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

[Phill the Governor]

haha this is all too funny!!

[comix4fun]

Has Glen offered himself as some sort or representative, or standard bearer, or is he just a comic art guy offering his opinion, insights, and offering his services if anyone chooses to employ them (finding comic art at a 10% fee)?

 

 

R

 

You are a savvy businessman Rob, I know you aren't advocating ignoring your experience, knowledge, and instincts and just accepting what people tell you at face value without using other information at your disposal.

 

Before anyone gets elected to any of those positions (by intent or inertia) I think the full breadth and spectrum of their resume become relevant matters for discussion and disclosure. Before anyone reveals the depths of their want list to a person they probably would like to know who that person is, what they've done in the past and if, after learning everything about that person and not select details, they want to trust that person with information that could cost them a large amount of money in artwork costs and middle man fees.

 

It's just silly for anyone to take advice, opinions, and information from anyone without knowing that person's background and potential motivations. That goes for everyone.

The guy can be a saint or a sinner. He could be earnestly trying to help folks out or trying to line his own pockets. How a person handled situations in the past are better predictors of how they will do so in the future far better than their words.

 

He's got a trading resume, we're way past being forced to take everything at face value. There's better, more complete, information out there.

 

 

[MyNameIsLegion]

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

[artcollector9]

Hey Chris,

 

Thanks for the note.

 

Look, everyone on earth is motivated by self interests. Especially collectors.

 

Do you think anyone who reads this list has never done something that SOMEONE would say is sneaky, or cunning, or self motivated, or self serving? It's a crazy world out there brother.

 

One man's brilliant move is another man's sneaky move...

 

I've never even met Glen. I believe we've done ONE deal, and it was quick and easy...no, I'm not going to put aside years of experience to put myself in Glen's or anyone else's hands.

 

I don't think Glen is a saint or a sinner.

 

I think we ALL are saints, and sinners. Anyone here who says otherwise about themselves is either fooling themselves or a liar...even if perhaps you've offended someone inadvertently.

 

I just think it's a stretch to go back 13 years here. I understand others disagree and have the right to do so.

 

Rob

 

 

[glenbru]

This is not accurate LEGION. Who are you by the way since you seem to have made me your cause? Nice to constantly attack me with no recourse, huh?

 

I bought the complete FF 53 story many years ago and was going to split it up, and sell a page to another party. I did change my mind and decide to keep the book together but I did compensate the other party for the one page I was going to sell him. It wasn't a partnership on the purchase of the book. I put up all the capital on that deal. It was my right to make that decision.

 

This is harassment on your part. You clearly have it out for me.

 

Glen

[comix4fun]

I just think it's a stretch to go back 13 years here. I understand others disagree and have the right to do so.

 

Rob

 

 

 

You are right that people are motivated by self-interest. It's not the self interest that's being discussed, it's how far people are willing to let that self interest control their actions.

 

Not everyone will allow a material desires to override everything else. The ones who do, and do so publicly have to live with the consequences of their actions.

 

As for us all being saints and sinners. No one is perfect. But I don't equate inadvertent insults with intentional actions.

 

I would usually agree that going back 13 years would be a stretch but as Glenn posted here, he still defends and believes that his actions were right, correct..perhaps even honorable, moral, and bold.

 

If he believes it was just a business transaction and that he did nothing wrong or unacceptable then that tells me, if he was given the same opportunity today, that he'd do it all over again. I think that much has been made clear.

 

That kind of current day character revelation is pretty relevant regardless of when it first reared its head. I realize this type of thing is small potatoes to some people, but people should be allowed to hear it for themselves and decide just how small.

 

It was pretty hard to have not been offended for Mike in 1999 and then offended all over again by the equivocating and rationalization in 2012.

 

 

As to whether this was a "brilliant" move or "sneaky" move, well, that's the litmus test for that person's character traits and/or flaws I guess.

[glenbru]

Anyone who has read this far on the thread that has sent me their want list and no longer feels secure with me having it in my possession please send me a private email.

 

I will happily delete your file from my database. I don't want you to feel like your private info is compromised in any way. Naturally if you want to continue on as we discussed that is okay too.

 

To me the locator service was not really an income generator for me. It is way to interact with more people in the hobby and I felt if I found someone something they wanted that I was justified in charging 10 percent for my trouble.

 

Really the blog is the important thing to me. I haven't seen anyone do anything like it before and I wanted to provide a POV from a collector that has been watching the market for a very long time. I've had hundreds of collectors tell me that they like what I'm doing on the blog-- that it is providing information that they did not know or they had not thought about. I have many exciting things planned for the future of the blog that I think will be beneficial for veterans and newbies in the hobby. That is what I plan on focusing on. I'm sorry this has been such a distraction for those of you who have stayed with this thread. I promise the blog will be worth you while.

 

I'm committed to it.

 

Thanks for listening.

 

Glen

[jjeanius]

I just think it's a stretch to go back 13 years here. I understand others disagree and have the right to do so.

 

Rob

 

 

 

You are right that people are motivated by self-interest. It's not the self interest that's being discussed, it's how far people are willing to let that self interest control their actions.

 

Not everyone will allow a material desires to override everything else. The ones who do, and do so publicly have to live with the consequences of their actions.

 

As for us all being saints and sinners. No one is perfect. But I don't equate inadvertent insults with intentional actions.

 

I would usually agree that going back 13 years would be a stretch but as Glenn posted here, he still defends and believes that his actions were right, correct..perhaps even honorable, moral, and bold.

 

If he believes it was just a business transaction and that he did nothing wrong or unacceptable then that tells me, if he was given the same opportunity today, that he'd do it all over again. I think that much has been made clear.

 

That kind of current day character revelation is pretty relevant regardless of when it first reared its head. I realize this type of thing is small potatoes to some people, but people should be allowed to hear it for themselves and decide just how small.

 

It was pretty hard to have not been offended for Mike in 1999 and then offended all over again by the equivocating and rationalization in 2012.

 

 

As to whether this was a "brilliant" move or "sneaky" move, well, that's the litmus test for that person's character traits and/or flaws I guess.

 

QFT. Well said. (thumbs u

[jjeanius]

To me the locator service was not really an income generator for me. It is way to interact with more people in the hobby and I felt if I found someone something they wanted that I was justified in charging 10 percent for my trouble.

 

So...it's not about the money, but...if you happen to know where a $50,000 piece is located that happens to be on someone's want list, this knowledge is worth $5,000...? And this service is much more about communicating with fellow fans, but the $5k fee is justified "for your trouble"...?

 

On the other hand, though, if you happen to know where a coveted $1,000 piece is, then your knowledge (or "trouble", if you prefer) is only worth $100, even though the "service" is essentially the same. So...how much more "trouble" is it to point someone in the right direction on a high-end piece, that would justify an extra $4900 on your end?

 

It seems to me that this has more to do with money than for a desire to share your love of the hobby and a desire to network with other collectors. If it was really about chatting up a hobby that you love, I would think a nominal flat fee (say, $100 for your info) would be a much easier pill to swallow.

[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

[Ronan Killack]

Whoops - like I said, first time caller.

 

My post was in response to this from bluechip -

 

If any civilians were to read this, they'd come away with something like this:

 

John Romita's art was put on the market somewhat under the radar and one collector managed to outmaneuver others so that he acquired an overwhelming percentage of the work, and then another collector managed to outmaneuver him out of one of the stories, but only for a while, and the original collector got that story back and boost his percentage of the total back up again. Years later, collector 1 and 2 have patched up their dispute over the story and people unassociated with the deal are fighting about it, for reasons that are not entirely clear but seem to be connected to bitterness about other deals not currently part of the discussion

 

Sorry about that.

[thehumantorch]

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

 

Welcome to the boards Chris. Bang up first post.

[Doc Joe]

This thread is like Glenn Close in Fatal Attraction, it just won't die.

 

The finders fee reminds me of Architechts fee 10% of the cost of the project, never made sense to me if you pick more expensive tile the project costs more.

[bluechip]

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.

 

 

[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

 

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.

 

 

While I think you make interesting points, everything I have read - at the suggestion of both event participants - boils down to this:

 

A friend asked a friend for a favor. Favor was granted. The friend who asked for the favor then betrayed the friend who granted it.

 

If you believe this (and I do, again based on what I have read), then everything else just does not matter and all this stuff about contracts is meaningless. We either honor our promises or we don't. Those who honor them don't need contracts. Those who don't most certainly do.

 

Overall, people are now better informed about the behavior & character of the participants. I think that is of benefit for everyone involved. Good discussion, in my opinion.

 

- Chris

[Nexus]

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.

[lb jefferies]

[bluechip]

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.

 

 

 

 

 

[comix4fun]

 

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.

 

 

 

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.

 

For your analogy to be correct all the "kids" would have to be in line and interested in the toys at the same time. That's not what happened here. Only one kid wanted that toy when it came out. He bought it, loved it, treasured it. It became one of his favorite toys. The other kids didn't have any interest in the toy when it came out otherwise they could have had it for themselves.

 

Also you say "took". That's not accurate. You make it sound like these were all given away and instead of taking one for himself and leaving the rest the kid took them all, as if they were apples or widgets or paperclips. This is more akin to a set of baseball cards. Only one kid wanted them, and saw them as a set and bought the set with his own money. Anyone else could have bought them at the time, but they didn't, only he did.

 

If you wish the analogy to actually be accurate you'd say "bought" or "earned" or "did his chores and used his allowance to buy something no one else wanted" then years later when everyone wanted that toy someone came along, asked to borrow it and then refused to give it back.

 

There's a strong socialist message in all your hypothetical situations. Someone owns something, it's their property, but because they own "too much" of it in your opinion they should be forced to share, If they don't share and someone takes it from them then it's an indication that they should have just shared in the first place?

 

They get what they deserve for having foresight and having a collecting focus that no one else had at the time? They should be forced to give up their personal property and if they don't and someone finds a way to take it from them against their will then you think it's justified? That's what I am getting from what you are saying.

 

I can't imagine you'd feel that way about your own property. If you DO feel that way I will pass along my address for you to send your art collection to me. Quit hogging it.

[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?