Plastino seeking identity of owner of a piece of his original art

[bronze johnny]

Interesting situation:

 

http://nypost.com/2013/11/19/dying-comic-artist-asks-court-to-id-owner-of-his-jfk-masterpiece/

 

 

[Mark 1]

I saw that OA at NYCC and impressive is an understatement for his work.

 

It's a shame it never reached Harvard but honestly isn't this an issue DC should have with the art?

 

I don't see how Al has any claim to the art as it wasn't his to begin with...

 

I feel for the guy as he is reaching the end but I'm not sure this is the way he would want to be remembered if he really looked at this objectively.

 

 

[jaeldubyoo]

I feel for the guy as he is reaching the end but I'm not sure this is the way he would want to be remembered if he really looked at this objectively.

 

 

Remembered as what? He's the artist. the person who created the art. Doesn't he have the right to know what happened to his creation? I think that he wants to ensure his legacy.

[comix4fun]

I feel for the guy as he is reaching the end but I'm not sure this is the way he would want to be remembered if he really looked at this objectively.

 

 

Remembered as what? He's the artist. the person who created the art. Doesn't he have the right to know what happened to his creation? I think that he wants to ensure his legacy.

 

 

Yes and no.

 

The artwork sold at public auction 20 years ago for a relatively small amount of money, no one came forward worried about ensuring legacies.

 

Now that the artwork was seen at NYCC with a $20k price tag (which I believe was an estimate of value for the entire story, not per page estimated value) and the assumption was made it was $200,000 in value, there is concern.

 

I think that's where people are forming their opinions regarding goal and intent.

[joecgcmaniac]

I feel for the guy as he is reaching the end but I'm not sure this is the way he would want to be remembered if he really looked at this objectively.

 

 

Remembered as what? He's the artist. the person who created the art. Doesn't he have the right to know what happened to his creation? I think that he wants to ensure his legacy.

 

Why should he have a right to know what happened to the art? The buyer bought it at auction 20 years ago, The artist gave up his claim to it a long time ago.

[jaybuck43]

Also saw this at NYCC (gotta dig around for that SD card as I am pretty sure I have pictures of it) and as Comix4fun said my understanding was that the estimate was 20k for the full story (it even shows that in the picture he is holding of it)

 

[jaybuck43]

We don't even know if it made it to Harvard. The story goes that the editors at DC promised that it would be donated. That doesn't mean that they did or that it was devalued. One of those editors may have been the one who put it up at Sotherby's back in 1993.

[Dr. Balls]

Why should he have a right to know what happened to the art? The buyer bought it at auction 20 years ago, The artist gave up his claim to it a long time ago.

 

I think he's trying to trace back the steps from now until when it had gone missing/not showed up at Harvard. I don't think he has a right to know, but it would probably be nice to let him get some closure on this. Of course, as comic artists are concerned, no one is likely to give two turds about his feelings when it comes to a $20k piece of art.

[Dr. Balls]

We don't even know if it made it to Harvard. The story goes that the editors at DC promised that it would be donated. That doesn't mean that they did or that it was devalued. One of those editors may have been the one who put it up at Sotherby's back in 1993.

 

Very true. A follow up call to Harvard after delivery could have pinpointed problems - now, the true story is lost to time.

[TheGeneral]

Link to OA thread:

 

http://boards.collectors-society.com/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=7117552#Post7117552

[comicwiz]

I feel for the guy as he is reaching the end but I'm not sure this is the way he would want to be remembered if he really looked at this objectively.

 

 

Remembered as what? He's the artist. the person who created the art. Doesn't he have the right to know what happened to his creation? I think that he wants to ensure his legacy.

 

 

Yes and no.

 

The artwork sold at public auction 20 years ago for a relatively small amount of money, no one came forward worried about ensuring legacies.

 

Now that the artwork was seen at NYCC with a $20k price tag (which I believe was an estimate of value for the entire story, not per page estimated value) and the assumption was made it was $200,000 in value, there is concern.

 

I think that's where people are forming their opinions regarding goal and intent.

 

If Plastino himself put the piece up for auction, then I could see this as being one way to couch the situation, but the artists account is that the artwork was stolen.

 

That sale 20 years ago should not have happened, and it should have been in the JFK Presidential Memorial Library and Museum, not in private hands.

[comix4fun]

Interesting situation:

 

http://nypost.com/2013/11/19/dying-comic-artist-asks-court-to-id-owner-of-his-jfk-masterpiece/

 

 

 

Good Lord...who wrote this fricken' article?

 

It's filled with inaccuracies. The biggest one is the one that is the driver of all of this, imho.

 

The artwork was scheduled for sale by Heritage Auctions at a starting bid of $200,000

 

No they weren't Heritage doesn't have starting bids at more than $1.

 

Plastino, who was recently hospitalized for prostrate cancer,

 

Honestly? Really? This isn't "Billy Bob's Blog" it's a major newspaper for Pete's sake. "Prostrate"?? With a straight face?

 

 

If finding out why the pages didn't get to the Kennedy Library is the goal then Heritage is 1000% the wrong party to ask. Sotheby's should be the subject being that they would have consignor information as to who sold the art through them all those years ago and would allow the parties to track it's movements from that point which gets them much closer to the point at which they didn't go to the Kennedy Library.

[joecgcmaniac]

I feel for the guy as he is reaching the end but I'm not sure this is the way he would want to be remembered if he really looked at this objectively.

 

 

Remembered as what? He's the artist. the person who created the art. Doesn't he have the right to know what happened to his creation? I think that he wants to ensure his legacy.

 

 

Yes and no.

 

The artwork sold at public auction 20 years ago for a relatively small amount of money, no one came forward worried about ensuring legacies.

 

Now that the artwork was seen at NYCC with a $20k price tag (which I believe was an estimate of value for the entire story, not per page estimated value) and the assumption was made it was $200,000 in value, there is concern.

 

I think that's where people are forming their opinions regarding goal and intent.

 

If Plastino himself put the piece up for auction, then I could see this as being one way to couch the situation, but it also sounds like the artwork was stolen.

 

That sale 20 years ago should not have happened, and it should have been in the JFK Presidential Memorial Library and Museum, not in private hands.

 

All assumptions. If the DC editors never got around to sending it to Harvard, then years later sold it to Sotheby's for the auction, then it was never stolen. If this is what happened, then it was a legal transaction, and the artist had no claim to it later on. Like was said earlier, why didn't he follow up with DC and Harvard to make sure it was properly donated? Instead, he trusted a comic company not to screw an artist. That sure worked for Jack Kirby and others, didn't it?

[Dr. Balls]

All assumptions. If the DC editors never got around to sending it to Harvard, then years later sold it to Sotheby's for the auction, then it was never stolen. If this is what happened, then it was a legal transaction, and the artist had no claim to it later on. Like was said earlier, why didn't he follow up with DC and Harvard to make sure it was properly donated? Instead, he trusted a comic company not to screw an artist. That sure worked for Jack Kirby and others, didn't it?

 

+1

[comix4fun]

I feel for the guy as he is reaching the end but I'm not sure this is the way he would want to be remembered if he really looked at this objectively.

 

 

Remembered as what? He's the artist. the person who created the art. Doesn't he have the right to know what happened to his creation? I think that he wants to ensure his legacy.

 

 

Yes and no.

 

The artwork sold at public auction 20 years ago for a relatively small amount of money, no one came forward worried about ensuring legacies.

 

Now that the artwork was seen at NYCC with a $20k price tag (which I believe was an estimate of value for the entire story, not per page estimated value) and the assumption was made it was $200,000 in value, there is concern.

 

I think that's where people are forming their opinions regarding goal and intent.

 

If Plastino himself put the piece up for auction, then I could see this as being one way to couch the situation, but the artists account is that the artwork was stolen.

 

That sale 20 years ago should not have happened, and it should have been in the JFK Presidential Memorial Library and Museum, not in private hands.

 

 

The artist never had the artwork in his possession after it was created. It was at a time when DC comics held ownership and retained all artwork to the published books. They, and only they, had legal standing to keep, donate, sell, destroy or otherwise manage the artwork in question.

 

Being that there were TWO Kennedy stories, one by Swan and one by Plastino, it's unclear which one was being donated and when. The decisions to do so were done by DC and not by the artists who had no claim to the artwork at that time. So the creators had no idea what really happened and which artwork went where and when.

 

The sale 20 years ago not only happened, but happened in a very public way, and created a bonafide purchaser for value. That's why the sale was significant given what's being attempted now. It's horrible that what he thought happened didn't happen, but DC is the only one with real standing to get these answers and should be doing that on his behalf. That's especially true given the potential existence of two different Kennedy stories by two artists, and the status of work for hire in 1964.

 

Also asking Heritage who bought the pages from Sotheby's in 1992, which leads into who consigned them to Sotheby's, is the least effective and direct way to answer those questions.

[Pirate]

too much lawyer talk, wonder what fingh's take is on this?

[comicwiz]

]If finding out why the pages didn't get to the Kennedy Library is the goal then Heritage is 1000% the wrong party to ask.[/b] Sotheby's should be the subject being that they would have consignor information as to who sold the art through them all those years ago and would allow the parties to track it's movements from that point which gets them much closer to the point at which they didn't go to the Kennedy Library.

 

Maybe, but this isn't the first time Heritage got caught for selling something it shouldn't have sold (see Mongolian Fossil and Tarbosaurus skeleton). At what point does a venue where these items are appearing/selling need to own up to the fact they don't seem to be doing the necessary due diligence to ensure they aren't embroiled in such complicated, bad PR, type situations?

 

The story doesn't read as an artist with dollar signs in his eyes, but of a dying artist whose last wish is to recover the artwork which had not reached it's intended destination.

 

Regardless of who made the decision to donate the work, the artists wish is to have the work returned to the JFK Library & Museum. Anything less, and the bad press will only reinforce the law breaking trend palentelogists/historians have been up in arms about since the Tarbosaurus was sold in May of last year.

[Mark 1]

For the "measly" sum of $20,000...DC should step up and buy it and donate it as it was intended. They have enough money to do that.

 

Sure would be some nice PR for a company that is sucking wind.

 

 

[joecgcmaniac]

]If finding out why the pages didn't get to the Kennedy Library is the goal then Heritage is 1000% the wrong party to ask.[/b] Sotheby's should be the subject being that they would have consignor information as to who sold the art through them all those years ago and would allow the parties to track it's movements from that point which gets them much closer to the point at which they didn't go to the Kennedy Library.

 

Maybe, but this isn't the first time Heritage got caught for selling something it shouldn't have sold (see Mongolian Fossil and Tarbosaurus skeleton). At what point does a venue where these items are appearing/sold need to own up to the fact they aren't always doing the necessary due diligence to ensure they aren't embroiled in such complicated, bad PR, type situations?

 

The story doesn't read as an artist with dollar signs in his eyes, but of a dying artist whose last wish is to recover the artwork which had not reached it's intended destination.

 

Regardless of who made the decision to donate the work, the artists wish is to have the work returned to the JFK Library & Museum. Anything less, and the bad press will only reinforce the law breaking trend palentelogists/historians have been up in arms about since the Tarbosaurus was sold in May of last year.

 

Who is to say that Heritage didn't do their due diligence? If DC did indeed sell the artwork to Sotheby's then it was a perfectly legal transaction, and any and all sales after that would also be in the clear. It may be the artist's wish for the artwork to go to the museum, but as was pointed out earlier, DC owned the rights to the art, not him.

 

Like Heritage cares about "bad press".

[comix4fun]

]If finding out why the pages didn't get to the Kennedy Library is the goal then Heritage is 1000% the wrong party to ask.[/b] Sotheby's should be the subject being that they would have consignor information as to who sold the art through them all those years ago and would allow the parties to track it's movements from that point which gets them much closer to the point at which they didn't go to the Kennedy Library.

 

Maybe, but this isn't the first time Heritage got caught for selling something it shouldn't have sold (see Mongolian Fossil and Tarbosaurus skeleton). At what point does a venue where these items are appearing/selling need to own up to the fact they don't seem to be doing the necessary due diligence to ensure they aren't embroiled in such complicated, bad PR, type situations?

 

The story doesn't read as an artist with dollar signs in his eyes, but of a dying artist whose last wish is to recover the artwork which had not reached it's intended destination.

 

Regardless of who made the decision to donate the work, the artists wish is to have the work returned to the JFK Library & Museum. Anything less, and the bad press will only reinforce the law breaking trend palentelogists/historians have been up in arms about since the Tarbosaurus was sold in May of last year.

 

 

Of course the story reads that way, it was intended to read that way. However, given the recent discoveries by Mr. Plastino about what someone was asking for his signature on Ebay and his response to that discovery it's not a stretch to connect the dots in a common sense way that isn't laid out in that horribly written article.

 

And Heritage was provided with proof that the artwork was obtained through public auction, without objection 2 decades ago. Legally, that's as good a title as you are going to find. Due diligence was more than satisfied in this instance. They aren't required to call every artist of every piece of art they sell and get their permission to sell and ask if there are any regrets on their part. They went well over and above what's legally required of them by pulling the pages from the sale.