delekkerste

Member: Seasoned Veteran
  • Content Count

    24,185
  • Joined

About delekkerste

  • Boards Title
    TOTAL NEWBIE

Personal Information

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. The #134 and #137 pages are from the Chris Claremont Collection and are not, as previously assumed by some, from the consignment that Spencer had. The #134 page is really nice with the whole team (if small). The #137 page is a very memorable part of the final sequence leading up to Phoenix's death. Great stuff.
  2. Not surprisingly, I find the bolded statement above to be contradictory! I agree that it's about "staying under a particular budget" ($500), but, I disagree that this should have anything to do with "your personal means or situation". $500 should mean $500 and not depend on if you live in New Hampshire, New York or East Djibouti. Otherwise, the rule is de facto "Post Your Art That You Can Buy For Less Than $500 If You Live in New Hampshire Or Less Than $459.24 If You Live in New York City" which Just. Makes. No. Sense. Forget about all the straw-man nonsense about whether this is a contest or who cares or whatnot...bottom line, including sales tax is a big deal to those of us who do not tolerate obviously flawed rules concocted during a wine binge! And, really, what good objection would anyone have to leveling the playing field if it's "not a big deal" to them anyway? After all, it's not a contest, right? Not to mention, theoretically, a buyer in a high-tax jurisdiction could easily find a sales tax work-around if they really wanted to (I believe one critic of my proposed change here has admitted publicly to using a re-mailing service in the past, while another has offered numerous times to provide re-mailing services), so, it's not like that piece bought in NYC for $544.38 couldn't have been $500 if the buyer had been willing to skirt the tax collectors!
  3. Call it whatever you want or don't want, the fact remains that a piece's eligibility shouldn't hinge on whether the buyer had to pay additional costs like sales tax purely based on that person's jurisdiction and tax status. It goes against the basic principle of fairness, and also goes against standard hobby/market conventions (e.g., when we cite comps, we use the price off a dealer website where something sold, or the hammer + BP cost at Heritage, neither of which includes sales tax, shipping, convention fees, insurance or any other extraneous charge that doesn't treat all potential buyers equally). While this little showcase or whatever you want to call it is all just a little bit of fun, what's worth doing is worth doing right. And that means not overlooking unfair and inconsistent application of standard norms and practices
  4. One of the worst drawn covers of the Bronze Age. Look at the proportions on the Thing. Nothing short of horrendous. Of course, everything about this listing is a bad joke.
  5. It's not that I have a bunch of $501 (incl. tax) pieces that I'm dying to enter. I just can't stand to see this otherwise interesting & delightful contest/showcase sanction such obvious inequity and people acting like it's nothing. I don't consider flawed thinking, even on a small scale, to be "nothing". As my pal @G G ® noted about our football (soccer) tipping competition in the Water Cooler, what's worth doing is worth doing right, and rules should be both fair and respected. Yes, but the shipping cost applies to everyone, so, at least the playing field is not unequal.
  6. Thanks for proving my point - we should exclude shipping costs so we can just talk about the art.
  7. It makes no sense to have an uneven playing field in a showcase where there is voting involved. A piece shouldn't be eligible if bought by you at $475, but not be eligible if bought by me at $475 + tax. This type of discrimination is so un-2020. #EqualityForAll #EqualAccess #NoDiscrimination And, needless to say, we ain't the IRS here.
  8. If I pay $750 for someone from Italy to hand deliver a $100 page, it's a $100 page, not an $850 page. I know this may seem like nit-picking to some, but, we should have logical consistency here. When we look at comps in the HA archive, we don't add tax and shipping and insurance and gas costs to pick it up or whatever else to the price. Many people (e.g., dealers) do not pay sales tax. A $500 page is not a $545 page just because I bought it instead of Vodou (no sales tax jurisdiction) or a dealer (reseller exemption). Hammer and BP, yes. Any other costs, no. It's intellectually dishonest otherwise, and also a blatantly obvious unfair advantage for a participant who can buy more art for the same money just by virtue of their zip code; how this wrongness can be codified into "rules" is just baffling.
  9. Tax and shipping should absolutely be excluded. The art is the art and whatever surcharges and costs some will face to acquire the art will not be borne by everyone equally, if at all.
  10. For the 2020 edition, sales tax absolutely needs to be excluded from the cost criteria!! Everybody pays BP, but not everybody pays sales tax (and certainly not in the same amount). #leveltheplayingfield I was going to submit an entry or two but just missed the cut-off.
  11. The #75 cover would definitely sell for more than the #85 now. It's been almost 7 years since it last sold at HA in May 2013 for $10,755 and, crucially, that 7 years makes an even bigger difference to the cohort most interested in buying drek memorable art from this era. I would not be at all surprised to see the #75 cover sell for 3-4x (or maybe even more!) its 2013 price if it were to be sold today.
  12. Cap is now $750, not $100. Still despicable behavior, to be sure.