New podcast/video from Felix Comic Art (UPDATED 1/3/17!) 6 6

[Chris K.]

Hey Mike (formerly Xatar) - you are correct, I am mistaken. My initial comment was meant for cbaileypacker (I'm guessing there is a real name in there somewhere). Apologies for that - got my wires crossed. 

[Xatari]

It happens.  No harm done.  I think cbaileypacker pasted the email solicitations for readers to draw their own conclusion at the request of Nexus requesting examples of new character art being solicited for tens of thousands of dollars.  

[comix4fun]

On 6/23/2022 at 9:26 PM, Xatari said:

Hi Ron,

I don’t think anyone is taking shots at a rep or dealer.

Do you mean except for the post accusing Felix of selling items through false advertising which is actually a crime under federal law?

That seems like it might be "taking a shot". 

[Xatari]

On 6/23/2022 at 5:27 PM, comix4fun said:

Do you mean except for the post accusing Felix of selling items through false advertising which is actually a crime under federal law?

That seems like it might be "taking a shot". 

I think this was cleared up by Nexus/Felix above.  The piece was advertised and sold as the first appearance of this character though the amalgamation of Miles and Venom ("Kill-something"... I forget the name) had appeared in several published instances prior (in terms of the series).  Nexus/Felix mentioned the piece in question was actually used in a promotional advertisement, not comic setting prior to those instances.  I guess that would ultimately depend on the collector's interpretation of what constitutes a "first appearance" piece. 

Tangential, but this reminds me a bit of the nuance comic collectors discuss regarding Miles Morales with Ultimate Fallout 4 vs Marvel Preview 95.  Does an advertisement count as a first appearance? Really open to the interpretation of a collectors.  Did the new X-Men team first appear in Giant-Size X-Men #1 or Foom #10.  Another example of the same situation.  Most collectors I've seen tend to side wtih GSXM1 given it is the published series, not an advertisement.

Edited June 24, 2022 by Xatari

[comix4fun]

On 6/23/2022 at 10:18 PM, Xatari said:

It happens.  No harm done.  I think cbaileypacker pasted the email solicitations for readers to draw their own conclusion at the request of Nexus requesting examples of new character art being solicited for tens of thousands of dollars.  

On 6/23/2022 at 11:19 AM, cbaileypacker said:

  The sales you generate for your clients are the best in the game, but you are also THE UNDISPUTED KING of modern pump and dump, FOMO (fear of missing out) sales, and 1st appearance hype! 

 

You pump and dumped Venom 25 "Virus and Future Venom" as the next big thing for 25K(?).  It was Just Dylan and Scorpion in different suits. This sale is the NUMBER ONE example within the hobby of "don't believe the hype, could just be another Virus rope-a dope" when it comes to overpriced 1st appearance art sales.

 

You pump and dumped Dark Ages Miles Carnage/Venom as a "1st appearance" for 12K(?),  when the character was on the cover of issue 2 , five issues earlier. 

If I was the buyer I would think a refund would be in order for false advertising.  Not even close to a 1st appearance, more like 14/15th(?) with interior appearances prior as well. ( not gonna mention the Hulk FCBD hype, as I am also the buyer of that hype😎 )

 

You pumped and dumped Titan as the next big thing for 30K! This is like the 17th different Hulk we have gotten, so maybe? but the track record is not looking good.

 

Again, all praise due to you for transforming the modern art market into record breaking sales for your artists, but you did it being THE pump and dump 1st appearances and modern FOMO hype KING! 

 

 

Seems like he drew a whole lot of conclusions.

Accusations of "false advertising" levied against Felix which is, as I mentioned, a federal crime under the fraud category.

And no less than five full-throated unequivocal accusations of Felix "pumping and dumping", being the "KING of pump and dump", etc. not leaving much room for people to "draw their own conclusions".
For the record...This is what he stated, outright, @Nexuswas guilty of: 

 

Accusations of fraud in the context of these posts might be some of the most reckless posting I've seen on this forum in my near 20 years here. 

[Xatari]

If you listened to the podcast, this is the terminology that was used for first appearance collectors with the rare exception.  Again the bigger point is, perhaps no one should be negatively commenting about the sales practices of others.  In doing so, they subjugate themselves to the same litmus test.

[comix4fun]

On 6/23/2022 at 10:42 PM, Xatari said:

If you listened to the podcast, this is the terminology that was used for first appearance collectors with the rare exception.  Again the bigger point is, perhaps no one should be negatively commenting about the sales practices of others.  In doing so, they subjugate themselves to the same litmus test.

I listened to the podcast. There was a lot of defense of collecting how one likes, but to be upfront if it's a business proposition or a "grail" "love" "nostalgia" proposition. For those around the hobby for too long we've seen all the permutations of collectors and dealers and all the colors of the rainbow in between. All are accepted as long as they aren't one while projecting another.

Listening to that podcast closely, it didn't accuse anyone particularly or specifically of anything. There were some broad comments about how some types of collectors are perceived in general, or how some sales practices might be perceived within the hobby, but there was no point by point, piece by piece, person by person, accusation of fraud as we've had in this comment thread. That's not just a difference it's a prime material difference. 

I don't think the lesson to be learned is "don't comment about anyone's sales practices". Commenting about the sales practices of others is not the problem. Accusing someone personally and professionally of fraud, by name, and in an open forum, without the facts and evidence to back it up is. Someone stating a conclusion first regarding behavior and then stating it's just asking a question or letting people decide for themselves seems disingenuous, aside from being counter to the actual wording of the post in question. 

On 6/23/2022 at 10:38 PM, Xatari said:

I think this was cleared up by Nexus/Felix above. 

For this to be "cleared up" we'd need a retraction and apology from the person who posted his assumptions that formed the original unfounded allegation. I looked back and didn't see that.
 

[Nexus]

On 6/23/2022 at 6:01 PM, Xatari said:

Agreed. I don’t think that was the point of the post above. I do believe if someone is going to speak publicly about any seller whether rep, dealer, collector, reseller, etc. they should expect the same standard be applied to them. Seems fair.

We can’t keep blaming new collectors for hype and price increases if we are guilty of the same practices. 

Absolutely. What's good for the goose is good for the gander. 

Except *I* didn't say anyone "pumped and dumped". That was Dave. Listen again. You're ascribing what he said to me. 

Regardless, no one's blaming new collectors for price increases or hype or whatever. I sell to a lot of new collectors. The vast majority of them do not care about first appearances. They're into art from books they enjoy, artists they follow on social media, etc. They're into commissions. They are not investors. 

Perhaps there's small distinction between "investor" and your traditional garden variety speculator or flipper. But what they have in common is a primary interest in profit potential. From new collectors, I mostly hear how they love a certain artist or book. From an investor, it's usually about how a new character might fit into the MCU. 

We all know the investor when we see them. Telling then, who took immediate offense when they heard what Dave said.

Edited June 24, 2022 by Nexus

[Xatari]

I’m not sure anyone has taken offense to be fair. I also didn’t see anyone write specifically you said these things but certainly were part of the conversation between two people.   

While I don’t sell my art, I also do not have a problem with someone who does. Collector, investor, flipper, rep, dealer. If someone chooses to spend their money, take the risk of ownership, and make a profit, good for them. It’s not my business. 

Felix, do you have a problem with someone who sells art for profit?

 

Edited for punctuation. 

Edited June 24, 2022 by Xatari

[Nexus]

On 6/24/2022 at 1:44 AM, Xatari said:

Felix, do you have a problem with someone who sells art for profit?

Depends. Depends if it’s a dealer or a dealer who pretends to be a collector. 

[Xatari]

I guess I don’t see dealers and collectors as mutually exclusive. You, yourself are both. There is no judgment in that. 

[Bronty]

I think that distinction is pretty 1980s too to be honest.     Ie from a time when there was a much harder line between collector and dealer.    
Blazing bob made this point in the past.    with the ease of selling today, there are really no dealers and collectors per se because there are no barriers to entry besides calling up heritage and sending them a package.   All we really have today are buyers and sellers .   The point can be argued to say as Felix did primary interest in profit is the separation but it’s such a slippery slope and with so few people truly 100%  in either camp that you have to just throw it all out IMO.   

Edited June 24, 2022 by Bronty

[comix4fun]

On 6/24/2022 at 7:59 AM, Bronty said:

I think that distinction is pretty 1980s too to be honest.     Ie from a time when there was a much harder line between collector and dealer.    
Blazing bob made this point in the past.    with the ease of selling today, there are really no dealers and collectors per se because there are no barriers to entry besides calling up heritage and sending them a package.   All we really have today are buyers and sellers .   The point can be argued to say as Felix did primary interest in profit is the separation but it’s such a slippery slope and with so few people truly 100%  in either camp that you have to just throw it all out IMO.   

I think if you're solely focused on transaction or no transaction to define "dealer" or "seller" then you'd have to throw it out...however...

The "ease of selling" has been around for over 25 years at this point with eBay and nearly 20 years with CAF, the discussion as I've read it isn't around the question "do you buy art then lock it in a hole never to be seen again until your estate sale?" it's much much MUCH more focused on "who do you hold yourself out to be? and who are you REALLY?" 

The myriad of tales in this hobby (all hobbies really, but let's stay in OA for a minute) of people chatting up the owner of a piece of artwork, trying to pry it from their grasp, and using some combination or variation on "It's my grail", "I've wanted this forever", "I've been searching for so long for a piece like this", "I'll cherish it", "This piece reminds me so much of my dear departed (insert: mother, father, brother, childhood pet's name here)" or the always classic "I want to hang it up in my new child's nursery" *.  I don't doubt most people in the hobby for a while have heard some or all of these at one point or another.

But were those words true, any of them, when spoken?  

Were they a ploy to massage sympathy, break down reluctance to sell, or garner a discount, or were they are simply tools in the toolbox to increase inventory, assets and profits, for a pseudo-dealer/closet-dealer/sociopath seeking to maintain their "Cloak of Collector Credibility"?

No one has a problem with a crystal clear, make no bones about it, here's my business card and my resale certificate, DEALER. 

People have even less of a problem with a honest to goodness, totally NOT a dealer, Artist's Representative who does not own the artwork he is helping to sell and the lion's share of the proceeds go to the actually creator of the work being sold. Representatives aren't seeking out artwork to buy and flip, and thus can never be accused of using less than earnest means to separate artwork from its owner under false pretenses. 

People, rightly, have HUGE problems with people being surreptitious about their true motives, or those that couch themselves as "super fan" or "life long collector" who would speak one those phrases in bold above with the full knowledge it's entirely bullcrap. That's the "dealer who pretends to be a collector" @Nexus is referring to, and they've been around since the dawn of the hobby. Why? Because it gains them access, they believe, behind the defenses that most people put up when they know they're transacting with someone looking at them and judging them by their profit potential only. 

Buy what you want, sell what you want, we're all free to do that. No one, however is free to mislead or be dishonest about true motivations or intentions in order to secure a deal. I think we all agree on that, and THAT is the distinction between a "dealer" and "dealer who pretends to be a collector"...or more to the point an honest person and a dishonest person. That's the distinction Felix is drawing and anyone who's spent some time in this hobby has heard or come in contact with a friend who's heard at least a few of those sales pitches above. 


* The "hang it in my child's nursery" has been used more than once.. in one of those situations, can you imagine the previous owner's shock to see it on a show dealer's wall 2 months later?

Edited June 24, 2022 by comix4fun

[Bronty]

On 6/24/2022 at 9:57 AM, comix4fun said:

I think if you're solely focused on transaction or no transaction to define "dealer" or "seller" then you'd have to throw it out...however...

The "ease of selling" has been around for over 25 years at this point with eBay and nearly 20 years with CAF, the discussion as I've read it isn't around the question "do you buy art then lock it in a hole never to be seen again until your estate sale?" it's much much MUCH more focused on "who do you hold yourself out to be? and who are you REALLY?" 

The myriad of tales in this hobby (all hobbies really, but let's stay in OA for a minute) of people chatting up the owner of a piece of artwork, trying to pry it from their grasp, and using some combination or variation on "It's my grail", "I've wanted this forever", "I've been searching for so long for a piece like this", "I'll cherish it", "This piece reminds me so much of my dear departed (insert: mother, father, brother, childhood pet's name here)" or the always classic "I want to hang it up in my new child's nursery" *.  I don't doubt most people in the hobby for a while have heard some or all of these at one point or another.

But were those words true, any of them, when spoken?  

Were they a ploy to massage sympathy, break down reluctance to sell, or garner a discount or if they are simply tools in the toolbox to increase inventory, assets and profits, for a pseudo-dealer/closet-dealer/sociopath seeking to maintain their "Cloak of Collector Credibility"?

No one has a problem with a crystal clear, make no bones about it, here's my business card and my resale certificate, DEALER. 

People have even less of a problem with a honest to goodness, totally NOT a dealer, Artist's Representative who does not own the artwork he is helping to sell and the lion's share of the proceeds go to the actually creator of the work being sold. Representatives aren't seeking out artwork to buy and flip, and thus can never be accused of using less than earnest means to separate artwork from its owner under false pretenses. 

People, rightly, have HUGE problems with people being surreptitious about their true motives, or those that couch themselves as "super fan" or "life long collector" who would speak one those phrases in bold above with the full knowledge it's entirely bullcrap. That's the "dealer who pretends to be a collector" @Nexus is referring to, and they've been around since the dawn of the hobby. Why? Because it gains them access, they believe, behind the defenses that most people put up when they know they're transacting with someone looking at them and judging them by their profit potential only. 

Buy what you want, sell what you want, we're all free to do that. No one, however is free to mislead or be dishonest about true motivations or intentions in order to secure a deal. I think we all agree on that, and THAT is the distinction between a "dealer" and "dealer who pretends to be a collector"...or more to the point an honest person and a dishonest person. That's the distinction Felix is drawing and anyone who's spent some time in this hobby has heard or come in contact with a friend who's heard at least a few of those sales pitches above. 


* The "hang it in my child's nursery" has been used more than once.. in one of those situations, can you imagine the previous owner's shock to see it on a show dealer's wall 2 months later?

Sure, no one likes the false motives.    And calling that out I totally get, but its been going on a long time, nothing new, just the stakes are higher perhaps. 

To me that's exactly why you just have "buyers" and "sellers" - because a lot of people out there are full of BS.   (both buyers and sellers...).

[comix4fun]

On 6/24/2022 at 9:11 AM, Bronty said:

Sure, no one likes the false motives.    And calling that out I totally get, but its been going on a long time, nothing new, just the stakes are higher perhaps. 

To me that's exactly why you just have "buyers" and "sellers" - because a lot of people out there are full of BS.   (both buyers and sellers...).

Right, I just wanted to correct the parameters. It's honest or dishonest and not "do you keep everything". 

[vodou]

On 6/24/2022 at 10:18 AM, comix4fun said:

It's honest or dishonest and not "do you keep everything". 

Perfect.

The difference between honest and dishonest takes primacy in my mind, every time, and regardless of "who" the subject in question is.

Being committed to intellectual honesty at all times, I cut no breaks based on "who", not for friends or those with whom it would somehow be otherwise advantageous to not cross swords with. There is honest and dishonest, and actions always speak louder than words, especially half-hearted and unconvincing apologies after the fact.

Thank you for bringing this, the core matter of distinction, to the fore - honest or dishonest.

Thanks for these also:

On 6/24/2022 at 9:57 AM, comix4fun said:

No one, however is free to mislead or be dishonest about true motivations or intentions in order to secure a deal.

On 6/24/2022 at 9:57 AM, comix4fun said:

...dealer/sociopath

On 6/24/2022 at 9:57 AM, comix4fun said:

...here's my business card and my resale certificate, DEALER. 

I agree, completely.

And now I'll ask - another burning question for so many still: Is it honest or dishonest for anyone (resale certificate bearing DEALER or not) to ringlead a regular, ongoing, and publicly admitted to shilling operation?

[artdealer]

On 6/24/2022 at 2:11 AM, Nexus said:

Depends. Depends if it’s a dealer or a dealer who pretends to be a collector. 

But how do you know when to draw the line?

A lot of collectors are amateur dealers. 

[J.Sid]

On 6/24/2022 at 8:03 AM, vodou said:

And now I'll ask - another burning question for so many still: Is it honest or dishonest for anyone (resale certificate bearing DEALER or not) to ringlead a regular, ongoing, and publicly admitted to shilling operation?

Dishonest, of course.

Multiple public auction results of items which "slipped through the cracks" would (and rightfully should) discourage some of the insane bidding we have seen the past 20 years.

Instead, the truth is obscured.

[Hockeyflow33]

I'm glad to know I'm not the only one who eye rolls when I see new art posted on CAF with the title "first appearance of character no one remembers"

[Nexus]

On 6/24/2022 at 11:50 AM, artdealer said:

But how do you know when to draw the line?

A lot of collectors are amateur dealers. 

Sorry, been playing catch-up since Heroes, so haven't had a chance to answer this.

Comix4fun pretty well lays it all out. Or as another friend puts it, dealers who REALLY don't want anyone to think of them as dealers, in order to preserve their phony amateur status. But there's also a specific example I can think of: Many years ago, there was a high-profile collector who would ingratiate himself with other collectors, especially new collectors. He'd very freely offer his advice on what pieces they should buy. The art would usually be with a dealer. How generous of this guy to share his experience and knowledge and advice, right? From one collector to another?

Except this guy was the consignor of that art with the dealer. It was his art being sold through a dealer proxy. Which he never disclosed.

When I called him out on it, he lied as he does. The dealer then lied to back up this lie. It's actually a thread here on the boards, if someone wants to dig it up.

I don't like this guy. He apparently goes around saying now that I don't like him because I "don't like other people selling art for a profit". Which is total nonsense. I couldn't care less what people sell their art for. I just don't like people who do stuff like the above. Which I'll add is just one example in a long list of hobby horror stories.

So if you ask me where I draw the line, it's right up to that guy.

I'll be at SDCC in two weeks and happy to chat with anyone about any of this if they want!