malvin Posted February 9, 2018 Share Posted February 9, 2018 23 minutes ago, comicwiz said: I don't mean to single you out, but when I read through this, it flowed reasonably well until point 4. Particularly, this notion of interference. As someone who considers himself a collector, and reluctant seller, I can tell you that the logic bust happens with your notion of interefering with another man's "hustle." My issue is a seller interfering with my pursuit of adding to my collection. As you might imagine, seeing a seller buy something and price it at multiples of what they paid soon after their purchase isn't going to go over well, and the roles are reversed about who is actually interfering with whom. If a seller decides doing this kind of thing is justified, and is "harder work" than a collector who simply writes a cheque, my retort is the hardest work will come having to defend themselves against the litany of criticism from collectors who don't appreciate the way their actions are artificially driving up the market. There are many points here and I just want to focus on one. If I had bid my max on a piece that I really want for my collection and I lost. I would move on. If someone tries to sell it for more 1 second later, that is their business. There are other art out there. Malvin Catwoman_Fan 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
comicwiz Posted February 9, 2018 Share Posted February 9, 2018 32 minutes ago, malvin said: There are many points here and I just want to focus on one. If I had bid my max on a piece that I really want for my collection and I lost. I would move on. If someone tries to sell it for more 1 second later, that is their business. There are other art out there. Malvin There are numerous other ways people "lose" out on a piece, and it isn't always summed up by an unwillingness to part with money or for a lack of trying. eewwnuk 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
malvin Posted February 9, 2018 Share Posted February 9, 2018 1 hour ago, comicwiz said: There are numerous other ways people "lose" out on a piece, and it isn't always summed up by an unwillingness to part with money or for a lack of trying. So, not to start an argument, but let me explore this further. This started with someone unhappy because they lost out on a piece and the other winner is simply just selling it for more. Now the scenario is the person who lost out, was wiling to pay more but was "out tried". I can't seem to comprehend this scenario. Why would the original seller turn down a higher offer? Is it one of those cases where someone pretends to be a big fan but isn't? Malvin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
comicwiz Posted February 9, 2018 Share Posted February 9, 2018 2 minutes ago, malvin said: So, not to start an argument, but let me explore this further. This started with someone unhappy because they lost out on a piece and the other winner is simply just selling it for more. Now the scenario is the person who lost out, was wiling to pay more but was "out tried". I can't seem to comprehend this scenario. Why would the original seller turn down a higher offer? Is it one of those cases where someone pretends to be a big fan but isn't? Malvin You're asking me to explain the reasons, and for the most part, I don't have an answer. Would you believe I've had money refunded to me because I lived in Canada and it was too much trouble to ship? My main point however was using the "interference" card on a "hustle" and I only see it as a flipper interfering and getting in the way of my collecting pursuits. If they think making a quick buck that way makes them beyond reproach, they're sadly mistaken. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vodou Posted February 9, 2018 Share Posted February 9, 2018 14 minutes ago, comicwiz said: ...and I only see it as a flipper interfering and getting in the way of my collecting pursuits. I collect money. The only reason that's such an expensive hobby is because so many of you do. Please stop. And send me what you've collected so far. I will give you a 'thank you' in return Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BCarter27 Posted February 9, 2018 Share Posted February 9, 2018 2 hours ago, comicwiz said: I can tell you that the logic bust happens with your notion of interefering with another man's "hustle." This was said with tongue in cheek. But I still think this thread is rude. So in retrospect, maybe I was only half joking. 2 hours ago, comicwiz said: My issue is a seller interfering with my pursuit of adding to my collection. That's going to be a big pool! Anyone who was willing to pay more than you, really. You don't get aggravated at the people who outbid you on a piece that goes into a black hole, do you? Probably not, because they aren't rubbing your face in its availability. This is just the age-old story of Tantalus played again. But why worry? They are offering it for a price you weren't willing to pay the first time around when you had the chance at auction. Walk on by... I think a lot of this flipping isn't really flipping per se. It is collectors who wouldn't mind looking at something for awhile sticking it up for sale at an inflated price in case somebody wants to stretch for it. No different than every "offers" listing on CAF. At least these guys bothered to stick a number on it. Before this thread, in my definition (think real estate), flipping means you are pricing FMV to get your money back out quickly after buying something at discount. 2 hours ago, comicwiz said: their actions are artificially driving up the market. Their actions aren't doing squat unless the flip is successful. Unless you are making the argument that pricing high but not selling is driving up perceived value? I think unless this your first day in any collectibles hobby, you aren't going to base your comps on asking prices. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
comicwiz Posted February 9, 2018 Share Posted February 9, 2018 This thread isn't "rude", as much as it is a crash course in showing there are consequences for people who play fast and loose with their reputations. What you might consider interference, I call transparency. If you still don't see a problem with buying something just to resell at multiples of what you paid, and their actions are doing "squat", then you shouldn't really have a problem with people showing what was originally paid for it a week or a few months prior. Catwoman_Fan and eewwnuk 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BCarter27 Posted February 9, 2018 Share Posted February 9, 2018 1 minute ago, comicwiz said: I call transparency I don't have a problem with the transparency, because anyone who follows this stuff can see it plainly in public records. I have a problem with the calling out and the perception of stigma. First thing I do before I buy a piece is search for it in auction records, along with any comps. Then, I can see for myself its previous public sale price. We should all be doing our own due diligence on purchases. (Off topic, but I don't think dealer or private transactions should be disclosed. Those are peer-to-peer and were never intended to be public.) 7 minutes ago, comicwiz said: people who play fast and loose with their reputations. I just don't see the foul with offering anything for resale, no matter the timeline, unless they are misrepresenting something or don't actually have ownership of the art yet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
malvin Posted February 9, 2018 Share Posted February 9, 2018 1 hour ago, comicwiz said: You're asking me to explain the reasons, and for the most part, I don't have an answer. Would you believe I've had money refunded to me because I lived in Canada and it was too much trouble to ship? My main point however was using the "interference" card on a "hustle" and I only see it as a flipper interfering and getting in the way of my collecting pursuits. If they think making a quick buck that way makes them beyond reproach, they're sadly mistaken. I'm in Canada too so I know there can be issues with borders/customs and just more hassle for sellers.. That's why I have made many friends in this hobby and most of my US purchases goes to a friend in the US to avoid these issues. Malvin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MyNameIsLegion Posted February 9, 2018 Share Posted February 9, 2018 (edited) Tulips: Tulip Mania my callout of flippers winning an auction is a specific scenario that I find odious. There are lots of other more grey scenarios that many of you have made points on and they are perfectly valid and I agree with many of them so please don’t take it as a criticism of your collecting habits or opinions. Edited February 9, 2018 by MYNAMEISLEGION Rick2you2 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MyNameIsLegion Posted February 9, 2018 Share Posted February 9, 2018 2 hours ago, BCarter27 said: I just don't see the foul with offering anything for resale, no matter the timeline, unless they are misrepresenting something or don't actually have ownership of the art yet. You mean the Donnelly’s prelim and un-used covers and fake cover trade dress and the occasional re-inked Page? or the examples in this thread where guys put stuff up for sale on CAF the day after HA when they haven’t likely paid and certainly don’t have it in hand yet? Or guys that have shopped art around privately that they don’t own so they can then buy it and already have it sold to pocket the difference? Catwoman_Fan 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BCarter27 Posted February 10, 2018 Share Posted February 10, 2018 1 hour ago, MYNAMEISLEGION said: You mean the Donnelly’s prelim and un-used covers and fake cover trade dress and the occasional re-inked Page? or the examples in this thread where guys put stuff up for sale on CAF the day after HA when they haven’t likely paid and certainly don’t have it in hand yet? Or guys that have shopped art around privately that they don’t own so they can then buy it and already have it sold to pocket the difference? Yeah, let's not do those things. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rick2you2 Posted February 10, 2018 Share Posted February 10, 2018 20 hours ago, BCarter27 said: No, it's because we've been beat over the head with the tulip thing for months now. Learning is a good thing. BCarter27 and aokartman 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aokartman Posted February 10, 2018 Share Posted February 10, 2018 I think some flippers may be confident that the current prices of original comic art still have not reached their reasonable peak. If an accomplished comic art professional requires an entire day to create a published page, LINK to how many comic art pages are created per day at $50 per hour (or pick another number), that production cost calculates to $400 for any page, just for the specialized labor. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
visarspike Posted February 10, 2018 Share Posted February 10, 2018 sometimes i wonder : you all dislike people like erik essington, or some other, anyone who flips, but when it comes down to other people doing exactly the same thing, you all applaude and praise him : see this post : and tell me how different it is : he bought and re sold the same day, to rebuy art that he resold again (i think essingto n does the same) you'll tell me that glenbru is a real collector, but to me, it's exactly the same thing, i'm pretty sure essington, or even the donnelly's for what i know are real collectors, and they keep a lot of the art they buy for themselves again, you'll probably find a lot of arguments, but to stay simple, buying 10k, and reselling 17.5k the same day, that pretty looks like flipping to me.......but congrats glenbru, you made 7500$ that day, you're th best.....and shame to essington who makes a hundred bucks on a page, he should be burned like witches back in the old days...boooo !! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
visarspike Posted February 10, 2018 Share Posted February 10, 2018 what i'm trying to say is i think glen did great, and well, let the others try it too, if it works for them, good for them Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lee B. Posted February 10, 2018 Author Share Posted February 10, 2018 38 minutes ago, visarspike said: sometimes i wonder : you all dislike people like erik essington, or some other, anyone who flips, but when it comes down to other people doing exactly the same thing, you all applaude and praise him : see this post : and tell me how different it is : he bought and re sold the same day, to rebuy art that he resold again (i think essingto n does the same) you'll tell me that glenbru is a real collector, but to me, it's exactly the same thing, i'm pretty sure essington, or even the donnelly's for what i know are real collectors, and they keep a lot of the art they buy for themselves again, you'll probably find a lot of arguments, but to stay simple, buying 10k, and reselling 17.5k the same day, that pretty looks like flipping to me.......but congrats glenbru, you made 7500$ that day, you're th best.....and shame to essington who makes a hundred bucks on a page, he should be burned like witches back in the old days...boooo !! Thanks for chiming in with some thoughtful and thought-provoking remarks. I think one difference between Glen's story and what is typically highlighted in this thread is that Glen's story was 20 years old. Most of us were not at San Diego that year, and we didn't have a shot at any of the art being discussed by Glen. It's history. The current examples are pieces that folks see at auction one day, and perhaps bid on, and then see listed sometimes only a couple of days later with a notable mark-up in price. I think that makes the current examples more galling to some folks, and that's why they are cited in this thread. These current posts are accompanied by snarky comments sometimes, but generally they mostly just include a link to the original sale and price, and a link to the same piece's current asking price. It is what it is, and it's up to the reader to judge whether these practices are good or bad. I think you slightly mischaracterize the reaction to Glen's story in the thread you cited. The term "ruthless" was applied to the scenario, and the term "friend" was called into question at one point. This is all quite mild, but I don't think everyone in the thread was bending over backwards to praise Glen. That being said, I'd like to repeat that I do appreciate your thoughtful contribution to this discussion. Best regards, Lee Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Panelfan1 Posted February 10, 2018 Share Posted February 10, 2018 18 minutes ago, Lee B. said: Thanks for chiming in with some thoughtful and thought-provoking remarks. I think one difference between Glen's story and what is typically highlighted in this thread is that Glen's story was 20 years old. Most of us were not at San Diego that year, and we didn't have a shot at any of the art being discussed by Glen. It's history. The current examples are pieces that folks see at auction one day, and perhaps bid on, and then see listed sometimes only a couple of days later with a notable mark-up in price. I think that makes the current examples more galling to some folks, and that's why they are cited in this thread. These current posts are accompanied by snarky comments sometimes, but generally they mostly just include a link to the original sale and price, and a link to the same piece's current asking price. It is what it is, and it's up to the reader to judge whether these practices are good or bad. I think you slightly mischaracterize the reaction to Glen's story in the thread you cited. The term "ruthless" was applied to the scenario, and the term "friend" was called into question at one point. This is all quite mild, but I don't think everyone in the thread was bending over backwards to praise Glen. That being said, I'd like to repeat that I do appreciate your thoughtful contribution to this discussion. Best regards, Lee I think Glenn is a collector (with great taste) - at least that's how it appears to me -and flipping doesn't seem to be the primary objective. recently he added amazing spiderman 224 to his gallery. it was for sale at comic-link a week earlier for $25k. no way for me to know if he was the one who originally listed it on clink exchange or if he just bought it . right now he is selling it for 30k. is that flipping? i don't know the back story - so it may or may not be. asm cover link In general, I am in agreement with folks here that flipping - when you buy it at auction and beat out another collector just to resell it right away - is not appreciated by many of us collectors. Especially if there is a pattern of this that shows the person is not a collector -but possibly pretending. Perhaps if they represent themselves as a business - it would be different? not sure. For example I have seen many items get bought up by Mike Burkey at heritage and get resold. that's his lively hood - so while I don't love it - I totally understand it. Whenever he does that - its a learning opportunity for me. As a collector with a set amount of funds, selling art is also part of what I do -but usually when I sell its because I am trying to acquire new art and have to reluctantly give up old art. Sometimes tastes change and sometimes I work to trade up. sell a B cover to get an A cover. sell a piece by an artist that I have several examples of to get a piece by an artist I have zero examples of etc.. the timing of such things is unpredictable as you can't control when new pieces you like show up and your financial situation at the time it happens. That's the way of collectors. Flippers buy with the intent to resell right away because they see value others don't. unfortunately sometimes they are Coolyness ( I know its coollines -but when you read it fast as one word -its coolyness to me) and that's a whole other story. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
artdealer Posted February 10, 2018 Share Posted February 10, 2018 24 minutes ago, Panelfan1 said: I think Glenn is a collector (with great taste) - at least that's how it appears to me -and flipping doesn't seem to be the primary objective. I can give you a number of examples where Glen bought art from me only to immediately (and I mean IMMEDIATELY) try to flip it. True, old school collectors will not do that. MI Catwoman_Fan 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Panelfan1 Posted February 10, 2018 Share Posted February 10, 2018 1 minute ago, artdealer said: I can give you a number of examples where Glen bought art from me only to immediately (and I mean IMMEDIATELY) try to flip it. True, old school collectors will not do that. MI I had no idea. I just didnt want to call anyone a flipper without any back up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
