Does Familiarity Breed Devaluation?

[malvin]

 

6. BUT, actually what it is, is that in order to see the really, really good stuff you have to be a member of "The Top-Secret Incredibly Awesome OA Owners Club" which is even more secretive than the freemasons. Once you've passed the tests, been voted in by a dozen current members, paid dues, had the TSIAOAOC password branded on your buttocks, and memorized the 59-part secret handshake, then you get to see the Ditko covers.

In fact, the Ditko covers are used as placemats for the annual summer BBQ.

 

Rhino,

 

I know you have been bugging me for a long time to join the club, but now the you have revealed the clubs existence as well as some of its practices, I'm afraid you will never be allowed to join.

 

Malvin

[Sharkey]

 

6. BUT, actually what it is, is that in order to see the really, really good stuff you have to be a member of "The Top-Secret Incredibly Awesome OA Owners Club" which is even more secretive than the freemasons. Once you've passed the tests, been voted in by a dozen current members, paid dues, had the TSIAOAOC password branded on your buttocks, and memorized the 59-part secret handshake, then you get to see the Ditko covers.

In fact, the Ditko covers are used as placemats for the annual summer BBQ.

 

Rhino,

 

I know you have been bugging me for a long time to join the club, but now the you have revealed the clubs existence as well as some of its practices, I'm afraid you will never be allowed to join.

 

Malvin

 

 

[heartened]

There are not too many really really unbelievable or essentially unattainable pieces on CAF.

 

No Killing Joke cover. No Dark Knight Returns cover (at least not since I last checked). No Ditko ASM cover. Heck, I don't even know if there's a Byrne/Austin run X-men cover on there.

 

- A

 

The are lots of unbelievable pieces of art on CAF.

 

It all depends on personal taste.

 

One man's meat . . .

 

KILLING JOKE, DARK KNIGHT RETURNS, Byrne/Austin X-MEN covers, etc, don't really do a lot for me (though I do appreciate and recognize the importance/attraction for many collectors), but there are certainly lots of (to my mind) unbelievable pieces on CAF.

 

 

Trent -

 

This is true, but I think you get my point, which is while there is a colossal amount of unbelievable stuff on CAF (and some of it is in your gallery, I might add), there is not that much what I would consider essentially immortal or unattainable stuff on CAF. Or at least not that I've found.

 

For example, let's take a piece like the Marshall Rogers cover to Detective 475. Once owned by Hari of these boards. Sold. Not on CAF. In my opinion, and probably in the opinion of the buyer, that was the cover of two of the best drawn issues of Detective. To me, it's a fairly significant piece.

 

As for your cup of tea, are there any Ditko ASM covers on CAF? I for sure didn't notice any. There are some sweet Ditko ASM pages (Nick Katradis has a couple where Spidey is fighting Goblin), but no cover. Those covers are fairly significant pieces. Not on CAF.

 

So, I agree with you that there are some unbelievable pieces on CAF. As I hope you would see my point that there are some things that are not there, and I was wondering if potential devaluation was a possible reason . . which brings us to

 

Hari ---

 

I can see your reason as being a very logical possibility. It would make sense that the "high rollers" who own those pieces don't want to be bothered with constant cash offers of items that are not for sale.

 

But, if you know any such people, maybe CAF could have a "museum" week or something and then these things could be posted, no one could know who owned them and they would be in a special "museum" gallery on CAF which would not have any contact information. Thus normal people like myself could see these works and enjoy them, even for a limited time. It wouldn't be that much work on behalf of the people who own the pieces, just e-mailing a scan.

 

What do you think are the odds of that happening? I think the odds of that happening are zero, even though it would address the potential buyers contacting issue. I think that in some people's minds, there is an exclusivity in owning a piece and shielding it from public view. I think that in these people's minds, there would be some unquantifiable effect of having the piece available for public view and that the unquantifiable effect could translate to some potential devaluation in their minds -- or not.

 

Maybe it is just a power play.

 

I don't know. But it just strikes me that so many significant historical pieces are not on CAF, even though it is the best web site of its kind.

 

- A

 

Hi,

 

Many big-time collectors are not into sharing. Do we need to read into that? I, for one, DO like sharing my collection. Incidentally, I do it on my own website, not CAF. But, others feel that if they spend 50K to buy a piece of art, then it's their right and only their right to be able to see it. You want to see it? Bid 51K.

[doom-migration]

Many big-time collectors are not into sharing. Do we need to read into that? I, for one, DO like sharing my collection. Incidentally, I do it on my own website, not CAF. But, others feel that if they spend 50K to buy a piece of art, then it's their right and only their right to be able to see it. You want to see it? Bid 51K.

 

--------------------

Hari Naidu, MD

www.nighthawkcomics.com

 

 

Ok, first off, ya got 51k to spend on art, you are way past me . Second, I don't like the arrogance, or concept that I own it and I can never let anyone see it, haahaha

I mean come on, why own it if no one ever knows about it. If anything, one would be impressed by the collection. My guess is that some of the premium owners of original art are not computer literate, ie older and have no interest in it, don't know about CAF or their likes, not because they are trying to protect the value of their art. Plus, CAF has so many collectors it is impossible to know what everyone has unless they direct you to check out what they own. I collect because I respect and recognize the talent of the artist who created these one of a kind works of art that I am proud to display on my walls and on CAF, and if so "lowers the value" , which I think is an insane idea for reasons I have stated before, so be it, so if you are a "collector" and is only worried about value, then I say go buy stocks or bonds or gold. But as Hari stated you do have the right to do what ever you want, I would just hope "collectors" would respect the artist and be proud of their collection. I am still shaking my head at this thread. But then again someone did elect GW Bush to 2 (not one) but 2 terms so I guess at times I am out of step with the current logic or reason. Please check out my collection, while not much, I am proud of it, and appreciate the immense talent that went into creating to every piece I own.

Enjoy collecting, and I love looking at what others own and respect your collections.

I just wish I made more money so I could buy more art..and I would be proud to display it ..just my thoughts......DOOM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[heartened]

Many big-time collectors are not into sharing. Do we need to read into that? I, for one, DO like sharing my collection. Incidentally, I do it on my own website, not CAF. But, others feel that if they spend 50K to buy a piece of art, then it's their right and only their right to be able to see it. You want to see it? Bid 51K.

 

--------------------

Hari Naidu, MD

www.nighthawkcomics.com

 

 

Ok, first off, ya got 51k to spend on art, you are way past me . Second, I don't like the arrogance, or concept that I own it and I can never let anyone see it, haahaha

I mean come on, why own it if no one ever knows about it. If anything, one would be impressed by the collection. My guess is that some of the premium owners of original art are not computer literate, ie older and have no interest in it, don't know about CAF or their likes, not because they are trying to protect the value of their art. Plus, CAF has so many collectors it is impossible to know what everyone has unless they direct you to check out what they own. I collect because I respect and recognize the talent of the artist who created these one of a kind works of art that I am proud to display on my walls and on CAF, and if so "lowers the value" , which I think is an insane idea for reasons I have stated before, so be it, so if you are a "collector" and is only worried about value, then I say go buy stocks or bonds or gold. But as Hari stated you do have the right to do what ever you want, I would just hope "collectors" would respect the artist and be proud of their collection. I am still shaking my head at this thread. But then again someone did elect GW Bush to 2 (not one) but 2 terms so I guess at times I am out of step with the current logic or reason. Please check out my collection, while not much, I am proud of it, and appreciate the immense talent that went into creating to every piece I own.

Enjoy collecting, and I love looking at what others own and respect your collections.

I just wish I made more money so I could buy more art..and I would be proud to display it ..just my thoughts......DOOM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

I completely agree with you. I was just pointing out that some collectors have very different reasons for collecting, and being selfless is not one of them.

 

There is an exhibit starting at the Montclair Art Museum in NJ. They did get a lot of great art, but I would venture that over 50% of the people they asked to loan art declined the invitation. This is a legitimate museum with 100% insurance, and great security. Virtually no chance of losing or mishandling the art. So, why would people be resistant? If you answer that question, then you've answered your own.

 

I, of course, was proud and honored to loan 9 pieces of art. I'm a collector/fan, and want to share my art with the world. Most people are NOT like us.

[doom-migration]

HI Hari, you have a very nice collection and I do like what you do. You are a fan of the art which I and others respect. Now, if you have any Dr Doom or Thanos pages you wanted to unload. Keep up the good work, and I will check out your web site from time to time to see what is new......good luck collection (just not Doom or thanos).............DOOM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[aardvark88]

doom,

Many OA collectors buy art that appeals to their personal taste or memories from youth. This may or may not agree with the current preferences of Marvel/DC fans. e.g. Rob Liefeld art.

 

Also, some hi-end OA collectors may have shared their collections on the original Lowry list site and may not have the time to transfer over to CAF due to real life concerns like a full-time day job, spouse or kids.

[adamstrange]

A lot of the exchanges in the OA world revolve around trade as cash will only get you so far. The more the trader knows about the art of the other person the better he is able to maximize the deal for himself. He could, example, force the other person to include a piece in a deal that the other person really doesn't want to give and might not have had to if it was hidden from the trader. Or the trader may get a better sense of how much that other collector values certain types of pieces and is therefore in a better position to hold out for more.

[Mister Trent]

A lot of the exchanges in the OA world revolve around trade as cash will only get you so far. The more the trader knows about the art of the other person the better he is able to maximize the deal for himself. He could, example, force the other person to include a piece in a deal that the other person really doesn't want to give and might not have had to if it was hidden from the trader. Or the trader may get a better sense of how much that other collector values certain types of pieces and is therefore in a better position to hold out for more.

 

Excellent point, Adam.

[Jesusjon]

A lot of the exchanges in the OA world revolve around trade as cash will only get you so far. The more the trader knows about the art of the other person the better he is able to maximize the deal for himself. He could, example, force the other person to include a piece in a deal that the other person really doesn't want to give and might not have had to if it was hidden from the trader. Or the trader may get a better sense of how much that other collector values certain types of pieces and is therefore in a better position to hold out for more.

 

I agree with this wholeheartedly. Knowledge is power, and if someone has complete knowledge of your collection, and you have less knowledge of theirs, it may give them an edge in all sorts of different ways.

 

Great thread. I'm enjoying reading reasoned discourse on this board lately.

 

J

[dem1138]

What was the original Lowry site?? What was the url? www...?

 

Thanks!

[Paris_Fred]

What was the original Lowry site?? What was the url? www...?

 

Thanks!

 

http://www.longbox.com/cal/cal-lowry.asp

[Artemaria]

I completely agree with you. I was just pointing out that some collectors have very different reasons for collecting, and being selfless is not one of them.

 

Sad but not surprising. While I love the morality plays of the comic world, the real world is not like that, it is not uncommon (but also not the rule) that people who are very financially successful may not be particularly selfless. Somewhat on topic -- I'm reading a book called "Men of Tomorrow" by former comic book writer Gerard Jones. It is an interesting look at how ruthless the men who created the industry that we adore, really were.

 

There is an exhibit starting at the Montclair Art Museum in NJ. They did get a lot of great art, but I would venture that over 50% of the people they asked to loan art declined the invitation. This is a legitimate museum with 100% insurance, and great security. Virtually no chance of losing or mishandling the art. So, why would people be resistant? If you answer that question, then you've answered your own.

 

When does the exhibition start? I've got a good friend who lives in Montclair and this would be a good excuse to get out there to see him.

 

I, of course, was proud and honored to loan 9 pieces of art. I'm a collector/fan, and want to share my art with the world. Most people are NOT like us.

 

True.

[matewan1990]

I was trying to make a trade a little over a year ago with a dealer and he told me he didn't want the piece of art I was offering because it had been shopped to death by me. What was so bad was that I had bought the piece from the artist and had only put it in my CAF gallery and hadn't ever offered it for sale or trade before then.

Mike B.

[Artemaria]

Mike -

 

While I am very sad to hear this, it is real interesting, especially when considered in conjunction with the post from Mitch, a dealer, a little earlier on this board who noted a difference between familiarity and availability. I, and apparently others, read Mitch's point to be that only "availability" and not "familiarity" would engender devaluation.

 

I'm thinking that your personal experience somehow plays into Adam Strange's point about the shifting of the balance of power in art trade negotiations if the other person knows what you have. Adam's point is an excellent one and is repeated in business negotiations ad infinitum. It is interesting to see the practices of the business world exhibit themselves in our little hobby.

 

However, taken at face value, your post certainly answers the question posed at the top of this board.

 

- A

[adamstrange]

A lot of the exchanges in the OA world revolve around trade as cash will only get you so far. The more the trader knows about the art of the other person the better he is able to maximize the deal for himself. He could, example, force the other person to include a piece in a deal that the other person really doesn't want to give and might not have had to if it was hidden from the trader. Or the trader may get a better sense of how much that other collector values certain types of pieces and is therefore in a better position to hold out for more.

 

Excellent point, Adam.

 

I wish it wasn't because of the negative impact for the greater art loving community. Nor do I think it unique to OA, but my experience suggests that trading plays a bigger part in the OA world than comics.

[heartened]

I completely agree with you. I was just pointing out that some collectors have very different reasons for collecting, and being selfless is not one of them.

 

Sad but not surprising. While I love the morality plays of the comic world, the real world is not like that, it is not uncommon (but also not the rule) that people who are very financially successful may not be particularly selfless. Somewhat on topic -- I'm reading a book called "Men of Tomorrow" by former comic book writer Gerard Jones. It is an interesting look at how ruthless the men who created the industry that we adore, really were.

 

There is an exhibit starting at the Montclair Art Museum in NJ. They did get a lot of great art, but I would venture that over 50% of the people they asked to loan art declined the invitation. This is a legitimate museum with 100% insurance, and great security. Virtually no chance of losing or mishandling the art. So, why would people be resistant? If you answer that question, then you've answered your own.

 

When does the exhibition start? I've got a good friend who lives in Montclair and this would be a good excuse to get out there to see him.

 

I, of course, was proud and honored to loan 9 pieces of art. I'm a collector/fan, and want to share my art with the world. Most people are NOT like us.

 

True.

 

Here's the exhibit.

 

http://www.montclairartmuseum.org/calendar.cfm?id=10

[Mister Trent]

I was trying to make a trade a little over a year ago with a dealer and he told me he didn't want the piece of art I was offering because it had been shopped to death by me. What was so bad was that I had bought the piece from the artist and had only put it in my CAF gallery and hadn't ever offered it for sale or trade before then.

Mike B.

 

Similar thing happened to me last year. I was trying to put a deal together against a high-end piece of art (a Wally Wood WEIRD SCIENCE cover). In my CAF Galleries, I had the only known surviving Russ Heath 'Dinosaur' cover from STAR SPANGLED WAR STORIES (# 137). The piece had originally cost me (off the top-of-my-head) about $9,500. I'd had a number of high-profile collectors express an interest, "should I feel the need to sell" . . .

 

As the need to sell did arise, I figured on a modest mark-up in price (allowing for inflation) to a round $10,000 asking price. I offered one guy (who'd previously contacted me) the art - but, because I was looking to make a sale at the earliest opportunity, also offered the art out to a general audience. The other guy got turned-off from the offer because it wasn't exclusive enough for him (though he was willing to proceed - providing I lowered my price and took a $2,000 loss on my original purchase price).

 

A few dealer-types also offered me a low-ball offer.

 

As a point of principle, I never sell art at a loss - so I raised my cash (to complete my high-end purchase) via the sale of some other originals.

 

End-result? I got to retain my unique Heath cover - which (for Artie's benefit) remains unbelievable/unattainable.

 

I'm going to make a point of retaining this in my collection.

[Artemaria]

Here's the exhibit.

 

http://www.montclairartmuseum.org/calendar.cfm?id=10

 

Thanks very much.

[Artemaria]

I was trying to make a trade a little over a year ago with a dealer and he told me he didn't want the piece of art I was offering because it had been shopped to death by me. What was so bad was that I had bought the piece from the artist and had only put it in my CAF gallery and hadn't ever offered it for sale or trade before then.

Mike B.

 

Similar thing happened to me last year. I was trying to put a deal together against a high-end piece of art (a Wally Wood WEIRD SCIENCE cover). In my CAF Galleries, I had the only known surviving Russ Heath 'Dinosaur' cover from STAR SPANGLED WAR STORIES (# 137). The piece had originally cost me (off the top-of-my-head) about $9,500. I'd had a number of high-profile collectors express an interest, "should I feel the need to sell" . . .

 

As the need to sell did arise, I figured on a modest mark-up in price (allowing for inflation) to a round $10,000 asking price. I offered one guy (who'd previously contacted me) the art - but, because I was looking to make a sale at the earliest opportunity, also offered the art out to a general audience. The other guy got turned-off from the offer because it wasn't exclusive enough for him (though he was willing to proceed - providing I lowered my price and took a $2,000 loss on my original purchase price).

 

A few dealer-types also offered me a low-ball offer.

 

As a point of principle, I never sell art at a loss - so I raised my cash (to complete my high-end purchase) via the sale of some other originals.

 

End-result? I got to retain my unique Heath cover - which (for Artie's benefit) remains unbelievable/unattainable.

 

I'm going to make a point of retaining this in my collection.

 

Trent -

 

I'm sorry you had that experience. I think it should remain unattainable.

 

Here's my question, was this piece on CAF at the time that this was happening?

 

- Artemis