• 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.

(attempted) Flip of the Day!
12 12

Started by Lee B.,

2,094 posts in this topic

lobrac

lobrac

Posted
Posted
Sold for $515 on eBay on July 9:
 
 
Now $3000 on CAF:
 
 
#noshame
Link to comment
Share on other sites
artdealer

artdealer

Posted
Posted
On 7/25/2021 at 11:13 AM, cloud cloddie said:

Today in “dealers” “influencing” the market, we have an excalibur cover that sold on CLink  3/2/21 for $2988. 
https://www.comiclink.com/Auctions/item.asp?back=%2FComicTrack%2FAuctions%2Fbids.asp%3Freturning%3D1%26pg%3D2&id=1461760

Now available for $5500. 
https://www.comicartfans.com/ForSaleDetails.asp?ArtId=6735003

Semantics. 
It’s not “influencer”. 
It’s “manipulator”. 
Considering who is selling it, are you surprised at the price?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
cloud cloddie

cloud cloddie

Posted
Posted
On 7/25/2021 at 9:39 AM, lobrac said:
Sold for $515 on eBay on July 9:
 
 
Now $3000 on CAF:
 
 
#noshame

Another seller in the flipper hall of fame. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
zhamlau

zhamlau

Posted
Posted
On 7/25/2021 at 11:13 AM, cloud cloddie said:

Today in “dealers” “influencing” the market, we have an excalibur cover that sold on CLink  3/2/21 for $2988. 
https://www.comiclink.com/Auctions/item.asp?back=%2FComicTrack%2FAuctions%2Fbids.asp%3Freturning%3D1%26pg%3D2&id=1461760

Now available for $5500. 
https://www.comicartfans.com/ForSaleDetails.asp?ArtId=6735003

I bought that cover a few years ago for 300-400 and I think sold it for 600 in auction in CL. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
awayne83

awayne83

Posted
Posted

Jim Lee page
https://www.comiclink.com/itemdetail.asp?back=%2Fsearch_adv_art.asp%3Fall%3Dy%26CATEGORIES%3D-1%26Artist1%3D%26Artist2%3D%26Title%3D%26ISSUE%3D%26PAGE%3D%26YEAR%3D%26PRICEF%3D%26PRICET%3D%26SORT%3DNEW%26_where_forsale%3Dy%26ExcludeSP%3Dy%26x%3D54%26y%3D12%26where_forsale%3Dy&id=1503851

Sold on Clink back in June for 2700. On Clink exchange now for 8500.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Day Stripper

Day Stripper

Posted
Posted
On 8/7/2021 at 10:49 AM, artdealer said:

So, Basically a xerox copy with some magic marker for $3600?

Um,....ok.

How does the community feel about "original art" that is, in effect, a print (or proof) of digitally created art which may (or may not) be touched up, colored or otherwise revised by the artist?  

Phrased another way, is there any widely accepted definition of "original art" which applies to digitally created artwork?  

If there's another thread for this topic, sorry for the detour.  

I've read all of the NFT/digital art threads (as well as numerous other articles about NFTs), and, call me old school, but I'm not particularly interested in purchasing a digital file on a blockchain and thereby claiming to own a piece of "original art".  The piece discussed above does not appear to include an NFT, but only the physical "art".    

Is a print (or, as described above, a "xerox copy") of digital art truly "original art"?  Even if made by the artist?  It doesn't feel like it.  It feels more like a piece by those painters who will, for an additional fee, add a remarque, or add additional "brush strokes" to the image of their limited edition prints.  The result may be "unique", but does it elevate a retouched print to original art (conceding that a hand-drawn remarque is indeed original art)? 

How does one know that the artist won't, somewhere down the road, print additional copies/images from their digital file (apparently not a primary concern if the art is sold in NFT format)?

I ask since I recently purchased the "original art" for a published comic strip (from the artist) on eBay.  I received what looked to be a b&w print of the art with some marker revisions/corrections.  I contacted the artist and expressed my concerns with the piece.  He replied that the art was created digitally, and that this was the original print which he had made from the digital file.  He touched up the art with marker/pen, and submitted this print to the syndicate for publication.  He created a second print of the art which he hand-colored, and submitted that to the syndicate as a color guide.  None of this information was in the original listing.  Expecting to have received a hand-rendered pen and ink drawing, and receiving a retouched print was, needless to say, somewhat disappointing.  Since the cost was rather modest however, I ended up keeping the "art" and securing the hand-colored version (in for a penny...and since this felt it had more "original art" than the b&w version).  What do I call this piece?  It may be the original art for the published strip, but it doesn't feel like "original art" to me (except for the hand coloring).             

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Will_K

Will_K

Posted
Posted (edited)

It's too bad about that strip art.  The artist (above all people) should disclose their process.  If forced to use the word "art", some people (being generous) will call it "(the) published art".  The colored version would probably called "production art".  Whatever the process that is used, if that is disclosed, the market will set the price. 

There was a pretty good discussion on 1 of 1 prints:

https://www.cgccomics.com/boards/topic/441899-is-anyone-here-buying-into-monoprints/?tab=comments#comment-10434837

 

Edited by Will_K
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rick2you2

Rick2you2

Posted
Posted
On 8/12/2021 at 3:22 PM, Captain Calamity said:

How does the community feel about "original art" that is, in effect, a print (or proof) of digitally created art which may (or may not) be touched up, colored or otherwise revised by the artist?  

Phrased another way, is there any widely accepted definition of "original art" which applies to digitally created artwork?  

If there's another thread for this topic, sorry for the detour.  

I've read all of the NFT/digital art threads (as well as numerous other articles about NFTs), and, call me old school, but I'm not particularly interested in purchasing a digital file on a blockchain and thereby claiming to own a piece of "original art".  The piece discussed above does not appear to include an NFT, but only the physical "art".    

Is a print (or, as described above, a "xerox copy") of digital art truly "original art"?  Even if made by the artist?  It doesn't feel like it.  It feels more like a piece by those painters who will, for an additional fee, add a remarque, or add additional "brush strokes" to the image of their limited edition prints.  The result may be "unique", but does it elevate a retouched print to original art (conceding that a hand-drawn remarque is indeed original art)? 

How does one know that the artist won't, somewhere down the road, print additional copies/images from their digital file (apparently not a primary concern if the art is sold in NFT format)?

I ask since I recently purchased the "original art" for a published comic strip (from the artist) on eBay.  I received what looked to be a b&w print of the art with some marker revisions/corrections.  I contacted the artist and expressed my concerns with the piece.  He replied that the art was created digitally, and that this was the original print which he had made from the digital file.  He touched up the art with marker/pen, and submitted this print to the syndicate for publication.  He created a second print of the art which he hand-colored, and submitted that to the syndicate as a color guide.  None of this information was in the original listing.  Expecting to have received a hand-rendered pen and ink drawing, and receiving a retouched print was, needless to say, somewhat disappointing.  Since the cost was rather modest however, I ended up keeping the "art" and securing the hand-colored version (in for a penny...and since this felt it had more "original art" than the b&w version).  What do I call this piece?  It may be the original art for the published strip, but it doesn't feel like "original art" to me (except for the hand coloring).             

I can’t speak for others, but I would call it the commission of a fraud. The artist withheld material information regarding its content as most of it was done on a computer. The fact that it was the final version used in publication doesn’t change that. If he had disclosed its origins, I doubt you would have bought it, and he probably knew that when he listed it. All the elements for a fraud finding are therefore being met.
 

Now, if you are asking what most collectors would consider it, responses would probably run in the direction of low end junk, to some who recognize that it may be the future for illustration art. Personally, I would pass without an original sketch being added, and only if it were priced only a little higher than a sketch. If I were in love with it, and it was a must have, I would treat it as a high end poster.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
grapeape

grapeape

Posted
Posted (edited)
On 8/14/2021 at 9:43 AM, Panelfan1 said:

https://panelpageart.com/GalleryPiece.asp?Piece=1371. 

Now 18.5k

12k in June 2021 on HA. 1.5 months.

Panelpage getting told on by panelfan😂 I had to do a frickin double take there......I thought you were telling on yourself lol 

 

Edited by grapeape
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
12 12
Go to topic listing