Member: Seasoned Veteran
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About delekkerste

  • Boards Title

Personal Information

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Definitely not a good return. I suspect some Impressionist art is still flat-to-down from their 1989-90 peak (as of a few years ago, that was definitely still the case). The current bull market in art has made people forget about 1990-1996, when everything got pole-axed and nothing was spared, not the lowest of the low, nor the best of the best. Hope springs eternal! They're not really there most anywhere these days. We're living in the easiest money times that have ever existed (negative interest rates in much of the globe!); money has flowed into anything and everything over the past decade in search of return, pulling forward returns and increasing valuations to all-time highs for most assets. Vodou's 15% rate of return benchmark is not so easy to hit anymore without taking substantial risk; just look at how badly pension funds are coping with their liabilities even with many asset classes near all-time highs. Hard to earn substantial returns when the center of gravity is down near zero.
  2. 1. No 2. Yes 3. No - doesn't turn me on or off. Perfectly fine if that's part of the artist's creative process.
  3. Even when it was announced, I never thought the project would see the light of day. I don't see this is as being a property with mass appeal (at least not if they stay true to its comic book roots), and, while it certainly stood out in 1983, in 2019, I think it's just one of a gazillion other sci-fi themed franchises that isn't likely to stand out nowadays. As time goes on, there's a lot of art that's going to move collections and end up in the hands of a member of the last generation to truly love and appreciate it the way no subsequent generation will. Anyone thinking they're going to make a killing buying those kinds of pieces at auction in 2019 is kidding themselves, IMO. I read that the average IRR (internal rate of return, annualized) for the pieces that re-sold in the latest round of contemporary art auctions, you know, the ones that got the headlines for fetching record prices, was only about 5%. You want to be the guy buying the AF #1 cover for $600 in the 1980s and selling it for 40-fold in 2019*, or the guy buying the Monet "Meules" for $2.5 million in 1986 and selling it for 40-fold in 2019. * Yes, I know it changed hands in the interim a couple of times.
  4. "There is nothing subtle about the content here which makes its wide acceptance altogether more distasteful." Ummm...what exactly is allegedly going on here? I mean, sure, I can make up a salacious narrative, but, I have no idea what's actually in the book, and have no way to place the context of this image otherwise.
  5. If by regular art crowd, you mean those who airbrush fantasy paintings onto the sides of vans, sure.
  6. I think it's well documented that Colletta erased a lot of Kirby pencils to speed jobs through. And, there's a lot of hastily-inked Kirby/Colletta that looks like chicken scratch. That said, there is also *some* very nice looking Kirby/Colletta art out there as well, which is why I might pick George Roussos for worst Kirby inker instead of Colletta. Though, the worst Kirby/Colletta is probably worse than any Kirby/Roussos.
  7. Wow, just noticed that Jaguar God, which failed to meet its $250K hammer reserve ($300K w/BP), is marked as "Sold Post Auction" now.
  8. There's definitely some break given for vintage sigs or even vintage Steve Oliff-coloring. Not that anyone likes the coloring, but, most people understand that this stuff was not held in either the esteem or $$$ value that it is today. Getting ugly sigs or coloring today, though, is a big
  9. Agreed. How many people even know Bill the Cat in 2019 vs. 1989? I think this piece is super cool, but, it is for a certain generation for sure. I just wish the lettering hadn't been done in marker.
  10. Glad it sold for a healthy sum so I have no regrets for not pursuing it more aggressively.
  11. It goes far, far, far beyond puritanical considerations. Anyone who's watched the last few Star Wars films knows that everyone involved in the franchise has made painstaking efforts to promote inclusivity/diversity and transform gender roles. More broadly speaking, few are concerned about how past art, literature and culture might be reevaluated in light of changing societal norms. This isn't just a pendulum that is going to swing back.
  12. Master Race was less than 0.01%... I don't know if he bought EQ or not, but, $5.4 million would pay for a lot of salaries and upkeep at the Museum (at $100 a pop, it's the equivalent of 54,000 annual memberships). Probably a better use of that money than spending it on a painting of a Westernized Egyptian princess with a 34GGG bust being gazed at lustily by a (phallic) sword-wielding warrior that probably won't go over very well with critics and much of the public. But, YMMV!!
  13. That sounds plausible. A bad idea, I think, but, plausible. I mean, Disney has already done away with the Slave Leia costume in media and merchandising because they felt it was out of step with the way society is going (or, alternatively, you can say they caved to outside pressures for financial reasons). Is it really worth $5.4 million to buy something which will probably provoke similar outrage and controversy? Do we, as a hobby, want the first reviews of the Lucas Museum to all have the obligatory paragraph about "juvenile art portraying adolescent male sexual power fantasies out of touch with the times"? Because, whether Bronty thinks it's ridiculous or know it will happen. I just think this piece is a liability for a museum more than it is an asset. It belongs in the collection of a rich, pervy fanboy!!