(attempted) Flip of the Day! 12 12

[comix4fun]

On 11/29/2023 at 2:07 PM, Dr. Balls said:

Man, there is a lot of grey area in there to define that as a prelim. And of course, philosophically: is it a prelim if it never became something more? If not, I'd say it was a sketch - just as you pointed out.

I would think that an artist would refer to something that never saw completion (commercially or personally) a 'work study' – as a sketch that never got finalized or rejected seems more like a practice exercise. I have reams of artwork that never turned into anything, and I always referred to them as work studies.

yeah "prelim" in the broadest sense is an "unfinished" drawing. So lots of things are prelims. "Cover Prelims" were drawings, when finished, that were for publication. Comics have always used "prelim" for unfinished work. That part doesn't bug me, because it's unfinished looking work. It's the "sketch" vs "cover" part that crosses a line to me. 
Calling something a "cover" connotes something very much different. Something this seller is leveraging to gain interest and increased valuation for a piece that was purchased as just a sketch. 

Edited November 29, 2023 by comix4fun

[JC25427N]

On 11/29/2023 at 3:07 PM, Dr. Balls said:

Man, there is a lot of grey area in there to define that as a prelim. And of course, philosophically: is it a prelim if it never became something more? If not, I'd say it was a sketch - just as you pointed out.

I would think that an artist would refer to something that never saw completion (commercially or personally) a 'work study' – as a sketch that never got finalized or rejected seems more like a practice exercise. I have reams of artwork that never turned into anything, and I always referred to them as work studies.

I'd go with the definition that prelim means something done in preparation for something else greater. So if the intent when this piece was drawn was for it to lay the ground work for a greater piece, I'd say it fits the definition of prelim even if that greater piece never actually ended up happening, as long as the intent was there. 

Edit: actually you know what, thinking about it more, I don't agree with myself. Because an artist could have a quick sketch they intended at the time to be nothing more than some quick doodling that they may later reuse as inspiration for a greater piece. But the way I defined it earlier would make that original sketch not a prelim since the intent wasn't there at the time. 

I don't know anymore, I'd just go with prelim means unfinished like comix4fun said 

Edited November 29, 2023 by JC25427N

[cloud cloddie]

Regardless of the prelim debate, just assume anything for sale by los bros with the term ‘unused’ is a scam. 

[redrighthand]

On 11/29/2023 at 10:51 AM, comix4fun said:

Calling it a "Cover Prelim" indicates it was part of a contract to create a cover for publication and by the publisher. Nothing is a "cover" or should utilize that terminology unless it can be tied to work done for publication. If the seller doesn't have proof or provenance of work for publication they've created a fiction meant to induce purchase. 

We are talking about a hobby that has, at best, loose definitions and, at worst, wrong definitions for almost so many art-related terms. Remarks (or more properly remarques) continues to mutate, but almost never seen it used for the actual definition. What people are selling as artist's proofs are not artist's proofs, and I don't know how many times I've seen a fully inked piece called a sketch just because it wasn't a cover or interior page. 

Coming to comics art after having studied fine art and its markets is confusing. This is just par for the course.

All this is by way of saying "yeah!"

[Xatari]

On 11/29/2023 at 12:35 PM, cloud cloddie said:

Regardless of the prelim debate, just assume anything for sale by los bros with the term ‘unused’ is a scam. 

It’s pretty wild. It would be so interesting to have a record of all the alterations by various dealers over the years. When I first heard art had been modified, enhanced, or altered I was stunned. Fast forward a few years, and some of the horror stories that surface are mind blowing. 

[JC25427N]

On 11/29/2023 at 7:31 PM, redrighthand said:

and I don't know how many times I've seen a fully inked piece called a sketch just because it wasn't a cover or interior page. 

 

This might sound weird but I think it's just because of laziness (for lack of a better word). I don't think any of the alternatives are as pithy as sketch. Drawing, Illustration? I think the next best one would just be calling everything "pieces"

 

[MAR1979]

On 11/29/2023 at 1:51 PM, comix4fun said:

Calling it a "Cover Prelim" indicates it was part of a contract to create a cover for publication and by the publisher. Nothing is a "cover" or should utilize that terminology unless it can be tied to work done for publication. If the seller doesn't have proof or provenance of work for publication they've created a fiction meant to induce purchase. 

Where I grew up purposeful deceit like that was called Lying.

Edited November 30, 2023 by MAR1979

[comix4fun]

On 11/29/2023 at 9:27 PM, MAR1979 said:

Where I grew up purposeful deceit like that was called Lying.

And in a business transaction,  lying is called fraud around here. 

[jaybuck43]

On 11/29/2023 at 10:32 PM, comix4fun said:

And in a business transaction,  lying is called fraud around here. 

You're just being literal.  I know two brothers who would call it "Enhanced Negotiating Tactics".  

[JC25427N]

Is there a thread for anti-flips? 

Dino sold this cover on today's dueling dealers for $2500

 

Sold 2 years ago at Heritage for 16.8K

Someone at some point these past 2 years must have taken a real bath on this before it got to Dino

[Will_K]

On 11/29/2023 at 11:07 PM, JC25427N said:

Is there a thread for anti-flips? 

Interesting.  For the HA piece, the buildings in bottom left are shaded.  But not for the Dino piece.

[JC25427N]

On 11/29/2023 at 11:49 PM, Will_K said:

Interesting.  For the HA piece, the buildings in bottom left are shaded.  But not for the Dino piece.

Yeah someone I've been talking to has pointed out a few more differences. Barreto's signature between Huntress and the Rocket isn't there on Dino's piece, and if you look at the scan of the entire board that Heritage has https://comics.ha.com/itm/original-comic-art/covers/eduardo-barreto-wonder-woman-319-cover-original-art-dc-1984-/a/7244-95043.s the writing on the top right of each board don't match up

[Dr. Balls]

On 11/29/2023 at 5:31 PM, redrighthand said:

We are talking about a hobby that has, at best, loose definitions and, at worst, wrong definitions for almost so many art-related terms. Remarks (or more properly remarques) continues to mutate, but almost never seen it used for the actual definition. What people are selling as artist's proofs are not artist's proofs, and I don't know how many times I've seen a fully inked piece called a sketch just because it wasn't a cover or interior page. 

Coming to comics art after having studied fine art and its markets is confusing. This is just par for the course.

All this is by way of saying "yeah!"

I agree. There is a lot of misused definitions for the sake of creating a selling point where none exists to someone who has worked in art or production - in both OA and comic books. 

[Dr. Balls]

On 11/29/2023 at 9:53 PM, JC25427N said:

Yeah someone I've been talking to has pointed out a few more differences. Barreto's signature between Huntress and the Rocket isn't there on Dino's piece, and if you look at the scan of the entire board that Heritage has https://comics.ha.com/itm/original-comic-art/covers/eduardo-barreto-wonder-woman-319-cover-original-art-dc-1984-/a/7244-95043.s the writing on the top right of each board don't match up

I saw this piece tonight as well - and even though it’s not in my collecting focus, I was surprised to see a WW 80’s cover go for insanely cheap. There has to be more to the story. Didn’t Nick Barrucci buy it?

[Terry E. Gibbs]

The Huntress image does not line up either. Not the same cover.

[INKREDIBLE BULK]

On 11/29/2023 at 11:07 PM, JC25427N said:

Is there a thread for anti-flips? 

Dino sold this cover on today's dueling dealers for $2500

 

Sold 2 years ago at Heritage for 16.8K

Someone at some point these past 2 years must have taken a real bath on this before it got to Dino

Looks like the original art was sold at the HA auction while the other is all stats, that why it was such a drop, IMO.

[vodou]

On 11/29/2023 at 11:07 PM, JC25427N said:

Is there a thread for anti-flips? 

Dino sold this cover on today's dueling dealers for $2500

 

Sold 2 years ago at Heritage for 16.8K

Someone at some point these past 2 years must have taken a real bath on this before it got to Dino

Lordy lordy, that's some pain. Are we certain they are both the same piece and exactly as published, one isn't 3/4 stats or something, because barring a problem like that...2500 looks like a very nice buy to begin with (I see 5-7k "fair" retail here) and whoever paid almost 17k...wth were you thinking???

Are we sure Dino wasn't the HA buyer? HA big number buys are often his bag...

Edited November 30, 2023 by vodou
typo

[Matches_Malone]

Dino's kindness matches his prices. He always has the best-selling price. I've been lucky and beneficiary on a few of those. I haven't sold any of them, but when I do, I know I will do quite all right.  CLAIM12-DINO

[Will_K]

On 11/30/2023 at 12:11 AM, Dr. Balls said:

I saw this piece tonight as well - and even though it’s not in my collecting focus, I was surprised to see a WW 80’s cover go for insanely cheap. There has to be more to the story. Didn’t Nick Barrucci buy it?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8gjK8ixwSdY

Skip to 46 minutes into the show.

[jaybuck43]

On 11/30/2023 at 6:52 AM, vodou said:

Lordy lordy, that's some pain. Are we certain they are both the same piece and exactly as published, one isn't 3/4 stats or something, because barring a problem like that...2500 looks like a very nice buy to begin with (I see 5-7k "fair" retail here) and whoever paid almost 17k...wth were you thinking???

Are we sure Dino wasn't the HA buyer? HA big number buys are often his bag...

This is very disconcerting.  It looks like the page was completely disassembled and then put back together.   I don't think the Huntress image is the original.  Look at the HA one.  You can see the trees on the stet.  It's semiopaque (or the art is drawn on it).  Then look at the Donelly special.  The box is solid white and straight (this one is at an angle).  Trees are gone.  The blue pencil 17 is gone.  The whited out lines are added back in, along with the ephemera.  I almost wonder if the board was cut up and pasted onto a new piece of Bristol board.  Most concerning is the browning.  Normal to happen with glue over time... not in less than 2 years.  I wonder if this is an attempt to age it and make it look older.  I wouldn't pay $250 for Dino's piece.  Jesus.