Cornered markets, bots, and the OA hobby 0

[grapeape]

http://kck.st/3Nt8RHG
 

This project revealed something you all might have thoughts on. There is one category that allows you to buy 1 of 104 offerings at $2500. That guarantees you a one of a kind painting by the artist Joe Jusko.

What I found off putting was something I read. The company mentions that they were **contacted by multiple dealers to buy out all 104 slots. 😞 To the companies credit they are going to great pains to make it so all 104 paintings hopefully go to 104 separate collectors.

They also are using a "drawing" system so you don't know which of the 104 paintings you are ultimately getting. This is fair to all.

This is only a partial rip at the greed err I mean entrepreneurial passion of some in our hobby. What other ways have you seen attempts to corner or game the original art market, even when there's a system in place to give everyone a fair shot?

I've heard of bots to beat offerings like this. Or methods to beat art drops. But I don't have all the info. What say ye CGC? Try to brings receipts I'm hoping to learn not conjure up conspiracy theory or drag anyone through the mud.

 

 

 

 

[Rick2you2]

But if I went down that road, wouldn’t it mean that I would end up owning one of his pieces of art? Why would I want that?

[Dr. Balls]

It's been my experience in other hobbies that the whole "fairness" of endeavors like this are not actually fair at all. Fairness is relative, and in some cases an illusion. Someone - whether it's 100 people or 2 people - always gets shut out.

Based on my experiences in the past, the minute someone describes their marketing tactic as "fair", I walk away from the offering - I can live with the randomness of being lucky to come across something, rather than waiting in line hoping for a shot.

Edited November 27, 2022 by Dr. Balls

[grapeape]

On 11/27/2022 at 6:40 AM, Rick2you2 said:

But if I went down that road, wouldn’t it mean that I would end up owning one of his pieces of art? Why would I want that?

I like joe's work. But I had a friend who made the mistake of mentioning he blew up one of his trading cards at Kinkos to 10x14. This was the 1990's.

Joe was very annoyed. "They weren't meant to be seen at that size!"

chilled the vibe.

Of course it seems Rick would say they aren't meant to be seen at any size? 😆 

[grapeape]

On 11/27/2022 at 9:47 AM, Dr. Balls said:

It's been my experience in other hobbies that the whole "fairness" of endeavors like this are not actually fair at all. Fairness is relative, and in some cases an illusion. Someone - whether it's 100 people or 2 people - always gets shut out.

Based on my experiences in the past, the minute someone describes their marketing tactic as "fair", I walk away from the offering - I can live with the randomness of being lucky to come across something, rather than waiting in line hoping for a shot.

No doubt. Still, trying to "buy out" all 104 paintings in advance of their completion from something that most reasonable people would realize was meant to find a broader audience, feels piggish and gross. I mean ambitious but misguided.

 

[Rick2you2]

On 11/27/2022 at 1:13 PM, grapeape said:

I like joe's work. But I had a friend who made the mistake of mentioning he blew up one of his trading cards at Kinkos to 10x14. This was the 1990's.

Joe was very annoyed. "They weren't meant to be seen at that size!"

chilled the vibe.

Of course it seems Rick would say they aren't meant to be seen at any size? 😆 

As I have said before, so much skill, so little talent.

[New School Fool]

On 11/27/2022 at 5:47 PM, Dr. Balls said:

It's been my experience in other hobbies that the whole "fairness" of endeavors like this are not actually fair at all. Fairness is relative, and in some cases an illusion. Someone - whether it's 100 people or 2 people - always gets shut out.

Based on my experiences in the past, the minute someone describes their marketing tactic as "fair", I walk away from the offering - I can live with the randomness of being lucky to come across something, rather than waiting in line hoping for a shot.

True, no offering is ever truly 100% 'fair'. Someone will always have an edge over others. But any service stating as such is at least my making an effort to reduce the scalpers. You'll have more of a chance than if they weren't.

[Dr. Balls]

On 11/27/2022 at 11:17 AM, grapeape said:

No doubt. Still, trying to "buy out" all 104 paintings in advance of their completion from something that most reasonable people would realize was meant to find a broader audience, feels piggish and gross. I mean ambitious but misguided.

 

I totally agree - I take a more philosophical approach: is society really worthy of going through all the trouble of being “fair” when a select group of people are intent on cornering the market for the event?

They may have had a good idea, but in the end - a minority group always seems to ruin it. Which is why I don’t personally participate in those things. Not trying to be negative, that just always seems to be the reality.

Dealers buying up the slots. Influencers buying all the limited copies, etc etc.

[Yorick]

On 11/27/2022 at 10:17 AM, grapeape said:

No doubt. Still, trying to "buy out" all 104 paintings in advance of their completion from something that most reasonable people would realize was meant to find a broader audience, feels piggish and gross. I mean ambitious but misguided.

 

Love your avatar pic.  GREAT artwork in Magic.

Another idea here is that the few who really love Joe's work know that there will be at least one good painting in the 104 total.  They'll keep the one they like, and sell off the remainder.  It's the problem of the "commission".  Even my favorite artists have produced some duds when I've sought commissions.  My preference these days is to save my money to take a shot at the specific work that I can't live without.

[Mephisto]

One person bought all of Joe's 2016 Marvel Masterpieces paintings.  at least it wasn't a dealer.

I found the art drops for the 2020 Masterpieces paintings by Palumbo especially obnoxious and that was probably the final thing that really lead to my disinterest in adding any more paintings. 

There has been one big buyer who has been paying ungodly prices so with my disinterest, let a lot of stuff go. After buying a house two months ago I still haven't even got around to hang about half my framed art. 

[RBerman]

On the small scale, one dealer buying 104 pieces would be a bummer for anyone else hoping to get one of them. But on a larger scale, the more of a proven market there is for such work, the more comparable artists will enter the fray, increasing supply. So the anecdote in the opening post seems to mainly show that Jusko priced himself below market value.

[zhamlau]

On 11/27/2022 at 1:13 PM, grapeape said:

I like joe's work. But I had a friend who made the mistake of mentioning he blew up one of his trading cards at Kinkos to 10x14. This was the 1990's.

Joe was very annoyed. "They weren't meant to be seen at that size!"

chilled the vibe.

Of course it seems Rick would say they aren't meant to be seen at any size? 😆 

I have this piece by Joe in my office. It was for some marvel project back in 2000, lithos and what not. It’s like 24x32 or something like that. It looks great close up and from afar IMO, not sure what he was going on about. Maybe he just meant that one image? Cause his work when done large really holds up IMO.

 

 

[grapeape]

On 11/28/2022 at 9:20 PM, zhamlau said:

I have this piece by Joe in my office. It was for some marvel project back in 2000, lithos and what not. It’s like 24x32 or something like that. It looks great close up and from afar IMO, not sure what he was going on about. Maybe he just meant that one image? Cause his work when done large really holds up IMO.

 

 

Oh I agree. That's gorgeous!!

He was referring in general to the 92 Marvel Masterpiece set. My friend had mentioned a few that he'd blown up. 
I just took it that he felt reproducing it somehow lessened the impact of the detail in the trading card size. I didn't agree but also realized as the artist we should respect where he was coming from.

Now Kinkos is a business of the past but they had great modern equipment for the time. They would blow up smaller images to poster size and they would look amazing. 
 

Eventually if memory serves me they started turning down reproducing (especially comic related) images and sited "copyright" concerns. 

 

[grapeape]

On 11/28/2022 at 6:08 AM, Mephisto said:

One person bought all of Joe's 2016 Marvel Masterpieces paintings.  at least it wasn't a dealer.

I found the art drops for the 2020 Masterpieces paintings by Palumbo especially obnoxious and that was probably the final thing that really lead to my disinterest in adding any more paintings. 

There has been one big buyer who has been paying ungodly prices so with my disinterest, let a lot of stuff go. After buying a house two months ago I still haven't even got around to hang about half my framed art. 

Good luck in your new home and getting that art work up on the walls

[Dr. Balls]

On 11/28/2022 at 10:52 PM, grapeape said:

He was referring in general to the 92 Marvel Masterpiece set. My friend had mentioned a few that he'd blown up. 
I just took it that he felt reproducing it somehow lessened the impact of the detail in the trading card size. I didn't agree but also realized as the artist we should respect where he was coming from.

I can see Jusko's concern with that - if you're working small, or super large - there are considerations to be made when doing the actual design/illustration. Reading about Joe's educational background and that he went right into commercial illustration, I'm sure he has a technical pre-disposition based on his work experience to factoring in how his artwork will be reproduced and to what size - because his original occupation required him to work that way. It likely stuck with him as he migrated from day-to-day illustration to being on his own.

And, in all honesty, I can relate to having frustration or downright annoyance when a piece of artwork is used differently than what I had originally intended. When working on large-scale designs - such as billboards - spacing and details are over-emphasized or simplified because the intended viewing distance is hundreds of feet. When working on small-scale designs - like trading cards or greeting cards - minute details have to be left out because they won't reproduce properly at smaller scales and can lead to blurriness, plugging or just being muddy-looking.

Most people don't see these things as problems or detractions, but other artists see them plain as day - and the last thing an artist wants is to have his work misrepresented in a way he didn't intend. That's very frustrating.

Speaking from experience, that is pretty much hard-wired into a commercial illustrators/graphic designers brain: understanding how and where the piece will be produced before you even start is how effective artists approach the project. I have been out of that profession for almost 8 years, and my brain still approaches visual problems the same way, when I am occasionally faced with it.

Stating the obvious here - but when Joe sees a trading card blown up to a poster, and then subsequently critiqued on his lack of detail, etc - he probably gets defensive, as those were things purposely left out due to the scale of the original end product.

[barneythecantankerous]

Couldn't you make the argument that collectors buying up an entire issue is greedy? Which seems to be very common place today and especially with some recent titles I feel people are operating speculatively, one that comes to mind is The Department of Truth. But I'm sure to these individuals their counter point would be that they're just "protecting their investment". 

It's been a while since I backed something on Kickstarter but I don't think you can just choose X of a reward. So these dealers were potentially going well out of their way to gouge collectors. 

I think they responded the right way personally, because once you commit to launching a Kickstarter you can't just easily walk it back but $2,500 for a random piece is still a massive gamble IMO (but then I don't know his market).

[Bronty]

On 12/2/2022 at 8:36 AM, barneythecantankerous said:

Couldn't you make the argument that collectors buying up an entire issue is greedy?

I mean, this isn't summer camp.   Where do you draw that line?    

Personally I have zero problem with any of it.   If somebody wants to buy out a complete issue or Jusko's entire year, so be it.   They take the risk and they shell out the money, and that's not nothing.

[Will_K]

On 12/2/2022 at 8:36 AM, barneythecantankerous said:

Couldn't you make the argument that collectors buying up an entire issue is greedy?

If that's the way the art is being sold then there's only 2 choices (if you can afford it) buy it or don't.  It's been argued that buying a complete issue for the sole purpose of breaking it up and selling individual pages is leaning more towards a profit motive.

On the other side of the transaction, from what I understand (maybe I'm mistaken) from Felix's unboxings, there's isn't a premium or discount on the price when selling an entire issue.  It's a matter of preference to sell the art in that manner.  But I'm sure it saves a lot of trouble when shipping a complete issue vs individual pages.

[gumbydarnit]

https://www.fpguniverse.com/original-painted-masterpieces
 

Looks like all the paintings are already finished! If you scroll down halfway you’ll start seeing the illustrations. From the image they show the size is a bit smaller than a comic book. Most are single figure with no background some do have a hint of a background.
 

I have to give it to him for getting these completed in a timely manner were the buyer won’t have to wait long for their painting! 

[grapeape]

Generally I agree that anything you can work out for yourself as Collector or dealer is fair game.

Trying to get all the pages of a story or offering to buy from an artist seems different than the Kickstarter project. That entire project seems geared towards getting people excited about and supportive of the 1992 Marvel Masterpieces Card Set Book project.

It just felt to me like an invitation to participate in a raffle where your money does good, not to find out when you arrive that the page 6 crowd "donated" taking all the big raffle prizes off the table. I'm grateful that situation was avoided.

Well love him, like him or meh, as stated the 104 sold out. I'm glad we talked about this a little bit ahead of seeing some of them reappear for sale at a mark up down the road. Or maybe all 104 went to fans who just loved the work 😉