COMIC ART CON NYC EDITION (PICS) 1 1

[artdealer]

2 minutes ago, PhilipB2k17 said:

Junkies do not HAGGLE! Junkies take whatever cash they can get for this stuff. I mean, give me a fricking break.

Junkies don't, but comic book store owners do.

[dem1138]

Just now, PhilipB2k17 said:

Junkies do not HAGGLE! Junkies take whatever cash they can get for this stuff. I mean, give me a fricking break.

I have never ever heard the haggling part and I've heard the story from several close parties.  I don't know where that comes from.  I always heard the price was $800 (or whatever) and I also never heard that the store owners tried to buy it.  I heard that Brad tried to borrow the money from the store owners and they didn't have the cash on hand nor were they lending Brad anything.  As I've always heard it, the store owners wanted nothing to do with any of this.

The one interesting aspect of that I think lends to any sort of valuable debate here is where did the thieves come up with wanting hundreds of dollars for this stuff?  Why wouldn't they have asked $50?  Or $100?  

[delekkerste]

5 minutes ago, PhilipB2k17 said:

Junkies do not HAGGLE! Junkies take whatever cash they can get for this stuff. I mean, give me a fricking break.

So many assumptions - "they need the cash RIGHT NOW".  Yes, which is why they went and sold the ASM 1 to someone else.  "They aren't going to haggle?"  So it's always take it or leave it?  Or take whatever they can get for it so they can rush to get their next fix?  They had a bunch of the stories and also probably figured they could go back for more.  And these weren't even necessarily the first books they shopped/sold, so they may have been somewhat flush already - you're assuming that they were desperate for a fix at that particular time.

They also probably had some idea of what they had just from the reaction of the potential buyers.  Nothing in their behavior is implausible with the accepted version of events, while everything else is just rank speculation.  Not saying that it's impossible, just that there is absolutely zero proof or reason to accept a conspiracy theory of events over what we have been told.  

Edited August 22, 2018 by delekkerste

[artdealer]

10 minutes ago, PhilipB2k17 said:

Marvel would have done it. And maybe Marvel was lying to the artists about what they still had, so filing a police report created more legal problems than it’s worth. 

Marvel did not do anything about the stolen art. They didn't want egg on their face, so they simply brushed it aside.

[PhilipB2k17]

Just now, dem1138 said:

I have never ever heard the haggling part and I've heard the story from several close parties.  I don't know where that comes from.  I always heard the price was $800 (or whatever) and I also never heard that the store owners tried to buy it.  I heard that Brad tried to borrow the money from the store owners and they didn't have the cash on hand nor were they lending Brad anything.  As I've always heard it, the store owners wanted nothing to do with any of this.

The one interesting aspect of that I think lends to any sort of valuable debate here is where did the thieves come up with wanting hundreds of dollars for this stuff?  Why wouldn't they have asked $50?  Or $100?  

The store owners "loaning" money to buy stolen art? And the "haggling: part means that the thieves didn't accept a lower price for the art, despite being paid in cash. No Junkie would do that. 

[dem1138]

Just now, PhilipB2k17 said:

The store owners "loaning" money to buy stolen art? And the "haggling: part means that the thieves didn't accept a lower price for the art, despite being paid in cash. No Junkie would do that. 

Huh?  The store owners were not loaning anyone anything and I never heard anyone tell me that there was any haggling done.  They wanted their number and when they didn't get it they went elsewhere.

[PhilipB2k17]

1 minute ago, delekkerste said:

So many assumptions - "they need the cash RIGHT NOW".  Yes, which is why they went and sold the ASM 1 to someone else.  "They aren't going to haggle?"  So it's always take it or leave it?  Or take whatever they can get for it so they can rush to get their next fix?  They had a bunch of the stories and also probably figured they could go back for more.  And these weren't even necessarily the first books they shopped/sold, so they may have been somewhat flush already - you're assuming that they were desperate fior a  fix at that particular time.

They also probably had some idea of what they had just from the reaction of the potential buyers.  Nothing in their behavior is implausible with the accepted version of events, while everything else is just rank speculation.  Not saying that it's impossible, just that there is absolutely zero proof or reason to accept a conspiracy theory of events over what we have been told.  

Fine. The final piece of the puzzle would be a story somewhere about how Marvel's warehouse got ripped off sometime in the late 70's early 80's by outside thieves. Did Marvel file a police report? Did they file an insurance claim? You'd think this would make a news report somewhere, did it? Maybe there was such a story (I never saw anything like that on Shooter's blog, and he discounts that possibility). Maybe Shooter's lying? Or covering up for Marvel's negligence? But, this doesn't seem plausible to me. What does seem plausible is that this was an inside job.

[PhilipB2k17]

2 minutes ago, dem1138 said:

Huh?  The store owners were not loaning anyone anything and I never heard anyone tell me that there was any haggling done.  They wanted their number and when they didn't get it they went elsewhere.

Take it up with Mitch.

[artdealer]

4 minutes ago, delekkerste said:

So many assumptions - "they need the cash RIGHT NOW".  Yes, which is why they went and sold the ASM 1 to someone else.  "They aren't going to haggle?"  So it's always take it or leave it?  Or take whatever they can get for it so they can rush to get their next fix?  They had a bunch of the stories and also probably figured they could go back for more.  And these weren't even necessarily the first books they shopped/sold, so they may have been somewhat flush already - you're assuming that they were desperate for a fix at that particular time.

They also probably had some idea of what they had just from the reaction of the potential buyers.  Nothing in their behavior is implausible with the accepted version of events, while everything else is just rank speculation.  Not saying that it's impossible, just that there is absolutely zero proof or reason to accept a conspiracy theory of events over what we have been told.  

There was quite a bit of stolen Marvel art changing hands at that NYC con in 1984. 

[artdealer]

Just now, PhilipB2k17 said:

Take it up with Mitch.

Your OCD is showing.

[PhilipB2k17]

Just now, artdealer said:

There was quite a bit of stolen Marvel art changing hands at that NYC con in 1984. 

Which is why nobody wants to talk about it now. I likened it to how Joe Kennedy made his fortune bootlegging, and later used that money to become Ambassador to Great Britain and finance his Sons' Senate and Presidential campaigns.

[delekkerste]

6 minutes ago, PhilipB2k17 said:

The store owners "loaning" money to buy stolen art? And the "haggling: part means that the thieves didn't accept a lower price for the art, despite being paid in cash. No Junkie would do that. 

By your logic, the thieves would have accepted just about any cash price for the art.  $5.  $20.  $50.  You're implicitly assuming that someone with a drug habit is incapable of doing anything, at any time, but accepting whatever cash offer is given for anything of value.  That is ludicrous and wrong.  Drug users are perfectly capable of stealing, lying, negotiating, haggling, etc.  You are making deductions based on terrible logical assumptions, which is why you are coming up with baseless conclusions.

Edited August 22, 2018 by delekkerste

[dem1138]

3 minutes ago, PhilipB2k17 said:

Take it up with Mitch.

I'm done, this is why these discussions devolve and most 'old time' posters no longer participate.

[artdealer]

1 minute ago, PhilipB2k17 said:

Which is why nobody wants to talk about it now. I likened it to how Joe Kennedy made his fortune bootlegging, and later used that money to become Ambassador to Great Britain and finance his Sons' Senate and Presidential campaigns.

What's to talk about? It's been a discussion that's get resurrected every couple years by someone with a conspiracy theory.

It's been discussed to death. The people in the know (myself included), know the full details. 

It's 35 years ago. Get over it.

[PhilipB2k17]

Just now, delekkerste said:

By your logic, the thieves would have accepted just about any cash price for the art.  $5.  $20.  $50.  You're implicitly assuming that someone with a drug habit is incapable of doing anything, at any time, but accepting whatever cash offer is given for anything of value.  That is ludicrous and wrong.  Drug users are perfectly capable of stealing, lying, negotiating, haggling, etc.  You are making deductions based on terrible logical assumptions, which is why you are coming up with terribly wrong conclusions. 

If you are so desperate for a hit that you broke into a warehouse and stole art, then shopped it around to comic shops, you are going to take $600, if you originally wanted $800. 

You and I agree on 90% of this story. The only part where we disagree is that it was Junkies, and not some kind of inside job. Frankly, this sounds a lot like the type of stuff a small-time Mafia crew would pull off at the time. 

[delekkerste]

4 minutes ago, PhilipB2k17 said:

Fine. The final piece of the puzzle would be a story somewhere about how Marvel's warehouse got ripped off sometime in the late 70's early 80's by outside thieves. Did Marvel file a police report? Did they file an insurance claim? You'd think this would make a news report somewhere, did it? Maybe there was such a story (I never saw anything like that on Shooter's blog, and he discounts that possibility). Maybe Shooter's lying? Or covering up for Marvel's negligence? But, this doesn't seem plausible to me. What does seem plausible is that this was an inside job.

People have different levels of motivation and different levels of competence.  You are assuming that Marvel was motivated to publicize this and retrieve the art, when that could have been both embarrassing, time/manpower-consuming and could have triggered liability on their part when the art was eventually decided to be returned to the artists.  Plus, you're assuming that the people handling it were competent enough to seek legal remedy as well. 

Shooter is said to have seen lots of stolen art at conventions and done nothing about it, which the fledgling hobby took to be a green light as to acquiring more of the stolen art if the head honcho at Marvel was seen to be turning a blind eye to it. 

[PhilipB2k17]

Just now, artdealer said:

What's to talk about? It's been a discussion that's get resurrected every couple years by someone with a conspiracy theory.

It's been discussed to death. The people in the know (myself included), know the full details. 

It's 35 years ago. Get over it.

This is why I generally buy my art directly from the artist themselves, or their representative. That said, I have looked at some older pieces, and have been tempted. Lord knows I understand the temptation. And I did buy a few lower end things on eBay when I first started collecting. But, in those cases, it was well after the era when the artists got their pages back and you knew that the pages were almost certainly put into the stream of commerce originally by the artist. Doesn't rule out that it may be stolen, but it's far less likely. I just don't like the hypocrisy.

[PhilipB2k17]

1 minute ago, delekkerste said:

People have different levels of motivation and different levels of competence.  You are assuming that Marvel was motivated to publicize this and retrieve the art, when that could have been both embarrassing, time/manpower-consuming and could have triggered liability on their part when the art was eventually decided to be returned to the artists.  Plus, you're assuming that the people handling it were competent enough to seek legal remedy as well. 

Shooter is said to have seen lots of stolen art at conventions and done nothing about it, which the fledgling hobby took to be a green light as to acquiring more of the stolen art if the head honcho at Marvel was seen to be turning a blind eye to it. 

I mentioned the "embarrassment," and "legal headache" part of the Marvel motivation for not taking action. But, I tend to think that this art was not stolen contemporaneous to when it was shopped. I think it went missing many years before that, and someone was trying to dump it at that time for whatever reason. Maybe right at the time Marvel was looking for it (to give it back to artists), and started wondering where it all went. 

[artdealer]

3 minutes ago, PhilipB2k17 said:

I mentioned the "embarrassment," and "legal headache" part of the Marvel motivation for not taking action. But, I tend to think that this art was not stolen contemporaneous to when it was shopped. I think it went missing many years before that, and someone was trying to dump it at that time for whatever reason. Maybe right at the time Marvel was looking for it (to give it back to artists), and started wondering where it all went. 

You would be very wrong in your assumption.

It was stolen in the early 1980s and sold almost immediately.

[PhilipB2k17]

2 minutes ago, artdealer said:

You would be very wrong in your assumption.

It was stolen in the early 1980s and sold almost immediately.

Or was it?

Vis-à-vis the large cache of DC art that was ripped off:

"An anonymous art collector said at the time, also in the fanzine, "The plan was simple.  Have a friend on the moving crew 'misplace' a flat of artwork. Later, if it was discovered missing, it could easily be found without getting in trouble. If no one noticed it was missing, it was just taken away later.  Certain staff members had decided to rip-off some of the pages, and it was an inside job.

[...]

According to an inventory done later, a reported 1928 pages of original art and covers were stolen and soon made their way onto the open market.  The first time the art appeared is when the thief attended a New York convention and began selling pages to dealers, most of whom have since sold that art for very large profits."

https://ohdannyboy.blogspot.com/2012/05/joe-simon-fbi-and-strange-case-of.html