• 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.

YEAH, YEAH,...LETS SEE EM BOTH !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Started by krazykat-migration,

104 posts in this topic

delekkerste

delekkerste

Posted
Posted
First, why is everyone assuming that the scan posted by krazykat is somehow the "real" scan. Let's consider the source for a moment, shall we? I'm not a litigator, but if ever there was an impeachable witness, this would be it.

 

The Krazy one linked the photos from the personal website of a well-known comic art collector. gossip.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites
delekkerste

delekkerste

Posted
Posted
there is no one in their right minds who would actually buy this artwork without prior, in-hand inspection.

 

Big ticket collectibles sell all the time without people seeing them in person first. Let's say that, for example, Tim (tth2) wanted to buy this Batman cover...I doubt he'd fly all the way from Hong Kong just to check it out in person beforehand. He'd probably rely heavily on the high-res scan provided.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
tth2

tth2

Posted
Posted
First, why is everyone assuming that the scan posted by krazykat is somehow the "real" scan. Let's consider the source for a moment, shall we? I'm not a litigator, but if ever there was an impeachable witness, this would be it.

 

The Krazy one linked the photos from the personal website of a well-known comic art collector. gossip.gif

Okay, good point, I didn't know that. But there's nothing to say that the well-known collector's scan is a better/more accurate scan. No matter how much you adjust the scan, there's usually some trade off and some aspect is lost for every aspect gained.

 

Anyways, when the seller comes on here and says point blank that it's not restored, I'm inclined to believe them, because that statement would be very incriminating later in a lawsuit if it turned out to be untrue.

 

Finally, why is everyone obsessing over condition and defects? I thought the whole point of collecting original art was to get away from that comic collecting mindset? Suppose it had a hole in it, it's not like there's another original copy of this, right? It is what it is. Would the value of a historic piece like this really be adversely affected by existence of restoration?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
awe4one

awe4one

Posted
Posted
Finally, why is everyone obsessing over condition and defects?

 

Actually I thought the whole discussion wasn't about restoration but rather the page being misrepresented by Heritage via a manipulated scan...

 

Jim

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Crowzilla

Crowzilla

Posted
Posted

Actually I thought the whole discussion wasn't about restoration but rather the page being misrepresented by Heritage via a manipulated scan...

 

Yep, that and the misrepresentation about it being the earliest Batman/Detective Cover

Link to comment
Share on other sites
krazykat-migration

krazykat-migration

Posted
  • Author
Posted
Finally, why is everyone obsessing over condition and defects? I thought the whole point of collecting original art was to get away from that comic collecting mindset? Suppose it had a hole in it, it's not like there's another original copy of this, right? It is what it is. Would the value of a historic piece like this really be adversely affected by existence of restoration?

 

YOU HIT THE NAIL ON THE HEAD ! Only on this board would this condition discussion degrade in tone to similarities of in the comic book realm. Oldguy's point was a good one though,...more information is always good. However, you are correct,...condition is generally IRRELEVANT to many OA collector's (by condition I simply mean whether the piece had restoration) because it is recognized that the item is ONE OF A KIND. Its not like your going to be able to find a BETTER Batman # 11 Cover if you piece . . . .

 

THIS IS IT !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! TAKE IT OR . . . .LEAVE IT !!!!!!!!!!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites
delekkerste

delekkerste

Posted
Posted
YOU HIT THE NAIL ON THE HEAD ! Only on this board would this condition discussion degrade in tone to similarities of in the comic book realm. Oldguy's point was a good one though,...more information is always good. However, you are correct,...condition is generally IRRELEVANT to many OA collector's (by condition I simply mean whether the piece had restoration) because it is recognized that the item is ONE OF A KIND. Its not like your going to be able to find a BETTER Batman # 11 Cover if you piece . . . .

 

THIS IS IT !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! TAKE IT OR . . . .LEAVE IT !!!!!!!!!!!!

 

First, the "one of a kind" tag has been misused and abused to death. Yes, technically, each piece is unique. But, is that any different from, say, buying a house? Each house may occupy a unique location, but there are many other houses that are similarly constructed and/or similarly located (you could even make a similar argument for companies/stocks). Thus, if 1 Maple Shade Lane (re: X-Men #124, page 8 by Byrne) is a house that's falling apart but 7 Maple Shade Lane (re: X-Men #124, page 17) is in perfect condition, most of the time the latter (assuming the pages are of comparable quality) is going to be worth more.

 

Now, granted, there aren't a lot of good comparables for the GA Batman cover. So, yes, one can "take it or leave it"...but that doesn't mean that most people would pay the same price for it whether it was in tatters or whether it was in great condition. Just because something is unique or near-unique doesn't mean there is going to be one price for it regardless of condition. Nobody would pay the same amount for the Bats #11 cover if the owner's dog had 893censored-thumb.gif on it and left stains all over it, for example.

 

Regardless of what some of the OA crowd with vested interests would have you believe...CONDITION MATTERS.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Norrin_Radd

Norrin_Radd

Posted
Posted
First, the "one of a kind" tag has been misused and abused to death. Yes, technically, each piece is unique. But, is that any different from, say, buying a house? Each house may occupy a unique location, but there are many other houses that are similarly constructed and/or similarly located (you could even make a similar argument for companies/stocks). Thus, if 1 Maple Shade Lane (re: X-Men #124, page 8 by Byrne) is a house that's falling apart but 7 Maple Shade Lane (re: X-Men #124, page 17) is in perfect condition, most of the time the latter (assuming the pages are of comparable quality) is going to be worth more.

 

Good analogy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
tth2

tth2

Posted
Posted
Finally, why is everyone obsessing over condition and defects?

 

Actually I thought the whole discussion wasn't about restoration but rather the page being misrepresented by Heritage via a manipulated scan...

In that case I go back to the point of what makes people think the original scan posted by Krazy was any less manipulated than Heritage`s scan. Because it was first? It would be as easy to adjust the scan to highlight the stains as it is to adjust it to obscure the stains, no? Until we have someone objective who can hold it in their hands and tell us which scan is more accurate, or if both are equally misleading, it seems kind of unfair to cast all these aspersions on Heritage.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
krazykat-migration

krazykat-migration

Posted
  • Author
Posted
YOU HIT THE NAIL ON THE HEAD ! Only on this board would this condition discussion degrade in tone to similarities of in the comic book realm. Oldguy's point was a good one though,...more information is always good. However, you are correct,...condition is generally IRRELEVANT to many OA collector's (by condition I simply mean whether the piece had restoration) because it is recognized that the item is ONE OF A KIND. Its not like your going to be able to find a BETTER Batman # 11 Cover if you piece . . . .

 

THIS IS IT !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! TAKE IT OR . . . .LEAVE IT !!!!!!!!!!!!

 

First, the "one of a kind" tag has been misused and abused to death. Yes, technically, each piece is unique. But, is that any different from, say, buying a house? Each house may occupy a unique location, but there are many other houses that are similarly constructed and/or similarly located (you could even make a similar argument for companies/stocks). Thus, if 1 Maple Shade Lane (re: X-Men #124, page 8 by Byrne) is a house that's falling apart but 7 Maple Shade Lane (re: X-Men #124, page 17) is in perfect condition, most of the time the latter (assuming the pages are of comparable quality) is going to be worth more.

 

Now, granted, there aren't a lot of good comparables for the GA Batman cover. So, yes, one can "take it or leave it"...but that doesn't mean that most people would pay the same price for it whether it was in tatters or whether it was in great condition. Just because something is unique or near-unique doesn't mean there is going to be one price for it regardless of condition. Nobody would pay the same amount for the Bats #11 cover if the owner's dog had 893censored-thumb.gif on it and left stains all over it, for example.

 

Regardless of what some of the OA crowd with vested interests would have you believe...CONDITION MATTERS.

 

 

Delicatessen,

 

It is clear you are a newbie in the OA world. I wont even respond to the crux of your post as you seem to have a natural antagonism to me anyways. Peace Out !

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rip

Rip

Posted
Posted

Personally I REALLY enjoy when (BSD's) come on the boards. Don't let the negitivity get you down. Hang out in the Golden Age forum for a while or something. The waters just fine. 893crossfingers-thumb.gif

Believe it or not your responces really do help. thumbsup2.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites
OldGuy

OldGuy

Posted
Posted
Let me know if you like the scan on our website better now.

It is an accurate representation of what the art really looks like.

 

I do like that scan better.

 

As far as it not being the earliest whatever. Could be. Whatever you guys say.

 

"Whatever" Nice.

 

I just think it is hilarious that every time we make a mistake, you guys come up with a conspiracy theory about it.

 

What conspiracy? You guys posted a scan that misrepresented what you were selling. You can try and blow it off as some wild "conspiracy theory", but if it's only a theory then why did you post a new scan?

 

We don't know everything. I admit it! You caught me!

 

We don't need an admission by you to know that.

 

I want you all to realize what a huge victory you all have made here. You have gotten me to admit that I am not infallible, and that I don't know every single thing about every single piece of comic book artwork ever done.

 

No one was asking for that, but thank you for offering it up.

 

I'm also happy that someone brought up this image of the Batman #11. I had not seen the image before. I agreed it was too light, and I've done what I can to fix it.

 

That's all that I asked and I thank you for doing the right thing.

 

There is very little chance that I will be posting to these boards again.

It obviously gets me nowhere.

 

I disagree, and I'd like to see you stay. But if that's what you believe then hi.gif .

Link to comment
Share on other sites
awe4one

awe4one

Posted
Posted

Please spare us the victimization story... yeahok.gif

 

Heritage has been known to manipulate scans to hide defects in the past. You were called out in this case and are now crying. I expect better of a Heritage or any services company representative. The "I don't like how or what questions you ask so I'm leaving" mantra sure as hell doesn't garner any of my respect and surely doesn't put your company in the best light...

 

And as far as this being the first appearance of the Joker OA available. It either is or isn't. Not whatever. If you're going to make a claim then either stick by it or correct the error. As an alleged leader in selling historical comic collectibles, you'd think you'd try to get these details right...not flippantly disregard feedback when you could have made an error...

 

Why is it most comic related companies fail miserably at PR most of the time? Hell, Russ (ComicSupply) has gotten hammered on these boards but at least he's shown enough PR skills to continue and partially regain some lost credibility. And he's essentially a small time dealer (sorry Russ)... frustrated.gif

 

Jim

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mephisto

Mephisto

Posted
Posted
Finally, why is everyone obsessing over condition and defects?

 

Actually I thought the whole discussion wasn't about restoration but rather the page being misrepresented by Heritage via a manipulated scan...

In that case I go back to the point of what makes people think the original scan posted by Krazy was any less manipulated than Heritage`s scan. Because it was first? It would be as easy to adjust the scan to highlight the stains as it is to adjust it to obscure the stains, no? Until we have someone objective who can hold it in their hands and tell us which scan is more accurate, or if both are equally misleading, it seems kind of unfair to cast all these aspersions on Heritage.

 

This is the reason I thought the first scan was probably more accurate take a look at the Batman art from the same period.

http://cagle.slate.msn.com/hogan/features/breman/breman_art/detective71.gif

http://cagle.slate.msn.com/hogan/features/breman/breman_art/detective69.gif

And there are a lot of others that also look more like the first scan of Batman 11.

http://cagle.slate.msn.com/hogan/features/breman/breman.asp

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Go to topic listing