the end of exact one

year then I will incur a 100% penalty of an additional $9000 dollars which I

would then owe to you.

 

While in my (Glen Brunswick) possession, if the art work is destroyed by an

"Act of God" ( flood, fire, earthquake, etc.) then I will be liable for an

additional $4500.

 

I agree that this contract is made pursuant to the laws of Ohio and is

enforceable within the state of Ohio.

 

If this reflects our understanding please sign and return one copy to me.

 

Accepted and agreed to:

 

Signed: Mike Burkey and Glen Brunswick

 

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

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

 

Again, I realize that the penalty clause sorta gives Glen the OUT in taking

my book, but was this a SALE of the ASM 115 book? or was it a LOAN? I'm

curious what other Comicart-L listers think?

 

Incidentally, for all of the lawyers and legal people out there, if it

matters, I don't know, but Glen Brunswick waited until 10 days AFTER the

EXACT 1 YEAR DATE, to tell me that he was keeping the book and not returning

it to me. Would this be any help in possibly being able to get the book

back, pursuant to the laws of the State of Ohio? I have written proof of

these such events if they were needed to help my case!

 

Thanks

Mike Burkey

[MyNameIsLegion]

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/comicart-l/message/33901

 

 

Posted By:

MikeBurkey@xxx.xxx

Thu Dec 9, 1999 12:22 am

 

 

The reason I sent the contract to the list was not really to ask who

deserves LEGALLY to keep the book, because right now, no matter what anybody

thinks, Glen is NOT going to give me the book back.

The reason i sent the contract to the list, was if people feel after

reading the contract, " was SELLING Glen the book, or loaning him the book."

that's all, i realize now that I was naive in doing this deal with

Glen, as I basically looked over the contract, and we talked EXTENSIVELY

throughout this whole contract talk about me LOANING him the art for 1 FULL

year.

we both orally agreed that I was getting my art back, Glen knows this

is so. He will not admit it anymore for fear of getting ripped again on the

list.

ONLY 2 "OTHER" people KNOW about the details of what went on between

myself and Glen Brunswick, one of them was Aaron Sultan, and if you read his

post below here, it is quite OBVIOUS that Glen asked of me.

Glen and I had done SEVERAL LARGE Comic art deals before this, I knew

Glen would not go into hiding or anything like that, as I know he is a HUGE

comic art collector as well as the majority of us. So yes, I chose to let

Glen have the art for 1 year, and YES he told me EVERY SINGLE time we talked

over this past year, that he was LOVING the art, and he wished he could just

buy it from me, and I said to Glen that I was sorry, but I love that artwork,

and I don't want to sell it right now, but I PROMISE you, that the only other

person that will EVER get to own this ASM 115 artwork, other than myself, is

"YOU" and I told Glen that, " I PROMISE, that when I start selling Romita

from my collection, when I decide to Build a new house, then that story would

be YOURS!"

This is not imaginary, this is FACT. Other than Aaron Sultan, who Spoke

100% ACCURATELY in his post below my email here, William G. is the ONLY other

person who knows what went on from BEGINNING to end with what happened

between myself and Glen, and though William has chosen "NOT" to clear the air

and speak on my behalf publicly about the details of why Glen so abruptly

changed his mind and decided to keep my ASM 115 story, he has told me in

private that legally Glen was maybe allowed to do what he did, but that

MORALLY and ETHICALLY, what Glen did was Very wrong and sneaky.

And though he tried to help me get my book back from Glen, like Jon

Mankuta tried to help as well, they were unsuccessful.

I thank BOTH of them a lot for their help, but Glen Brunswick feels

that this will all blow over and things will get back to normal soon!

 

So all I am saying is, JUST READ what Aaron posted, and you basically

have the WHOLE story of the ENTIRE deal Glen proposed to me last year, and I

(YES I KNOW................!!!) I accepted it.

 

Though I feel bad about getting taken advantage of, I am NOT ashamed (as

some of you have said) of myself knowing inside, that I was REALLY doing a

good favor for a good friend, in letting him enjoy his FAVORITE issue of

comic art EVER for 1 year. I know guys like Albert Moy, and Pete Koch, and

Will G....these guys I would do the SAME EXACT DEAL I DID WITH GLENN!!!!!!!

 

EVEN TODAY I'd DO IT!!!!!!

 

The ONLY thing I fault myself with is that I put Glen Brunswick in the SAME

class I put these 3 guys in! That's all!!!!!

 

 

I (MIKE BURKEY) PROMISE, that THIS is my VERY LAST post concerning the Glen

Brunswick (TRUST that became NON-TRUST) deal between us.

Unless I have to make a rebuttal or something like that, I am DONE

posting about Myself and Glen! I do hope he will somehow try to make up in

some way what he has taken from me, but if not, that's fine.

 

Like many others who have commented, the holidays, are almost upon us,

and I am looking forward to sharing time with my family, and I have a

surprise 70th birthday party for my beloved mother I have to finish working

on for this upcoming Saturday!

 

Like Andy said last night, it is GOOD especially at this time of year, to

share time with family and loved ones, because sometimes, you never know when

they might stop being there for you!

I will say that I WILL donate a percentage of the money gotten from Glen

to charity, as that way, i can feel a little better about the whole situation,

best to all

Mike Burkey

 

 

 

In a message dated 12/7/99 8:09:08 AM Eastern Standard Time,

Spiderboop@... writes:

 

<< From: Spiderboop@...

 

Glen, In reading through all this back-and-forth, I think this really boils

down to the original basis of the entire foundation of the deal. Last

October 1998, what was the essence of the agreement? What was the "lure",

the true reason Mike agreed to send you the art?

 

As you and I both know, we would like to have a lot more Romita Spiderman

art

than we do! And I am all for spreading that Romita art around a little! ;-)

 

But I think I owe it to this forum to bring out what I remember -- after

speaking on the phone with both of you around the time this deal was

formulating, I was essentially hearing the same thing from both YOU and

Mike-- that this was a loan of 9K to Mike for one year. I distinctly

remember discussing that with you on the phone.

 

It sounds like legally you have the art. It is in the contract, and you

have

the art. Its yours. But I think the original intention, the basis of the

agreement, needs to be clarified. I say this, as one of the few people that

has tried time after time in getting Romita Spiderman out of Mike, that he

will trade Romita for Romita but not sell interior pages. You and I both

know that. If you remember the genesis of the deal, as I do, as being a

loan

to Mike and you enjoy art for a year, then this becomes something you have

to

sort out internally -- all legalities aside.

 

Aaron Sultan

>>

[thehumantorch]

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/comicart-l/message/33901

 

 

Posted By:

MikeBurkey@xxx.xxx

Thu Dec 9, 1999 12:22 am

 

 

The reason I sent the contract to the list was not really to ask who

deserves LEGALLY to keep the book, because right now, no matter what anybody

thinks, Glen is NOT going to give me the book back.

The reason i sent the contract to the list, was if people feel after

reading the contract, " was SELLING Glen the book, or loaning him the book."

that's all, i realize now that I was naive in doing this deal with

Glen, as I basically looked over the contract, and we talked EXTENSIVELY

throughout this whole contract talk about me LOANING him the art for 1 FULL

year.

we both orally agreed that I was getting my art back, Glen knows this

is so. He will not admit it anymore for fear of getting ripped again on the

list.

ONLY 2 "OTHER" people KNOW about the details of what went on between

myself and Glen Brunswick, one of them was Aaron Sultan, and if you read his

post below here, it is quite OBVIOUS that Glen asked of me.

Glen and I had done SEVERAL LARGE Comic art deals before this, I knew

Glen would not go into hiding or anything like that, as I know he is a HUGE

comic art collector as well as the majority of us. So yes, I chose to let

Glen have the art for 1 year, and YES he told me EVERY SINGLE time we talked

over this past year, that he was LOVING the art, and he wished he could just

buy it from me, and I said to Glen that I was sorry, but I love that artwork,

and I don't want to sell it right now, but I PROMISE you, that the only other

person that will EVER get to own this ASM 115 artwork, other than myself, is

"YOU" and I told Glen that, " I PROMISE, that when I start selling Romita

from my collection, when I decide to Build a new house, then that story would

be YOURS!"

This is not imaginary, this is FACT. Other than Aaron Sultan, who Spoke

100% ACCURATELY in his post below my email here, William G. is the ONLY other

person who knows what went on from BEGINNING to end with what happened

between myself and Glen, and though William has chosen "NOT" to clear the air

and speak on my behalf publicly about the details of why Glen so abruptly

changed his mind and decided to keep my ASM 115 story, he has told me in

private that legally Glen was maybe allowed to do what he did, but that

MORALLY and ETHICALLY, what Glen did was Very wrong and sneaky.

And though he tried to help me get my book back from Glen, like Jon

Mankuta tried to help as well, they were unsuccessful.

I thank BOTH of them a lot for their help, but Glen Brunswick feels

that this will all blow over and things will get back to normal soon!

 

So all I am saying is, JUST READ what Aaron posted, and you basically

have the WHOLE story of the ENTIRE deal Glen proposed to me last year, and I

(YES I KNOW................!!!) I accepted it.

 

Though I feel bad about getting taken advantage of, I am NOT ashamed (as

some of you have said) of myself knowing inside, that I was REALLY doing a

good favor for a good friend, in letting him enjoy his FAVORITE issue of

comic art EVER for 1 year. I know guys like Albert Moy, and Pete Koch, and

Will G....these guys I would do the SAME EXACT DEAL I DID WITH GLENN!!!!!!!

 

EVEN TODAY I'd DO IT!!!!!!

 

The ONLY thing I fault myself with is that I put Glen Brunswick in the SAME

class I put these 3 guys in! That's all!!!!!

 

 

I (MIKE BURKEY) PROMISE, that THIS is my VERY LAST post concerning the Glen

Brunswick (TRUST that became NON-TRUST) deal between us.

Unless I have to make a rebuttal or something like that, I am DONE

posting about Myself and Glen! I do hope he will somehow try to make up in

some way what he has taken from me, but if not, that's fine.

 

Like many others who have commented, the holidays, are almost upon us,

and I am looking forward to sharing time with my family, and I have a

surprise 70th birthday party for my beloved mother I have to finish working

on for this upcoming Saturday!

 

Like Andy said last night, it is GOOD especially at this time of year, to

share time with family and loved ones, because sometimes, you never know when

they might stop being there for you!

I will say that I WILL donate a percentage of the money gotten from Glen

to charity, as that way, i can feel a little better about the whole situation,

best to all

Mike Burkey

 

 

 

In a message dated 12/7/99 8:09:08 AM Eastern Standard Time,

Spiderboop@... writes:

 

<< From: Spiderboop@...

 

Glen, In reading through all this back-and-forth, I think this really boils

down to the original basis of the entire foundation of the deal. Last

October 1998, what was the essence of the agreement? What was the "lure",

the true reason Mike agreed to send you the art?

 

As you and I both know, we would like to have a lot more Romita Spiderman

art

than we do! And I am all for spreading that Romita art around a little! ;-)

 

But I think I owe it to this forum to bring out what I remember -- after

speaking on the phone with both of you around the time this deal was

formulating, I was essentially hearing the same thing from both YOU and

Mike-- that this was a loan of 9K to Mike for one year. I distinctly

remember discussing that with you on the phone.

 

It sounds like legally you have the art. It is in the contract, and you

have

the art. Its yours. But I think the original intention, the basis of the

agreement, needs to be clarified. I say this, as one of the few people that

has tried time after time in getting Romita Spiderman out of Mike, that he

will trade Romita for Romita but not sell interior pages. You and I both

know that. If you remember the genesis of the deal, as I do, as being a

loan

to Mike and you enjoy art for a year, then this becomes something you have

to

sort out internally -- all legalities aside.

 

Aaron Sultan

>>

 

Fascinating

[t3quila]

If the two parties involved have sorted out their differences then the matter should be dropped no matter how interesting or salacious the details are.

 

I will be heading to Comicart-L to read a lot of messages however.

 

 

[PrechterFool-migration]

I totally forgot about Aaron sultan

 

Man O man how the time flies

 

Is Spiderboop still around?

 

1999 seems like yesterday

 

I remember the comic-l-serve used to be so much fun

 

But after discussing the same thing over and over again...most of the posts by 2005 became drivel and I de-listed

[Eric Seffinga]

I dropped it around the mid-2000s after Jeff was gone and the list devolved into a never-ending eBay listing.

[PrechterFool-migration]

Once CGC created an OA section here, the listserve became much less important

 

Thanks KK for creating this space for us

[artcollector9]

What's the point of rehashing this, if both parties have made up, Mike got the story back, and they are both friendly and forgiving enough to do further business and even agree to an interview? It all seemed to be settled years ago!

 

Rather than damn Glen and/or Mike, it's troublemaking guys like the few mess stirring posters here, posing as being objective and informative observers, but who really just want to cause trouble, that make this hobby SUCK.

 

Rob

[Ferran Delgado]

Hey, Rob, you're wasting your time with me, I don't feed trolls...

 

Edited: Just for the record, I arrived to the hobby by 2006 as anyone can see in my CAF gallery, so I didn't know anything about the Contract affair.

[artcollector9]

I wasn't talking about you Ferran... I am agains the trolls too, that's my point!

 

I didn't know about this either.

 

This controversy has all been settled between the parties...why the glee in bringing it up again (not by you)?

 

It's all bad intentioned.

 

Rob

[comix4fun]

I can agree Rob, there are a lot of folks that make this hobby suck. I guess it comes with the money and the greed and it's only getting worse it seems. We've all had those experiences with dealers, collectors, and dealers in collector's clothing doing things to us or attempting to do so that range from distasteful to illegal.

 

Man, what I would have paid to have someone warn me of what happened to them or share their experiences before I came in contact with some of those guys. It would have saved me a ton of money and anguish.

 

It wasn't always this way.

[JS]

care to share some of those stories - this is a learning experience for me -

[Stonecutter69-migration]

Thank you Rob for waking me up. This thread had seemingly stalled a few days ago and I had planned on letting the sleeping dog lie. However you have convinced me otherwise. It is textbook behavior for people like Glen and Rob when they cannot rebut the content of a message to move right to assailing the messenger or his motives. This assumes that people are stupid and can be distracted by the next shiny bauble held in front of them. The original Comicart-l posts stand on their own and there has been no dispute from either side regarding their contents.

Whether or not the dispute has been settled between the parties is entirely irrelevant to the issue. This is not about re-hashing or asking Mike and Glen to re-visit their personal dispute. The 13-year old publicly told story is relevant because Glen has decided to put himself in the public eye with his latest venture, holding himself up as the voice of the hobby, and proclaiming that he's "trying to do good" for it by informing the masses. Well just because he says it, doesn't make it so. And frankly I don't remember anyone electing him to be the voice of the hobby. I certainly did not.

I'm now convinced that stories like this need to live on forever as cautionary tales to all comic art collectors both veteran and unseasoned. I will certainly do my best to spread the word to every pertinent online forum whenever the opportunity presents itself and urge other like-minded collectors to do the same. So unless Rob or one of his associates has prepared an assault on free speech(or more name-calling), I'm not sure what else needs to be said.

Again, thank you Rob for waking me up.

 

I wasn't talking about you Ferran... I am agains the trolls too, that's my point!

 

I didn't know about this either.

 

This controversy has all been settled between the parties...why the glee in bringing it up again (not by you)?

 

It's all bad intentioned.

 

Rob