• 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.

Significant Comic Art Auction at Profiles in History 30 July 2016

Started by dem1138,

332 posts in this topic

comix4fun

comix4fun

Posted
Posted
This is my favorite line from the agreement too -

 

NON DESTRUCTION: Purchaser will not permit any intentional destruction, damage, or modification of the Work

 

So I cannot set the piece on fire even though I'm the owner and I feel like burning it all to the ground? ;)

 

I'm guessing (and this is just a guess) that this is in place to plug possible loopholes in the TAR agreement. Thinking might be that if one were to slightly alter the work you could then claim it was a new work and that it would no longer fall under the TAR agreement? The same way you see videos slighty changed so youtube doesn't pull them. I'm not a lawyer but that is my guess.

 

 

 

Yes, it prevents people from trying to loophole a contract for comic art by claiming the artwork was lost or destroyed intentionally.....not that ANYONE in the comic art hobby would EVER claim artwork was lost or destroyed in order to trigger a loop hole in a contract.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Peter G

Peter G

Posted
Posted
But I believe the TAR is transfered to the new owner and the responsibility of the TAR applies to them if they ever sell.

 

Give me a break

 

Everybody needs to grow up

 

Its an unenforceable joke man :roflmao:

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mmehdy

Mmehdy

Posted
Posted
Amazing collection of material. Too bad it wasn't offered elsewhere. Am I reading this right? 28% for internet bidders plus Caifornia sales tax on all purchases?

 

Plus add the TAR for the BWS pieces. Is TAR based on the hammer price or with juice?

 

Calculating your final price will be more complicated than the QB rating formula.

 

 

You must factor this into your bids...LA sales tax is 10% so its 38% BP which is higher than HA's 19.5% and 10% sales tax at 29%. 9% higher than ha's with no TAR..however there are some really great pieces here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
comix4fun

comix4fun

Posted
Posted
Amazing collection of material. Too bad it wasn't offered elsewhere. Am I reading this right? 28% for internet bidders plus Caifornia sales tax on all purchases?

 

Plus add the TAR for the BWS pieces. Is TAR based on the hammer price or with juice?

 

Calculating your final price will be more complicated than the QB rating formula.

 

 

You must factor this into your bids...LA sales tax is 10% so its 38% BP which is higher than HA's 19.5% and 10% sales tax at 29%. 9% higher than ha's with no TAR..however there are some really great pieces here.

 

 

The TAR isn't an addiitonal fee and it isn't paid by the buyer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
comix4fun

comix4fun

Posted
Posted
But I believe the TAR is transfered to the new owner and the responsibility of the TAR applies to them if they ever sell.

 

 

Yes, it's written to survive, permanently. Whether or not that would stand up in court is another question.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
vodou

vodou

Posted
Posted
That Ken Kelly is a nice one. I had it on my wall for years. One piece I should have kept!

Used to feel the same way. But something has always bothered me about Ken's anatomy. Does anybody else think his figures from this period -all the REH paintings- are too squat? Waists too high, no necks, something else..?

 

The other poster thinking of selling it all to go after People...what do you think of the $25k estimate? I think it's probably close (maybe $28k or so hammer + endless juice tack on?) My reservation above aside, it's a classic and well-known piece by Ken, of Conan during the height of the REH revival...it's been "the" Ken Kelly for forty years. $25k should be the floor, not the ceiling. If ever two people were willing to put real money down on vintage Ken this is the piece they'd do it for.

 

Where is Ken's Red Nails?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
artcollector9

artcollector9

Posted
Posted

Hi!

 

The 'TAR" (Transfer of Artist's Rights) BWS agreement works as follows:

 

If you buy the piece, you sign the agreement which outlines certain responsibilites that are largely common sense (protect the art, for one; If the piece needs restoration in the future, consult with the artist is another).

 

Financially, the buyer agrees to pay BWS 15% of any profit, should the buyer sell the piece at a later date.

 

So if you buy piece A for $10,000 today, no TAR payment is due.

 

If you keep piece A forever, no TAR payment is due.

 

If you sell the piece for $10,000 or less, no TAR payment is due.

 

If you sell the piece for $11,000, 15% of the $1000 profit is $150. So the buyer would pay BWS $150.

 

(I can hear it being asked, so no, if the buyer sells at a loss, BWS doesn't reimburse 15% of the loss.)

 

So, no need to calculate anything 'extra' when bidding on a BWS TAR attached lot.

 

Also, no tax if Profiles ships out of (Ca.) state. 20% buyer's premium if you bid on the phone.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
buyatari

buyatari

Posted
Posted
Hi!

 

The 'TAR" (Transfer of Artist's Rights) BWS agreement works as follows:

 

If you buy the piece, you sign the agreement which outlines certain responsibilites that are largely common sense (protect the art, for one; If the piece needs restoration in the future, consult with the artist is another).

 

Financially, the buyer agrees to pay BWS 15% of any profit, should the buyer sell the piece at a later date.

 

So if you buy piece A for $10,000 today, no TAR payment is due.

 

If you keep piece A forever, no TAR payment is due.

 

If you sell the piece for $10,000 or less, no TAR payment is due.

 

If you sell the piece for $11,000, 15% of the $1000 profit is $150. So the buyer would pay BWS $150.

 

(I can hear it being asked, so no, if the buyer sells at a loss, BWS doesn't reimburse 15% of the loss.)

 

So, no need to calculate anything 'extra' when bidding on a BWS TAR attached lot.

 

Also, no tax if Profiles ships out of (Ca.) state. 20% buyer's premium if you bid on the phone.

 

 

Seems simple BUT...

If the hammer for the purchase is 10k + 2k (juice,shipping and tax) which is your purchase price? 10K or 12k?

When you resell it and the hammer is 20k you have pay the auction house and might only receive 16K but the buyer also paying the auction house pays 24k. What is the sale price? 16k , 20k or 24k?

Using these numbers what is the TAR, 15% of 14k or 4K or something in between?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
vodou

vodou

Posted
Posted
If you keep piece A forever, no TAR payment is due.

Does TAR obligation expire when BWS does, or does it extend to his Estate/heirs/beneficiaries?

I'll answer my own question from the link, with the caveat that what's posted is an undated model agreement, not necessarily what is affixed to any individual work.

 

EXPIRATION: This contract binds the parties, their heirs, and all their successors in interest, and all Purchaser's obligations are attached to the Work and go with ownership of the Work, all for the life of the Artist and Artist's surviving spouse plus twenty-one (21) years, except the obligations of Paragraphs 4, 6, 7, and 9 shall last only for Artist's lifetime.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mephisto

Mephisto

Posted
Posted
That Ken Kelly is a nice one. I had it on my wall for years. One piece I should have kept!

Used to feel the same way. But something has always bothered me about Ken's anatomy. Does anybody else think his figures from this period -all the REH paintings- are too squat? Waists too high, no necks, something else..?

 

The other poster thinking of selling it all to go after People...what do you think of the $25k estimate? I think it's probably close (maybe $28k or so hammer + endless juice tack on?) My reservation above aside, it's a classic and well-known piece by Ken, of Conan during the height of the REH revival...it's been "the" Ken Kelly for forty years. $25k should be the floor, not the ceiling. If ever two people were willing to put real money down on vintage Ken this is the piece they'd do it for.

 

Where is Ken's Red Nails?

 

I have always loved the colors on the piece. I think when it sold some where between 5 to 10 years ago it went for a little under 25K, so wouldn't be surprised if it hits that easily.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
buyatari

buyatari

Posted
Posted

 

Puchase price would be the total you pay.

 

If you bid 10K, pay 2K juice, you paid 12K.

 

 

In this case the seller only received 8k so is that his selling price or would it be 12k the same as my purchase price.

 

I guess this is what I am getting at. Is there a situation where a seller could break even or lose money on a piece AND still owe TAR?

 

You might buy for 12 and sell for 13. The purchase price has increased but you lost money on the deal after fees. Would you have to pay TAR on that increased purchased price?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
comix4fun

comix4fun

Posted
Posted
BWS Studios has posted an agreement online:

 

http://www.barrywindsor-smith.com/galleria/tar.html

 

 

 

 

 

Thanks for the link.

 

It's missing the "glossary" or "definitions" section. There's a term mentioned in quotes in section 2(a) "gross art profit" which indicates there should be a separate definition of that term somewhere in the agreement, but there isn't. That's a gap.

 

So the scenario could reasonably be interpreted as profit to the seller. That's proceeds actually received over and above original purchase price. That would be the check cut to the seller from the auction house and not the hammer or final price.

 

However, the new buyer's basis would be the price he paid, all in.

 

So the original buyer could have paid $5k for a piece.

 

He sells it at auction for $10k, receiving $8k.

 

He pays a TAR on the profit between the $5k purchase and the $8k proceeds...15% of $3,000.

 

The auction buyer signs the TAR and his purchase basis is $10k (or whatever total purchase price is).

 

Absent a specific definition of "gross art profit" it would revert to standard definitions of terms and the actual profit to the original buyer. He's not entitled to a % of the money the original buyer never saw (BP, Tax, etc).

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Go to topic listing