ComicLink Spring Auction

[zhamlau]

That's one of my dream covers. Would cost less then 1000 i think to return to off-white and de-acidify. Thinking it wont go over 30k right? that should win it?

[rotembk]

Clink added information re UXM 211 cover:

 

Note that the same character-loaded "border" area of this cover art was used for all of Marvel's 25th Anniversary Issues. It was printed by Marvel directly onto the art board in blue line ink (as pictured in the second picture below). We have created a color-matched recreation overlay for this area to match look of the published cover. The first image depicts the piece with the border overlay, the second with the original blue-line ink. The title logo and price box stats are original production stats. The Wolverine image is, of course, entirely original art. This item has an image area of approximately 10" x 15".

 

 

 

Also, I believe new to the preview, BWS's painted cover to Conan Saga #5:

 

[comix4fun]

Interesting. So the choice to create an ecru colored border to match the cover's discoloration was intentional.

[vodou]

It's a fun piece, shame about the extreme tan salon...so creamy white where Shooter signed off.

[ciorac]

It's a fun piece, shame about the extreme tan salon...so creamy white where Shooter signed off.

 

Yeah, I find it kind of hard to believe that many of these semi recent pages are all so brown/tan. Guess they were stored in a garage or something.

 

I have much older pages that are snow white

[Bronty]

 

Also, I believe new to the preview, BWS's painted cover to Conan Saga #5:

 

 

That piece has been around a bit no?

[Bronty]

It's a fun piece, shame about the extreme tan salon...so creamy white where Shooter signed off.

 

Yeah, I find it kind of hard to believe that many of these semi recent pages are all so brown/tan. Guess they were stored in a garage or something.

 

I have much older pages that are snow white

 

Heck I have pages from the same era that WERE stored in a garage that are snow white.

 

These... in the attic? on top of a heater?

[Bronty]

We sometimes talk about originals that look better than the printed version....

 

With all due to respect to the seller and the bidders, this isn't one of those times. I don't just mean the ecru blues either (though partly).

[NelsonAI]

 

I passed on the BWS cover years ago because it had the "artist transfer" contract agreement attached to it. This is where you agree to pay BWS and his future estate a percentage of the profits.

 

I hope any prospective buyer is familiar with the terms and that CL provides full disclosure if the transfer agreement is still in place.

 

It's a beautiful cover regardless.

 

Cheers!

N.

 

[vodou]

I passed on the BWS cover years ago because it had the "artist transfer" contract agreement attached to it. This is where you agree to pay BWS and his future estate a percentage of the profits.

 

I hope any prospective buyer is familiar with the terms and that CL provides full disclosure if the transfer agreement is still in place.

 

It's a beautiful cover regardless.

 

Cheers!

N.

Does his or any artist transfer contract even hold up under US contract law? What I mean is can the original seller and first purchaser mutually agree to a contract that obligates future parties to those terms, without their agreement? Sounds ridiculous to me (layman). If a term of purchase is agreement to the original BWS contract...that fact definitely MUST be identified, in great detail. Yes??

 

This was banged around way, way back when BWS first introduced this, maybe 2002 or so? But I never saw any solid legal opinion as to whether it would (probably) hold up or not, legally.

[Bronty]

The whole thing is asinine. You want to participate in your market? Keep some of your art.

[vodou]

The whole thing is asinine. You want to participate in your market? Keep some of your art.

Yes I agree. But the argument appeals to the artists (duh!) and the larger 'fairness' crowd (you know who they are, some are even on this Board). Like a lot of things, when proponents can't get your voluntarily agreement, they get somebody to slip new legislation into a spending bill instead. Then they have Big Brother bully you into compliance

 

Wikipedia - Droit de suite

Christie's on Droit de suite

 

[pinupcartoonguy]

I passed on the BWS cover years ago because it had the "artist transfer" contract agreement attached to it. This is where you agree to pay BWS and his future estate a percentage of the profits.

 

I hope any prospective buyer is familiar with the terms and that CL provides full disclosure if the transfer agreement is still in place.

 

It's a beautiful cover regardless.

 

Cheers!

N.

Does his or any artist transfer contract even hold up under US contract law? What I mean is can the original seller and first purchaser mutually agree to a contract that obligates future parties to those terms, without their agreement? Sounds ridiculous to me (layman). If a term of purchase is agreement to the original BWS contract...that fact definitely MUST be identified, in great detail. Yes??

 

This was banged around way, way back when BWS first introduced this, maybe 2002 or so? But I never saw any solid legal opinion as to whether it would (probably) hold up or not, legally.

 

In contract law there is a term, "privity of contract," meaning that the contract is between two entities. When a piece of art is sold to a third person, that "privity" no longer exists as between the artists and the third party buyer as it relates to an artists transfer contract. So where as the original buyer might have to cough up, I don't see how the third party buyer would be bound.

[ThothAmon]

I passed on the BWS cover years ago because it had the "artist transfer" contract agreement attached to it. This is where you agree to pay BWS and his future estate a percentage of the profits.

 

I hope any prospective buyer is familiar with the terms and that CL provides full disclosure if the transfer agreement is still in place.

 

It's a beautiful cover regardless.

 

Cheers!

N.

Does his or any artist transfer contract even hold up under US contract law? What I mean is can the original seller and first purchaser mutually agree to a contract that obligates future parties to those terms, without their agreement? Sounds ridiculous to me (layman). If a term of purchase is agreement to the original BWS contract...that fact definitely MUST be identified, in great detail. Yes??

 

This was banged around way, way back when BWS first introduced this, maybe 2002 or so? But I never saw any solid legal opinion as to whether it would (probably) hold up or not, legally.

Guess if the seller wants to pay up nothing is stopping them. As far as I'm concerned the whole thing is completely unenforceable.

[rotembk]

I passed on the BWS cover years ago because it had the "artist transfer" contract agreement attached to it. This is where you agree to pay BWS and his future estate a percentage of the profits.

 

I hope any prospective buyer is familiar with the terms and that CL provides full disclosure if the transfer agreement is still in place.

 

It's a beautiful cover regardless.

 

Cheers!

N.

Does his or any artist transfer contract even hold up under US contract law? What I mean is can the original seller and first purchaser mutually agree to a contract that obligates future parties to those terms, without their agreement? Sounds ridiculous to me (layman). If a term of purchase is agreement to the original BWS contract...that fact definitely MUST be identified, in great detail. Yes??

 

This was banged around way, way back when BWS first introduced this, maybe 2002 or so? But I never saw any solid legal opinion as to whether it would (probably) hold up or not, legally.

 

In contract law there is a term, "privity of contract," meaning that the contract is between two entities. When a piece of art is sold to a third person, that "privity" no longer exists as between the artists and the third party buyer as it relates to an artists transfer contract. So where as the original buyer might have to cough up, I don't see how the third party buyer would be bound.

 

Maybe BWS stamped the terms of sale on the back of the art; so it's like bearer-art where the terms are part of the art.

[fsumavila]

glad someone with some legal expertise weighed in on this.

 

I'm all for artists getting to reap the financial rewards of their creative output, but once you sell a piece of art, that's it. It's gone and you shouldn't expect to continue to cash in on it. I'm sure most of us have sold pieces that have continued to rise in value so that, 5-10 years later, you kick yourself for selling too early.

 

Hell, I do that with stocks all the time (as my wife constantly reminds me).

 

I wonder why the original buyer agreed to those terms. Did he/she think he was never going to sell it, or perhaps knowing it was probably legally unenforceable, he/she had no intention of honoring the terms.

I passed on the BWS cover years ago because it had the "artist transfer" contract agreement attached to it. This is where you agree to pay BWS and his future estate a percentage of the profits.

 

I hope any prospective buyer is familiar with the terms and that CL provides full disclosure if the transfer agreement is still in place.

 

It's a beautiful cover regardless.

 

Cheers!

N.

Does his or any artist transfer contract even hold up under US contract law? What I mean is can the original seller and first purchaser mutually agree to a contract that obligates future parties to those terms, without their agreement? Sounds ridiculous to me (layman). If a term of purchase is agreement to the original BWS contract...that fact definitely MUST be identified, in great detail. Yes??

 

This was banged around way, way back when BWS first introduced this, maybe 2002 or so? But I never saw any solid legal opinion as to whether it would (probably) hold up or not, legally.

 

In contract law there is a term, "privity of contract," meaning that the contract is between two entities. When a piece of art is sold to a third person, that "privity" no longer exists as between the artists and the third party buyer as it relates to an artists transfer contract. So where as the original buyer might have to cough up, I don't see how the third party buyer would be bound.

[rotembk]

I wonder why the original buyer agreed to those terms. Did he/she think he was never going to sell it, or perhaps knowing it was probably legally unenforceable, he/she had no intention of honoring the terms.

 

Why not simply because the buyer really wanted to get the art and this was the only way?

 

By the way, I don't think the agreement is unenforceable with respect to the original buyer (OB). And it would also be enforceable with respect to any subsequent buyer (SB) if the agreement provides that the art can only be sold to a person who accepts the same terms; in that event, if SB somehow acknowledges these terms, then there would be privity between BWS and SB. If, on the other hand, OB sells the art breaching this particular provision (i.e., OB does pay BWS his cut, but doesn't require SB to accept the terms of the agreement going forward), then I think if SB sells the art and pays BWS nothing, then BWS may very well have a cause against OB for breach of contract.

[comix4fun]

I passed on the BWS cover years ago because it had the "artist transfer" contract agreement attached to it. This is where you agree to pay BWS and his future estate a percentage of the profits.

 

I hope any prospective buyer is familiar with the terms and that CL provides full disclosure if the transfer agreement is still in place.

 

It's a beautiful cover regardless.

 

Cheers!

N.

Does his or any artist transfer contract even hold up under US contract law? What I mean is can the original seller and first purchaser mutually agree to a contract that obligates future parties to those terms, without their agreement? Sounds ridiculous to me (layman). If a term of purchase is agreement to the original BWS contract...that fact definitely MUST be identified, in great detail. Yes??

 

This was banged around way, way back when BWS first introduced this, maybe 2002 or so? But I never saw any solid legal opinion as to whether it would (probably) hold up or not, legally.

 

In contract law there is a term, "privity of contract," meaning that the contract is between two entities. When a piece of art is sold to a third person, that "privity" no longer exists as between the artists and the third party buyer as it relates to an artists transfer contract. So where as the original buyer might have to cough up, I don't see how the third party buyer would be bound.

 

 

Under US contract law it fails. European courts have upheld these agreements.

Unless there's some basic change to US law I don't see how these agreements would ever be enforceable past the initial purchaser.

 

One thing I have wondered to myself, what if the piece sells for less? Can the buyer get a piece of that loss BACK from the artist. What is a gain? or a loss? Is it adjusted against inflation, against the S&P, against the time-value of money over that period of time?

 

In terms of raw dollars an owner may have gained some over the lifetime of ownership but lost his when rate of return against inflation is calculated.

[Carlo M]

Comiclink has just posted a great Cap 171 cover. Artists credited are Romita and Mortallaro. Marvel database lists also a Mr. Saladino. Anybody knows what's the story? Did Romita do only breakdowns? Or is it the other way around? BP does not like Romita to me...

 

Great cover regardless but I think Romita's exact contribution will have an impact on value.

[delekkerste]

Comiclink has just posted a great Cap 171 cover. Artists credited are Romita and Mortallaro. Marvel database lists also a Mr. Saladino. Anybody knows what's the story? Did Romita do only breakdowns? Or is it the other way around? BP does not like Romita to me...

 

Great cover regardless but I think Romita's exact contribution will have an impact on value.

 

1. Romita did pencils and some inks as well according to GCD (Comics.org)

2. Mortellaro did inks and probably did some of the backgrounds (buildings, mostly - I used to own a very nice Romita/Mortellaro cover where he sneakily blended his name into the background)

3. BP looks like Romita to me

4. Gaspar Saladino was the letterer/logo guy for Marvel - he wasn't a penciller or an inker

 

I don't think the extent of Romita's contribution will have any effect on this cover. What will likely affect the price, though, is that the characters were drawn on vellum and then transferred onto the board. Some may also prefer a bigger name inker than Mortellaro, who had a very short career at Marvel.