Significant Comic Art Auction at Profiles in History 30 July 2016

[buyatari]

I'm not a huge fan of BWS or this TAR. However, if I signed my name to a TAR agreement, I would honor it whether it was enforceable or not.

 

 

Agreed. I'd rather pass on a piece rather than intentionally violate an agreement.

 

Pshaw. Literally the first thing we learned in Contracts was that there is nothing unethical about breaching a contract. It is purely an economic decision that is made based on the consequences of breaching (which would include an analysis of the enforceability of the provisions being breached). [/quote

 

That might be business ethics but on an individual basis some look unfavorably on this.

 

I have a lot of respect for people who do what they say they will even if they don't agree with it.

[NelsonAI]

 

The last ComicLink auction saw the BWS Conan Saga cover sold without the TAR agreement in place. Prior to the sale, ComicLink confirmed that no agreement would be imposed by any winning bidder.

 

Now flashback several years ago when the same piece was sold on ComicLink for about $75K but within the description of the art was the TAR agreement. The buyer was told in advance that they were subject to it.

 

Bear with me ... Flash forward again. Since the piece sold at $32K, the consignor took a loss. Obviously BWS is not entitled to any proceeds. The new buyer never signed a TAR agreement. As such, the chain is broken.

 

The only possible fallout could be BWS trying to sue the consignor for damages because he never got the new buyer to sign the agreement. I think the loss the consignor took on the piece was punishment enough.

 

BTW - I love BWS' art. I just disagree with the TAR agreement.

 

Cheers!

N.

 

 

[comix4fun]

I'm not a huge fan of BWS or this TAR. However, if I signed my name to a TAR agreement, I would honor it whether it was enforceable or not.

 

 

Agreed. I'd rather pass on a piece rather than intentionally violate an agreement.

 

Pshaw. Literally the first thing we learned in Contracts was that there is nothing unethical about breaching a contract. It is purely an economic decision that is made based on the consequences of breaching (which would include an analysis of the enforceability of the provisions being breached).

 

That might be business ethics but on an individual basis some look unfavorably on this.

 

I have a lot of respect for people who do what they say they will even if they don't agree with it.

 

 

It's happened in this hobby before. Contracts for the loan of artwork that people have decided to exploit a loophole and circumvent the original meeting of the minds, and the intent of the original owner who never intended to permanently lose control of his artwork.

 

Even if that was technically allowed, which is debatable, it's enough to permanently destroy the overall opinion of the exploiter in the eyes of many.

[staffman]

The last ComicLink auction saw the BWS Conan Saga cover sold without the TAR agreement in place. Prior to the sale, ComicLink confirmed that no agreement would be imposed by any winning bidder.

 

Now flashback several years ago when the same piece was sold on ComicLink for about $75K but within the description of the art was the TAR agreement. The buyer was told in advance that they were subject to it.

 

Bear with me ... Flash forward again. Since the piece sold at $32K, the consignor took a loss. Obviously BWS is not entitled to any proceeds. The new buyer never signed a TAR agreement. As such, the chain is broken.

 

The only possible fallout could be BWS trying to sue the consignor for damages because he never got the new buyer to sign the agreement. I think the loss the consignor took on the piece was punishment enough.

 

BTW - I love BWS' art. I just disagree with the TAR agreement.

 

Cheers!

N.

 

 

Thanks for the history on this piece. I had no idea that it lost 50% of it's value. Now it makes one wonder has his artwork lost some of the demand that it commanded earlier or was it just 2 people went for it all the way back to get it up to $75k?

 

 

 

[staffman]

TAR or no TAR, if you like the look of the piece aren't you still going to try for it? I mean sure the 15% thing can cause some people to question the appeal of possibly selling it down the road, but I still don't think that is enough of a deterrent to put some people off of it. Look at the juice factor for HA and the Profile site. I don't think that will stop anyone from going in big on this auction even with the stupid TAR factor on it. Besides only the seller get's to deal with this mess right now.

[Mmehdy]

TAR or no TAR, if you like the look of the piece aren't you still going to try for it? I mean sure the 15% thing can cause some people to question the appeal of possibly selling it down the road, but I still don't think that is enough of a deterrent to put some people off of it. Look at the juice factor for HA and the Profile site. I don't think that will stop anyone from going in big on this auction even with the stupid TAR factor on it. Besides only the seller get's to deal with this mess right now.

 

It is a mess...why deal with it when 99.9% of all the other art does not have the restrictions. It would be interesting to see if somebody wins one of these pieces and then refuses to sign the tar agreement...would barry back down?

[comix4fun]

TAR or no TAR, if you like the look of the piece aren't you still going to try for it? I mean sure the 15% thing can cause some people to question the appeal of possibly selling it down the road, but I still don't think that is enough of a deterrent to put some people off of it. Look at the juice factor for HA and the Profile site. I don't think that will stop anyone from going in big on this auction even with the stupid TAR factor on it. Besides only the seller get's to deal with this mess right now.

 

 

I can see people being worried, given the size of the investment necessary, about their exposure down the road should they need to sell and the ROI needed when the additional encumbrance is added in in order to avoid taking a loss even if the piece sells for a price in excess of purchase.

[artcollector9]

Remember it's 15% of any profit, if there is one, if the piece is sold in the future.

 

It's not 15% of the sale price.

 

it seems like that fact is getting lost?

 

 

[Mmehdy]

Remember it's 15% of any profit, if there is one, if the piece is sold in the future.

 

It's not 15% of the sale price.

 

it seems like that fact is getting lost?

 

 

 

no it is not, but that does not include auction fees..its gross profit that is the issue..you can still lose by selling it for more money plus be sued if the new buyer does not sign TAR..why hassle ..99.9% of other artwork, including some smith out there just makes sense not to hassle.

 

[artcollector9]

Then don't 'hassle'!

 

Problem solved for you!!

 

However, if you want, and can afford Artemis and Apollo, you'll need to sign one.

 

 

[staffman]

TAR or no TAR, if you like the look of the piece aren't you still going to try for it? I mean sure the 15% thing can cause some people to question the appeal of possibly selling it down the road, but I still don't think that is enough of a deterrent to put some people off of it. Look at the juice factor for HA and the Profile site. I don't think that will stop anyone from going in big on this auction even with the stupid TAR factor on it. Besides only the seller get's to deal with this mess right now.

 

 

I can see people being worried, given the size of the investment necessary, about their exposure down the road should they need to sell and the ROI needed when the additional encumbrance is added in in order to avoid taking a loss even if the piece sells for a price in excess of purchase.

 

You are right on the big pieces. I wasn't even thinking about Opus 2 or Artemis and Apollo, which I should have been when I sent out my initial response, then yes I would be very much concerned about my future returns and what I would have to go through for that. I was looking at the more regular pen and ink pieces so the TAR would be more of an annoyance, in my opinion, for that since the price is much much less. I would hate to be the one who has to face the potential TAR headache on the large pieces. Makes one want to just sell all of his stuff privately. I still think people will buy, but that recent sell on Clink may be people cooling off on Barry's work TAR or not. Really won't know until the dust settles from this auction.

 

On a different note, anyone going to try and see this work when it's shown in NY next week? I am hoping to run over next Saturday and get a look at some of this beautiful work.

[comix4fun]

Remember it's 15% of any profit, if there is one, if the piece is sold in the future.

 

It's not 15% of the sale price.

 

it seems like that fact is getting lost?

 

 

 

I didn't lose it. It's just that it's 15% of the gross sale profits. The auction house take, the shipping costs, storage costs, insurance costs, etc etc don't matter.

 

Bottom line for a premium BWS piece its the cost of acquisition. If someone loves the piece enough it may not matter to them.

[comix4fun]

Then don't 'hassle'!

 

Problem solved for you!!

 

However, if you want, and can afford Artemis and Apollo, you'll need to sign one.

 

 

 

 

I think it's more "wall space" with Artemis and Apollo.

 

That thing belongs in a museum.

 

Gene?? Get this thing on the walls of the MOMA.

[delekkerste]

I'm not a huge fan of BWS or this TAR. However, if I signed my name to a TAR agreement, I would honor it whether it was enforceable or not.

 

 

Agreed. I'd rather pass on a piece rather than intentionally violate an agreement.

 

Pshaw. Literally the first thing we learned in Contracts was that there is nothing unethical about breaching a contract. It is purely an economic decision that is made based on the consequences of breaching (which would include an analysis of the enforceability of the provisions being breached).

 

tth2...single-handedly setting back the American Bar Association's PR efforts by a hundred years.

[delekkerste]

TAR or no TAR, if you like the look of the piece aren't you still going to try for it? I mean sure the 15% thing can cause some people to question the appeal of possibly selling it down the road, but I still don't think that is enough of a deterrent to put some people off of it.

 

Yeah, if Barry's covers from the original Conan run were somehow subject to the TAR...I'd still want at least one example, as that's some of my all-time favorite/most nostalgic comic art.

 

For material that doesn't necessarily hold as deep a connection with me, though...it might be enough to put me off if I was at all on the fence about it.

[tth2]

I'm not a huge fan of BWS or this TAR. However, if I signed my name to a TAR agreement, I would honor it whether it was enforceable or not.

 

 

Agreed. I'd rather pass on a piece rather than intentionally violate an agreement.

 

Pshaw. Literally the first thing we learned in Contracts was that there is nothing unethical about breaching a contract. It is purely an economic decision that is made based on the consequences of breaching (which would include an analysis of the enforceability of the provisions being breached).

 

tth2...single-handedly setting back the American Bar Association's PR efforts by a hundred years.

[Mmehdy]

I went on line and was shocked to see the wrightson ". Captain stern " story at the minimum bid of $40,000 plus 10% sales tax and additional. Auction fee if you bid on Internet. That puts the min price at $44,000 am I the only one here thinking that is too high for a minimum bid on that piece:

[Bronty]

Yeah. seems like somebody had the 'per-page' price too high and then multiplied by nine pages.

[Rune]

Remember it's 15% of any profit, if there is one, if the piece is sold in the future.

 

It's not 15% of the sale price.

 

it seems like that fact is getting lost?

 

 

 

I didn't lose it. It's just that it's 15% of the gross sale profits. The auction house take, the shipping costs, storage costs, insurance costs, etc etc don't matter.

 

Bottom line for a premium BWS piece its the cost of acquisition. If someone loves the piece enough it may not matter to them.

 

I'm not sure I'd mind the 15 % of the profit going back to BWS - it's several of the other TAR restrictions that annoy me, especially:

 

"ARTIST'S EXHIBITION: Artist may show the Work for up to sixty (60) days once every five (5) years at a nonprofit institution at no expense to Purchaser, upon written notice no later than one hundred twenty (120) days before opening and upon satisfactory proof of insurance and prepaid transportation."

 

I'd hate to ship a framed piece - or the hassle having to remove a piece from the frame etc. So BWS can take 15 % of the profit, but leave the piece alone

 

Full TAR:

 

 

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

[Mmehdy]

Yeah. seems like somebody had the 'per-page' price too high and then multiplied by nine pages.

.

 

 

Really, why call this a auction at all.. The fritz is a min bid of a million plus fees... The wrightson is over 5k per page when fees are factored this is a joke calling it an auction .. Just call it for what is... A catalog sale .. With a hope for higher prices .....