• 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.

Question of the Day

Started by TLC55555,

69 posts in this topic

joe_collector

joe_collector

Posted
Posted
And I don't believe for one minute that if you found an Action Comics 1 for $5 and sold it for $250,000 you'd give the previous owner $50,000.

 

That's because you're a selfish SOB with absolutely no empathy for your common man. thumbsup2.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites
matewan1990

matewan1990

Posted
Posted
If you found a high grade Action #1 at a garage sale and had the opportunity to purchase it for $5.00, what would you do? Personally, I'd pay the $5.00, have it CGC graded and sell it.

 

Unless the sellers at the garage sale seemed to be very wealthy, I'd make sure they received a sizeable amount. What do I mean by sizeable? Well, if the book sold for $250,000, I'd probably give them $50,000. I'd give them this money anonymously.

 

I don't consider paying the full price of what someone is asking for an item to be unethical. I do consider it unethical to offer someone 1% of the true market value of an item to end an open auction early though.

 

Just my 2 cents.

 

This is the dumbest thing I've ever read on this board.

 

And I don't believe for one minute that if you found an Action Comics 1 for $5 and sold it for $250,000 you'd give the previous owner $50,000.

 

This was a carryover from another thread and I thought that it would be interesting to see what other board members would do in this situation. If it doesn't tweak your obviously superior intellect, then don't post.

 

Oh, regarding the $50,000, I wasn't asking if you believed what I wrote or not. What you think about what I'd do or not do doesn't concern me in the least.

 

If you didn't care what I believe, why post your statement here? Obviously, you wanted us to believe you are some holier-than-thou collector who looks out for the little guy. I don't know why you'd even post a statement like this in the OA forum and then say you don't care if we believe you or not. If you don't really care, then keep that self-righteous thought tucked away in your mind and let us talk about original art — not an Action Comics 1 that you wish you could find at a garage sale. If you didn't want comments, you shouldn't write the posts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
matewan1990

matewan1990

Posted
Posted
And I don't believe for one minute that if you found an Action Comics 1 for $5 and sold it for $250,000 you'd give the previous owner $50,000.

 

That's because you're a selfish SOB with absolutely no empathy for your common man. thumbsup2.gif

 

See, you don't even know me and you're calling me names. And no, I don't care about you or the common man. Why should I? If someone puts a brand new pair of jeans in a garage sale and I buy them, I'm not going to say "Oh, waitaminnit, these are brand new and you've got them priced at a quarter. I think they should be $32.99 instead and that's what I'm going to pay you."

How many original art collectors on here have gotten a piece of art for cheap off eBay or in a trade and turned around and made a profit off of it? How many of those, then, have turned around and said to the previous owner "Here's $300 that I made off the art you sold to me. I felt compelled to send this to you because I bought it from you for a cheaper price than what I sold it for"?

Yeah, right. Those who live in glass houses...

I'm sure that everytime you buy a piece of art and then turn around or trade and sell it, you're not looking to get more for it than you paid.

Why be so hypocritical on these boards?

Business is business and if I make a profit on something I bought from you for cheap, then I don't feel the need to give back to you anything from the sale of said cheap art. It's capitalism at its finest.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
matewan1990

matewan1990

Posted
Posted
And I don't believe for one minute that if you found an Action Comics 1 for $5 and sold it for $250,000 you'd give the previous owner $50,000.

 

That's because you're a selfish SOB with absolutely no empathy for your common man. thumbsup2.gif

 

Recently, I came into a nice collection of historical photos and documents valued at around $7500. I got them for only a couple hundred dollars. So, when the state historical agency came knocking, wanting the photos for the historical archives in our state museum, I told them I was keeping them. One official said there might be legal means by which they could take them, because the documents are the personal effects of the first mayor of a town in West Virginia. You know what I told them, "The only way you'll get these photos is when I bring them up to the museum and burn them in the doorway."

That's the same thing I'd tell a judge or a lawyer if some artist put some absurd claim on my art.

Artist: "That piece was stolen from me a decade ago."

Me: "Did you file a police report or have some proof that it was stolen?"

Artist: "No, but it's stolen art."

Me: "Sucks to be you. The art's mine and it's going to stay mine. You want it, pony up the cash and we'll talk. Otherwise, go away."

Link to comment
Share on other sites
nik

nik

Posted
Posted
If an artist has some art stolen and doesn't file a police report and it turns up years later in a garage sale, then I'd say it sucks to be the artist and yay for me.

 

Now what if the artist filed a report with the locals, and say you buy the piece for some pretty good coin somewhere not knowing it was stolen. The artist finds out and comes to you seeking his art work with the police after you completed your deal. Now your forced to return it, cand find the seller to get your money back.

 

Would that be OK? or should we think "man it sucks to be him".

Link to comment
Share on other sites
TLC55555

TLC55555

Posted
  • Author
Posted
If you found a high grade Action #1 at a garage sale and had the opportunity to purchase it for $5.00, what would you do? Personally, I'd pay the $5.00, have it CGC graded and sell it.

 

Unless the sellers at the garage sale seemed to be very wealthy, I'd make sure they received a sizeable amount. What do I mean by sizeable? Well, if the book sold for $250,000, I'd probably give them $50,000. I'd give them this money anonymously.

 

I don't consider paying the full price of what someone is asking for an item to be unethical. I do consider it unethical to offer someone 1% of the true market value of an item to end an open auction early though.

 

Just my 2 cents.

 

This is the dumbest thing I've ever read on this board.

 

And I don't believe for one minute that if you found an Action Comics 1 for $5 and sold it for $250,000 you'd give the previous owner $50,000.

 

This was a carryover from another thread and I thought that it would be interesting to see what other board members would do in this situation. If it doesn't tweak your obviously superior intellect, then don't post.

 

Oh, regarding the $50,000, I wasn't asking if you believed what I wrote or not. What you think about what I'd do or not do doesn't concern me in the least.

 

If you didn't care what I believe, why post your statement here? Obviously, you wanted us to believe you are some holier-than-thou collector who looks out for the little guy. I don't know why you'd even post a statement like this in the OA forum and then say you don't care if we believe you or not. If you don't really care, then keep that self-righteous thought tucked away in your mind and let us talk about original art — not an Action Comics 1 that you wish you could find at a garage sale. If you didn't want comments, you shouldn't write the posts.

 

I now understand why you think this post is so stupid. You don't understand it. If you read slower, maybe more will sink in. Repeat: "I thought that it would be interesting to see what other board members would do in this situation". This in no way means that I care about what you think about my actions. I wanted to know what others would do. Do you need further explanation? If you do, just continue to post.

 

It seems that the other board members actually did understand my original post and made comments on what they'd do. Maybe you can see that others would also give back to the original owner. Some would, some wouldn't. It isn't an admission of being a good or bad person. As I stated earlier (read slow now) "Unless the sellers at the garage sale seemed to be very wealthy, I'd make sure they received a sizeable amount". This has nothing to do with being "Self-righteous". I'd just feel better knowing that I helped out someone that needed it. This is the same reason that folks donate to charities. Do you think that folks that donate to charities are also just being "Self-righteous"?

 

And by the way, I am the little guy. I'm not a million dollar a year collector. I collect what I like and enjoy the hobby. What I don't enjoy is folks that come on message boards with no other goal than to start arguments and conflict.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
october

october

Posted
Posted
Id tell him that the art is in my possesion and I am a bonafide purchaser who paid fair value (verbally,..I would never let any record exist that I possess the art),...Id ask him whather he filed a police claim or initiated any action to 'put the world on notice' that the piece had in fact been stolen ? These facts would be useful in determining whether to hold the piece and fight it out,..or dump it on the market at a show.

 

 

Being a BFP doesn't matter. If the seller tortiously converted the piece from the original owner, he never had title to transfer. Paying fair value in good faith is irrelevant and the original owner would prevail, provided the statute of limitations hasn't run.

Well, clearly KK has spent some money getting legal advice on this issue. I wonder why he would have to do that? 893scratchchin-thumb.gif

 

Like Rip said, this little hypo seems to be hitting close to home. 893scratchchin-thumb.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites
october

october

Posted
Posted

If you didn't care what I believe, why post your statement here? Obviously, you wanted us to believe you are some holier-than-thou collector who looks out for the little guy.

 

Giving money back to someone you got a fabulously good deal from is "holier-than-thou"? We are talking about an EXTREME situation, where tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of dollars are made on the sale. I think most decent people, with even a shred of conscience, would kick something back to the original owner. It hardly makes them some paragon of virtue. screwy.gif Who raised you people? Attila the Hun? There is more to life than personal acquisition at the expense of the ignorance of others. By all means though, feel free to polute you Karma further.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
october

october

Posted
Posted
No you didnt,..I wanna hear this...so that I can tell ya why anything you say evidences your lack of ANY jurisprudential knowledge. Go ahead,....Im a-waiting ....

 

Id tell him that the art is in my possesion and I am a bonafide purchaser who paid fair value (verbally,..I would never let any record exist that I possess the art),...Id ask him whather he filed a police claim or initiated any action to 'put the world on notice' that the piece had in fact been stolen ? These facts would be useful in determining whether to hold the piece and fight it out,..or dump it on the market at a show.

 

 

Being a BFP doesn't matter. If the seller tortiously converted the piece from the original owner, he never had title to transfer. Paying fair value in good faith is irrelevant and the original owner would prevail, provided the statute of limitations hasn't run.

 

I posted this before, but since seem incapable of finding it...

Link to comment
Share on other sites
krazykat-migration

krazykat-migration

Posted
Posted

Being a BFP for fair value most certainly is relevant when a person claiming he is the 'true owner',....has NEVER, NEVER,...EVER 'put the world on notice' of this fact. Moreover,..if you read my response,..I specifically noted that in the event a 'true owner' did in fact 'put the world on notice'...I would DUMP the piece...or burn it. But no way in hell would I turn it over for nada. No way. So bear this in mind,..I have maintained guardianship over the pieces I own for many years,..and I will sooner burn them than relinquish my dominion and control over them. And by the time a judge issued an injunction...IT WOULD BE TOO LATE.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
october

october

Posted
Posted
A rightful owner would make an attempt to recover his/her stolen property. Marvel, Romita, Ditko, Steranko, Heck, Ayers NEVER EVER EVER EVER made such an attempt.

 

I am not going to quibble over the details of past OA transactions that I have no idea about. I am just telling you how the law stands.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Go to topic listing