• When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Al Plastino's Statement & Plea Re the Supes #170 Kennedy Splash

Started by markseifert,

170 posts in this topic

sborock

sborock

Posted
Posted
We have received some questions about this art today, so we figured one of us should come on here and address this.

 

This art was sold in the 1993 Sotheby’s comic auction, so it has been in collectors’ hands at least since that time. We have no reason to believe our consignor (One we have known for many years and who has an excellent track record with us) does not have the right to sell the piece, and nobody has shown us any evidence that he doesn’t. Whether it was ever in possession of a museum we don’t know, but as many collectors know, museums de-accession pieces all the time.

 

As to how the photo of Al with the art came about:

As many of you already know, all of us in the comics dept., in addition to just working there, are huge comic fans. One of our employees was chatting with Al as a fan at the New York Comic Con, and Al expressed interest in seeing the art, so we brought it for him to look at. That’s when someone from the Hero Initiative snapped a few pictures.

 

We’re all very sorry to hear that Al Plastino never got the art back from DC, but we all know the sad realities of the comic publishing business back in those days. Heck, it’s one of the reasons I am on the board of the Hero Initiative and the reason Heritage helps support them.

 

Hope this helps clear things up a bit,

-Steve

 

 

Could you do me a favour and comment on this?

 

142143_zpsed163342.jpg

 

Its mainly the bottom editors note that I'm most interested in.

 

I think I did: "but as many collectors know, museums de-accession pieces all the time."

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Doc McCoy

Doc McCoy

Posted
Posted
I think I did: "but as many collectors know, museums de-accession pieces all the time."

 

So is that the official Heritage stance on this? Nothing further? You all just trust that Sotheby's did the leg work when it was originally auctioned by them? No inquiries to the museum to see if it was actually a "de-accession" piece or to DC to find out if it was actually ever donated or if it just walked out of their offices one day? (shrug)

 

Am I the only one uncomfortable with that stance?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Kindle-migration

Kindle-migration

Posted
Posted
I think I did: "but as many collectors know, museums de-accession pieces all the time."

 

So is that the official Heritage stance on this? Nothing further? You all just trust that Sotheby's did the leg work when it was originally auctioned by them? No inquiries to the museum to see if it was actually a "de-accession" piece or to DC to find out if it was actually ever donated or if it just walked out of their offices one day? (shrug)

 

Am I the only one uncomfortable with that stance?

 

+1

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Speedy-D

Speedy-D

Posted
Posted
We have received some questions about this art today, so we figured one of us should come on here and address this.

 

This art was sold in the 1993 Sotheby’s comic auction, so it has been in collectors’ hands at least since that time. We have no reason to believe our consignor (One we have known for many years and who has an excellent track record with us) does not have the right to sell the piece, and nobody has shown us any evidence that he doesn’t. Whether it was ever in possession of a museum we don’t know, but as many collectors know, museums de-accession pieces all the time.

 

As to how the photo of Al with the art came about:

As many of you already know, all of us in the comics dept., in addition to just working there, are huge comic fans. One of our employees was chatting with Al as a fan at the New York Comic Con, and Al expressed interest in seeing the art, so we brought it for him to look at. That’s when someone from the Hero Initiative snapped a few pictures.

 

We’re all very sorry to hear that Al Plastino never got the art back from DC, but we all know the sad realities of the comic publishing business back in those days. Heck, it’s one of the reasons I am on the board of the Hero Initiative and the reason Heritage helps support them.

 

Hope this helps clear things up a bit,

-Steve

 

 

Could you do me a favour and comment on this?

 

142143_zpsed163342.jpg

 

Its mainly the bottom editors note that I'm most interested in.

 

I think I did: "but as many collectors know, museums de-accession pieces all the time."

The fact that something can happen has no bearing on whether it's happened in any given instance. :shrug:

Link to comment
Share on other sites
comix4fun

comix4fun

Posted
Posted
I think I did: "but as many collectors know, museums de-accession pieces all the time."

 

So is that the official Heritage stance on this? Nothing further? You all just trust that Sotheby's did the leg work when it was originally auctioned by them? No inquiries to the museum to see if it was actually a "de-accession" piece or to DC to find out if it was actually ever donated or if it just walked out of their offices one day? (shrug)

 

Am I the only one uncomfortable with that stance?

 

 

The sad truth is every owner from 1993 to now obtained title to the art free and clear. Whomever had rights to the art originally, whether DC or Mr. Plastino (which is a pretty important question actually), can go after all those answers, but whomever bought that art from Sotheby's obtained legal ownership given the facts as they are stated.

 

The questions you are asking are valid and important and need answers. I just don't know if it falls to Heritage to answer them being that they had no part in the Sotheby's sale that happened 20 years ago. They represent an owner who they have no reason to believe had anything to do with fraudulently obtaining ownership given the public nature of the 1993 sale. There are lots of people that I would look to for help. I'd start with Sotheby's to see who consigned the piece, and with DC's records, and the editor in question, to see if it was ever donated in the first place.

 

They can start at both ends of the time line and meet at the point where the art didn't go where Al was told it was going to go.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
disruptive_one

disruptive_one

Posted
Posted
We have received some questions about this art today, so we figured one of us should come on here and address this.

 

This art was sold in the 1993 Sotheby’s comic auction, so it has been in collectors’ hands at least since that time. We have no reason to believe our consignor (One we have known for many years and who has an excellent track record with us) does not have the right to sell the piece, and nobody has shown us any evidence that he doesn’t. Whether it was ever in possession of a museum we don’t know, but as many collectors know, museums de-accession pieces all the time.

 

As to how the photo of Al with the art came about:

As many of you already know, all of us in the comics dept., in addition to just working there, are huge comic fans. One of our employees was chatting with Al as a fan at the New York Comic Con, and Al expressed interest in seeing the art, so we brought it for him to look at. That’s when someone from the Hero Initiative snapped a few pictures.

 

We’re all very sorry to hear that Al Plastino never got the art back from DC, but we all know the sad realities of the comic publishing business back in those days. Heck, it’s one of the reasons I am on the board of the Hero Initiative and the reason Heritage helps support them.

 

Hope this helps clear things up a bit,

-Steve

 

That's good enough for me. If I wanted it I would feel comfortable bidding for it.

 

I actually think the controversy could make it more appealing to some bidders. So watch out. Very curious to see how much it actually sells for.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
jjonahjameson1

jjonahjameson1

Posted
Posted

Very interesting thread, and I'm certain more details will be revealed but I'm very curious as to Mr. Plastino's contention that he donated the artwork.

 

Superman #170 was published in 1964, which is well before DC initiated their art returns policy so was it really Mr. Plastino's art (ownership implied) to donate or was it (ownership) DC's?

 

If I recall, I read of only one artist striking a deal with a publisher for the return of their original artwork from that 1950's/1960's. Otherwise, the artwork was owned by the publisher.

 

Correct? (shrug)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
jjonahjameson1

jjonahjameson1

Posted
Posted
We have received some questions about this art today, so we figured one of us should come on here and address this.

 

This art was sold in the 1993 Sotheby’s comic auction, so it has been in collectors’ hands at least since that time. We have no reason to believe our consignor (One we have known for many years and who has an excellent track record with us) does not have the right to sell the piece, and nobody has shown us any evidence that he doesn’t. Whether it was ever in possession of a museum we don’t know, but as many collectors know, museums de-accession pieces all the time.

 

As to how the photo of Al with the art came about:

As many of you already know, all of us in the comics dept., in addition to just working there, are huge comic fans. One of our employees was chatting with Al as a fan at the New York Comic Con, and Al expressed interest in seeing the art, so we brought it for him to look at. That’s when someone from the Hero Initiative snapped a few pictures.

 

We’re all very sorry to hear that Al Plastino never got the art back from DC, but we all know the sad realities of the comic publishing business back in those days. Heck, it’s one of the reasons I am on the board of the Hero Initiative and the reason Heritage helps support them.

 

Hope this helps clear things up a bit,

-Steve

 

 

Hi, Steve:

 

I want to thank you for coming onto the boards to express Heritage's position on this matter. (thumbs u

Link to comment
Share on other sites
sborock

sborock

Posted
Posted
We have received some questions about this art today, so we figured one of us should come on here and address this.

 

This art was sold in the 1993 Sotheby’s comic auction, so it has been in collectors’ hands at least since that time. We have no reason to believe our consignor (One we have known for many years and who has an excellent track record with us) does not have the right to sell the piece, and nobody has shown us any evidence that he doesn’t. Whether it was ever in possession of a museum we don’t know, but as many collectors know, museums de-accession pieces all the time.

 

As to how the photo of Al with the art came about:

As many of you already know, all of us in the comics dept., in addition to just working there, are huge comic fans. One of our employees was chatting with Al as a fan at the New York Comic Con, and Al expressed interest in seeing the art, so we brought it for him to look at. That’s when someone from the Hero Initiative snapped a few pictures.

 

We’re all very sorry to hear that Al Plastino never got the art back from DC, but we all know the sad realities of the comic publishing business back in those days. Heck, it’s one of the reasons I am on the board of the Hero Initiative and the reason Heritage helps support them.

 

Hope this helps clear things up a bit,

-Steve

 

 

Hi, Steve:

 

I want to thank you for coming onto the boards to express Heritage's position on this matter. (thumbs u

 

You are very welcome!

I really miss being on the boards. Heck, I have not even had the time to post in "1000 comics read in 2013" and I think I might make the 1000 again this year :grin: , but between work (running around the country for shows and consignments), charity work, and family (My daughter is now a teen and looking at schools), It's hard to check in on the boards and get sucked into reading and participating in all the threads :( The nice thing is that I get to see so many board members at the conventions, that I still feel like part of these boards.

Peace,

-Steve

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Doc McCoy

Doc McCoy

Posted
Posted
Very interesting thread, and I'm certain more details will be revealed but I'm very curious as to Mr. Plastino's contention that he donated the artwork.

 

Superman #170 was published in 1964, which is well before DC initiated their art returns policy so was it really Mr. Plastino's art (ownership implied) to donate or was it (ownership) DC's?

 

If I recall, I read of only one artist striking a deal with a publisher for the return of their original artwork from that 1950's/1960's. Otherwise, the artwork was owned by the publisher.

 

Correct? (shrug)

 

That's what I'm thinking. It was work for hire, and at that point in history art was considered property of the company. If anyone should complain, I would think it would be DC- unless the art was gifted to Al by the editor, and he in turn gifted it to the museum.

 

 

 

 

Also quite possible that the entire donation was simply hyperbole and an attempt to garner some good press at the time by DC. Or they could have actually intended to donate it and someone walked out of the office with it, which happened a lot in those days, and the editor could have just assumed it had been destroyed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
innocuous

innocuous

Posted
Posted
Also quite possible that the entire donation was simply hyperbole and an attempt to garner some good press at the time by DC. Or they could have actually intended to donate it and someone walked out of the office with it, which happened a lot in those days, and the editor could have just assumed it had been destroyed.
Also quite possible that Al thought that the art has been at Harvard for almost 50 years, since 1964.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
jick

jick

Posted
Posted

I think this has parallel's with the story of the stolen Action Comics #1 of Nicolas Cage. I don't remember the story well, but Cage wanted to get it back but couldn't because the insurance already compensated him for it ...or something to that effect. I am not really sure.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bronty

Bronty

Posted
Posted
Wow, so the Sotheby's sale created a BFP for value and all owners from that time take title free and clear of any claim.

 

 

Chris,

 

Do you mind expanding on this ? I just find it interesting :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
malvin

malvin

Posted
Posted
Wow, so the Sotheby's sale created a BFP for value and all owners from that time take title free and clear of any claim.

 

 

Chris,

 

Do you mind expanding on this ? I just find it interesting :)

 

I found it interesting too and I use an even greater power of knowledge than Chris, google! :P

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bona_fide_purchaser

 

Short answer, the Sotheby's sale gives the purchaser legal ownership of it.

 

Malvin

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Go to topic listing