To post or not to post on CAF

[staffman]

.

All that said, I dig that JRJR DD page and would be happy to take it off your hands.

 

Amazingly I have had people inquire about that piece the most out of all of my collection. I even got an offer for it through HA where I won it. The DD piece will stick with me for a while, but hey if anyone wants to make $$$ offers I certainly will hear them.

[staffman]

It doesn't bother me, personally, to receive enquiries on CAF art I've deemed NFS. I've been known to cave-in if made worthwhile offers, so it has worked to my advantage numerous times.

 

See, this is why I don't list a few of my pieces. I don't want to sell them and I don't trust myself to be able to decline a silly offer. I have a bad track record of weakness when confronted by too many dollar signs

 

I also do a double take when people inquire about buying a piece in my collection. The money can get awfully tempting especially since I am trying to be good and have put myself on "if you buy a piece then you need to sell a piece" path to keep my budget in check.

[Terry Doyle]

I once had Keif Fromm (a mutually disliked name between myself and Mitch Itkowitz . . . and probably others)

 

Probably?

 

 

Okay, many others!

 

Rumour has it, ol' Keif isn't too popular with shop-owners, either.

 

 

The tend to not like it when customers determine when there's a "buy none, get one free" promotion.

 

You guys are going to have to point me to some of these Keif Fromm "deals". Nothing like getting a request and then told it's not worth what you think it should be....

 

Best not to dwell on life's unhappy experiences . . .

[chrisco37]

I like being able to view my collection no mater where I am and it's fun to see other peoples' work. I receive offers now and then, but just ignore. Once I did actually sell a piece based on an offer and the price was fair. I've also gotten back to people 1-2 years after their request, although those deals have never worked out.

 

I'd like to make offers on certain NFS pieces I see on CAF, but have been shy to do so because I don't want to bother people. From what I've heard here maybe I should try. Often you can guess from the write up the owner has included whether or not the piece is really important to them.

 

Mike

 

Every piece I've sold via CAF was marked NFS.

[JadeGiant]

Wow, I was planning to start an thread with this exact topic.

 

I haven’t checked, but I think my CAF is somewhere between 1/3 and 1/2 of my collection so it would probably look like I am an art hider (no insinuation if that is a good/bad thing – just a thing). Not the case, I will admit that I fall into the lazy, don’t have a scanner, don’t want poor images online, don’t want people to ink/make prints, etc. category. As such, I have always planned to get a scanner and do a mass update (see lazy comment). Along the way I have started to wonder why so many people choose to keep art offline (be it all or some) and pondering the concept that I might be missing a really good reason it is done as frequently as it is.

 

Here are reasons I have heard (and my way of addressing):

 

Lazy – just do it

Scanner – just buy it

Protecting the art from hacks – just watermark it

Dealing with unwanted offers – just ignore it

 

A primary reason that I can’t land on a good response is the freshness factor (I want to make a bad pun about storing it in a Ziploc …). For those that believe this, care to expound? How does this work? I would think the exposure of having a piece online for a long time would balance against holding back art and then publishing it in an attempt to create a perceived scarcity (if that is the logic). Is this akin to the “only available for a short time ….” posts (I know these are sometimes legit and not just a ploy)?

 

Another reason might be humility. Far from the norm in the hobby I think some are genuinely humble folk. I recently exchanged emails with a fellow CAFer and member here and he shared a magnificent piece of Hulk history that falls into the category above (once public but no longer). His reason was to not appear as bragging about the art. I found this both shocking and refreshing and I can definitely relate. It caused me to think if this applies to me and while I do not own any art that would cause the cabal/those behind the curtain/hollywood art partiers to take a second look, I do get a bit embarrassed to share a recent score if it is a significant piece to me in terms of my normal budget or my perceived significance of the piece.

 

 

Sidebar: I love art and really appreciate those that have really nice art collections and display them as I believe art is meant to be shared and enjoyed. This will cause me to eventually get the rest of my meager collection online (I have friends that mercilessly give me grief about it). I have to think that there is so much art out there that is not online anywhere and would love to see this changed. Even if done anonymously to avoid all the reasons above. I have started saving down Hulk art locally just so that I can look at it and appreciate it as I have gone looking for art that I knew I had seen online that was no longer posted. I won’t post it, but it is nice to be able to look at.

 

 

Great topic – anxious to see where it goes.

 

[Solar]

Well, yes, there are those with no will-power!

 

You have to know your weaknesses!

[Terry Doyle]

Well, yes, there are those with no will-power!

 

You have to know your weaknesses!

 

Alcohol . . .

[suspense39]

Well, yes, there are those with no will-power!

 

You have to know your weaknesses!

 

Alcohol . . .

 

!

[Solar]

Well, yes, there are those with no will-power!

 

You have to know your weaknesses!

 

Alcohol . . .

 

[Matches_Malone]

I once had Keif Fromm (a mutually disliked name between myself and Mitch Itkowitz . . . and probably others) approach me over wanting to buy my Ditko Captain Atom 80 cover. Told him (at the time) it wasn't for sale, but his e-mail enquiry was still attached to the thumbnail on my CAF. Some years later, I was toying with the idea of releasing it, so I reminded Keif of his enquiry and told him I might now consider selling it. Response I received went into a long spiel of why I shouldn't expect too high an offer on the cover . . . at which point I told Keiff to forget it.

 

So, yeah, you'll also get the low-ball offers, but you quickly learn to develop a thick-skin.

Man, but ask KF for a price on something from his collection and you get a number resembling the national debt.

 

ALL CAPS.

[alxjhnsn]

I like being able to review my art easily (though it is on my phone, too).

 

I like to see art from others on the CAF.

 

I don't recall ever having a offer on anything that I own and have posted. That doesn't surprise me much given what I like.

 

 

 

 

[glendgold]

I once had Keif Fromm (a mutually disliked name between myself and Mitch Itkowitz . . . and probably others) approach me over wanting to buy my Ditko Captain Atom 80 cover. Told him (at the time) it wasn't for sale, but his e-mail enquiry was still attached to the thumbnail on my CAF. Some years later, I was toying with the idea of releasing it, so I reminded Keif of his enquiry and told him I might now consider selling it. Response I received went into a long spiel of why I shouldn't expect too high an offer on the cover . . . at which point I told Keiff to forget it.

 

So, yeah, you'll also get the low-ball offers, but you quickly learn to develop a thick-skin.

Man, but ask KF for a price on something from his collection and you get a number resembling the national debt.

 

ALL CAPS.

 

With your name in the email used 47 times as a macro, with the remains of one non-printing character stuck to the first letter.

[comix4fun]

I once had Keif Fromm (a mutually disliked name between myself and Mitch Itkowitz . . . and probably others) approach me over wanting to buy my Ditko Captain Atom 80 cover. Told him (at the time) it wasn't for sale, but his e-mail enquiry was still attached to the thumbnail on my CAF. Some years later, I was toying with the idea of releasing it, so I reminded Keif of his enquiry and told him I might now consider selling it. Response I received went into a long spiel of why I shouldn't expect too high an offer on the cover . . . at which point I told Keiff to forget it.

 

So, yeah, you'll also get the low-ball offers, but you quickly learn to develop a thick-skin.

Man, but ask KF for a price on something from his collection and you get a number resembling the national debt.

 

ALL CAPS.

 

With your name in the email used 47 times as a macro, with the remains of one non-printing character stuck to the first letter.

 

 

 

I like all my interactions to read like a cross between a solicitation from a questionable charity and an email from a Nigerian prince willing to share his fortune.

[Meeley Man]

Well, since I art rep for some artists, CAF is more than just a sharing site for me. It's the most economical site for selling. Even having a premium membership, as I do, it is way less expensive to sell, than if I had to get my own website. So, for that reason alone, I find a lot of value in what CAF offers.

 

But as to putting up my personal collection, I currently have everything of mine up. To me, the whole point of artwork, is for it to be seen. Hiding it away from public view does a real disservice to the art and the artist(s). I haven't really had many offers on the stuff of mine (and the couple times I did, the offers were well over what I paid, one of them I accepted the other I did not). But that really seems a small burden to pay, to share your art with the world. Besides, you can always alter the "sales status" area on the piece. I've done so to several of my pieces, which makes it clear they are NOT up for sale at any time. If someone were to ask, I'd just say "read the sales status." You can make it very clear you aren't going to sell a piece.

 

So, all in all, I see CAF as a true value to the comic art world. It has probably done more positives for it than anyone else ever has (or probably will).

[Brian Peck]

I like to post to the CAF, I enjoy seeing what others have and sharing my collection. There are so many members of CAF thats its hard to see everything people post. Even the galleries I watch. Thats why I love being a part of and promoting the annual Best of in the Lowry. See stuff I have missed.

I do not mind getting inquiries about pieces in my collection, I rarely sell but have done trades in the past on cold calls. Most of my artwork is in the CAF but there is still some that haven't been posted, most are minor pieces or obscure art which has a limited interest or audience. And there are some art thats just a little, um NWS that I don't post. (family member is also on CAF)

[irchooker]

A primary reason that I can’t land on a good response is the freshness factor (I want to make a bad pun about storing it in a Ziploc …). For those that believe this, care to expound? How does this work? I would think the exposure of having a piece online for a long time would balance against holding back art and then publishing it in an attempt to create a perceived scarcity (if that is the logic). Is this akin to the “only available for a short time ….” posts (I know these are sometimes legit and not just a ploy)?

 

Just look at the reaction to the Spider-Man vs Wolverine cover, it is exemplary. Popped up on HA 10 years ago, not seen since. Pops up again, and people are wildly speculating 35-65k for it. 10 years isn't a long time, but these days that can be considered fresh. *apparently it was always there on CAF with 1000 hits, so, beats me.*

 

That little bit of *OMG* and frenzy that creates a buyer need, amongst multiple people, and that is what these sellers/collectors wish to capture amongst the buying community.

[staffman]

I'm glad to see that so far most are in the same camp as me. They want to get the art out to be shared with fellow CAF members and such.

 

I also don't understand the hiding away factor, but hey to each their own.

 

I never thought about folks feeling like they are bragging when they show it online, which I can kind of see a bit. I also can understand how someone can perceive it as bragging while the owner is just excited about being able to share it is all.

 

And Brian Peck hit the nail on the head, while I own nothing I consider pornographic, I'm always a little shy about sharing nude pieces. A page from Jordi Bernet's Torpedo may be harmless to me, but the whole outrage over how these characters are depicted (Frank Cho's outrage run if anyone recalls) is just something that always gives me pause.

[Terry Doyle]

A primary reason that I can’t land on a good response is the freshness factor (I want to make a bad pun about storing it in a Ziploc …). For those that believe this, care to expound? How does this work? I would think the exposure of having a piece online for a long time would balance against holding back art and then publishing it in an attempt to create a perceived scarcity (if that is the logic). Is this akin to the “only available for a short time ….” posts (I know these are sometimes legit and not just a ploy)?

 

Just look at the reaction to the Spider-Man vs Wolverine cover, it is exemplary. Popped up on HA 10 years ago, not seen since. Pops up again, and people are wildly speculating 35-65k for it. 10 years isn't a long time, but these days that can be considered fresh. That little bit of *OMG* and frenzy that creates a buyer need, amongst multiple people, and that is what these sellers/collectors wish to capture amongst the buying community.

 

Fresh today, stale tomorrow?

 

Yeah, I understand how the 'fresh to market' factor works, and can see why there's a buzz generated.

 

My own approach is to judge the art on its own strength . . . regardless of whether or not it's been around a long time or only just surfaced.

[staffman]

A primary reason that I can’t land on a good response is the freshness factor (I want to make a bad pun about storing it in a Ziploc …). For those that believe this, care to expound? How does this work? I would think the exposure of having a piece online for a long time would balance against holding back art and then publishing it in an attempt to create a perceived scarcity (if that is the logic). Is this akin to the “only available for a short time ….” posts (I know these are sometimes legit and not just a ploy)?

 

Just look at the reaction to the Spider-Man vs Wolverine cover, it is exemplary. Popped up on HA 10 years ago, not seen since. Pops up again, and people are wildly speculating 35-65k for it. 10 years isn't a long time, but these days that can be considered fresh. That little bit of *OMG* and frenzy that creates a buyer need, amongst multiple people, and that is what these sellers/collectors wish to capture amongst the buying community.

 

Yes but wouldn't the wow factor still be there even if the owner displayed it for the 10 years that they owned it online? I would think that the buzz of it all of a sudden being available would be enough to draw a lot of excitement. But hey I'm no salesman or savvy art trader so I don't know. I know a piece recently came back up on my radar at auction that I missed out on 2 years ago and it was on display for the last year on CAF and it hasn't diminished my desire for the piece at all.

[malvin]

 

Yes but wouldn't the wow factor still be there even if the owner displayed it for the 10 years that they owned it online? I would think that the buzz of it all of a sudden being available would be enough to draw a lot of excitement. But hey I'm no salesman or savvy art trader so I don't know. I know a piece recently came back up on my radar at auction that I missed out on 2 years ago and it was on display for the last year on CAF and it hasn't diminished my desire for the piece at all.

 

That cover was in fact on CAF for the last 10 years. In fact, when it was listed on HA, it was still there.

 

Malvin