Steranko Asgardian art

[Mister Trent]

Mike,

 

Thanks for the entertaining response. Your lunacy speaks for itself.

 

Take care,

Paul

 

Amen, brother, amen

[matewan1990]

Mike,

 

Thanks for the entertaining response. Your lunacy speaks for itself.

 

Take care,

Paul

 

Amen, brother, amen

 

I'm left wondering ... how is me being RIGHT (it's not October 6, 2006 yet, so the piece WAS NOT AND NEVER WAS ON THE SITE FOR TWO YEARS as Paul said) and Paul being wrong "lunacy?" And why would you, Mr. Trent, second his idiotic statement? And why, Mr. Trent, did you chime in with your one comment, instead of adding something constructive to the conversation?

I know exactly why Paul is spouting his venom at me, I got a piece of art he wanted

The facts are this: I started this thread as a way to get people to take a look at a piece of art I'm very proud to own. It took me a while to get it, but it's in my collection now (it's FINALLY found a home!) and I wanted everyone to see.

I researched the art and presented the story here on this thread. I found it very entertaining and thought everyone might want to know all about the art and its origins. It's a piece created in 1969 by one of comics' greatest artists and was never published. That makes it a pretty significant piece, to me, and worthy of a home in my collection.

Then, before I can get back to my computer to answer a question about the art's price, Paul decides to try to knock the piece by saying it has been on Burkey's site for more than two years. Well, he proved himself wrong with the archives link, that showed the art has been on the site since October 6, 2004, and I'm accused of "lunacy".

I should have expected that someone who wanted the art would take a shot at it to try to devalue it. Even if the art had been on Burkey's site for five or six years, would that make any difference?

In all the posts I've made to these boards, I've never tried to knock someone else's art, because if you're happy with it (I am happy with the Steranko), then it's all good. If I didn't have anything good to say about the art, I wouldn't say anything at all.

But, all that matters is that I really like the art and I'm proud to have it in my collection.

Mike B.

[Mister Trent]

I'm left wondering ... how is me being RIGHT (it's not October 6, 2006 yet, so the piece WAS NOT AND NEVER WAS ON THE SITE FOR TWO YEARS as Paul said) and Paul being wrong "lunacy?" And why would you, Mr. Trent, second his idiotic statement? And why, Mr. Trent, did you chime in with your one comment, instead of adding something constructive to the conversation?

I know exactly why Paul is spouting his venom at me, I got a piece of art he wanted

The facts are this: I started this thread as a way to get people to take a look at a piece of art I'm very proud to own. It took me a while to get it, but it's in my collection now (it's FINALLY found a home!) and I wanted everyone to see.

I researched the art and presented the story here on this thread. I found it very entertaining and thought everyone might want to know all about the art and its origins. It's a piece created in 1969 by one of comics' greatest artists and was never published. That makes it a pretty significant piece, to me, and worthy of a home in my collection.

Then, before I can get back to my computer to answer a question about the art's price, Paul decides to try to knock the piece by saying it has been on Burkey's site for more than two years. Well, he proved himself wrong with the archives link, that showed the art has been on the site since October 6, 2004, and I'm accused of "lunacy".

I should have expected that someone who wanted the art would take a shot at it to try to devalue it. Even if the art had been on Burkey's site for five or six years, would that make any difference?

In all the posts I've made to these boards, I've never tried to knock someone else's art, because if you're happy with it (I am happy with the Steranko), then it's all good. If I didn't have anything good to say about the art, I wouldn't say anything at all.

But, all that matters is that I really like the art and I'm proud to have it in my collection.

Mike B.

 

Okay, you want some constructive comments, how about these . . .

 

First off, when Paul thinks of the art as being available during 2004 (backed up by the October 2004 link to Burkey's web site), I think he can be forgiven for saying this was two years ago. With it now being 2006, I think it's a common generalisation to consider the year 2004 to be two calendar years ago. Technically, when you compare April 2006 against October 2004, it's actually an 18 month difference.

 

For yourself, you insisted that the art had only been available several months (quote):

 

"He had it for sale for $2500 for SEVERAL MONTHS. Not a couple of years. I tried to get it from him when he first put it on his site. That wasn't that long ago. Sorry to disappoint, but THAT PIECE WASN'T UP THERE EVEN A YEAR."

Mike Browning

 

So, comparing your time-scales against Paul's, it's fairly obvious which one of you is way-out in your assertions . . .

 

Looking back on Paul's posts, with regard to this thread, his initial message was (I believe) complimentary (quote):

 

"Glad this piece finally found a home! Great stuff."

Paul

 

As for his other posts, whereabouts in any of them does he allude to being jealous of the Steranko piece?

 

Nowhere.

 

Whereabouts does he say he ever wanted this piece for himself?

 

Nowhere

 

As for Paul now considering you to be lunatic, as a result of your rabid babblings . . .

 

He's being too kind

[KingOfRulers]

I don't see how it's a big deal one way of the other. Does it matter how long it was for sale? Not really. If it sells for $3,000 in March of 04's it at that time was worth $3,000 to somebody. If it sold today for $3,000, that means that today someone valued it at $3,000. It doesn't matter.

 

Oh, and thanks for the price estimate!!! I didn't realize that was such a big piece.

[HouseofComics.Com]

I agree that

 

A) It's a really cool piece of art

 

B) The backstory was great

 

C) It's typical usage to say "years" when it does span three different calendar years. Is it exact? No, but it's the type of thing where someone has a 22-year major league career and they say he's hit a home run in four different decades. I don't know any of you guys so I hope this comes across as impartial.

 

Regards,

Marc

[Nexus]

I don't know any of these guys, so I hope this comes across as impartial, too.

 

In addition to the points Marc made, I have to say that there also does appear to be a passive-aggressive tone with some of the follow-up posts. I think it's tacky to talk about what a guy paid for a piece right after he posts it (which I'm not saying KOF did here...he was just asking for a ballpark figure). If you really want to know, PM the guy. Likewise, if someone other than the buyer feels the need to disclose it, do it via PM.

 

All the other commentary about how long a piece may have been on a seller's site might not be sour grapes but it IS person_without_enough_empathyy, catty, and underhanded.

 

Is it really necessary to rain on a guy's parade like that?

 

Felix

[KingOfRulers]

I just think people in general need to relax.

[pkveronese]

I don't know any of these guys, so I hope this comes across as impartial, too.

 

In addition to the points Marc made, I have to say that there also does appear to be a passive-aggressive tone with some of the follow-up posts. I think it's tacky to talk about what a guy paid for a piece right after he posts it (which I'm not saying KOF did here...he was just asking for a ballpark figure). If you really want to know, PM the guy. Likewise, if someone other than the buyer feels the need to disclose it, do it via PM.

 

All the other commentary about how long a piece may have been on a seller's site might not be sour grapes but it IS person_without_enough_empathyy, catty, and underhanded.

 

Is it really necessary to rain on a guy's parade like that?

 

Felix

 

I really agree with this. The amount of catty-ness on this forum is ridiculous, disheartening, and bad for the hobby. It seems something like this is happening at least once a month and its starting to routinely negatively impact this forum.

[blowout]

I don't know any of these guys, so I hope this comes across as impartial, too.

 

In addition to the points Marc made, I have to say that there also does appear to be a passive-aggressive tone with some of the follow-up posts. I think it's tacky to talk about what a guy paid for a piece right after he posts it (which I'm not saying KOF did here...he was just asking for a ballpark figure). If you really want to know, PM the guy. Likewise, if someone other than the buyer feels the need to disclose it, do it via PM.

 

All the other commentary about how long a piece may have been on a seller's site might not be sour grapes but it IS person_without_enough_empathyy, catty, and underhanded.

 

Is it really necessary to rain on a guy's parade like that?

 

Felix

 

I really agree with this. The amount of catty-ness on this forum is ridiculous, disheartening, and bad for the hobby. It seems something like this is happening at least once a month and its starting to routinely negatively impact this forum.

 

Not nearly as bad as the comicart-l list though is it?

 

Maybe it is just something about OA collectors.

[pkveronese]

I don't know any of these guys, so I hope this comes across as impartial, too.

 

In addition to the points Marc made, I have to say that there also does appear to be a passive-aggressive tone with some of the follow-up posts. I think it's tacky to talk about what a guy paid for a piece right after he posts it (which I'm not saying KOF did here...he was just asking for a ballpark figure). If you really want to know, PM the guy. Likewise, if someone other than the buyer feels the need to disclose it, do it via PM.

 

All the other commentary about how long a piece may have been on a seller's site might not be sour grapes but it IS person_without_enough_empathyy, catty, and underhanded.

 

Is it really necessary to rain on a guy's parade like that?

 

Felix

 

I really agree with this. The amount of catty-ness on this forum is ridiculous, disheartening, and bad for the hobby. It seems something like this is happening at least once a month and its starting to routinely negatively impact this forum.

 

Not nearly as bad as the comicart-l list though is it?

 

Maybe it is just something about OA collectors.

 

I think I hve to agree with you there as well. Sometime's reading the 'L is like listening to a bunch of sorority girls talk bad about each other. I'm just gld it comes in a digest form.

[heartened]

I don't know any of these guys, so I hope this comes across as impartial, too.

 

In addition to the points Marc made, I have to say that there also does appear to be a passive-aggressive tone with some of the follow-up posts. I think it's tacky to talk about what a guy paid for a piece right after he posts it (which I'm not saying KOF did here...he was just asking for a ballpark figure). If you really want to know, PM the guy. Likewise, if someone other than the buyer feels the need to disclose it, do it via PM.

 

All the other commentary about how long a piece may have been on a seller's site might not be sour grapes but it IS person_without_enough_empathyy, catty, and underhanded.

 

Is it really necessary to rain on a guy's parade like that?

 

Felix

 

I really agree with this. The amount of catty-ness on this forum is ridiculous, disheartening, and bad for the hobby. It seems something like this is happening at least once a month and its starting to routinely negatively impact this forum.

 

Not nearly as bad as the comicart-l list though is it?

 

Maybe it is just something about OA collectors.

 

I think I hve to agree with you there as well. Sometime's reading the 'L is like listening to a bunch of sorority girls talk bad about each other. I'm just gld it comes in a digest form.

 

Hi Keith,

 

Are OA collectors and comic book collectors really that different? I don't think so. The problem with comicart-L is that you are forced to listen in on every single conversation, as most people subscribe to individual emails. I shudder to think what we'd have to listen to if we had to view every single thread on the entire CGC boards. I know there are arguments on these boards every single day. Whereas, on the comicart-L an argument happens maybe once a month. Yes, I know the List is in the midst of a couple of flame wars, but if you stick around long enough you realize it's really a rarity.

 

This being said, I'll be the first to admit that I like the CGC format better than the List, and I post more often here. But, this forum is a tough place to be an OA collector.