PhilipB2k17

It looks like Lichtenstein got Vinnie Colleta to ink his versions.

i.e. all those "Missing" Silver Age Marvel early key covers.

When I said I had a source who said it wasn't Marie Severin, I was talking about Mike. LOL! He told me this story (minus the John Buscema, and guilt trip part) at a con several months ago. I figured he would have some degree of info on it. So, there it is.

Except the Cover is Kirby, not Ditko.

What if it was...George Lucas?

Anyone want to bet he already sold it to someone else, and had to get it back from that other buyer first?

Something just occurred to me. (I feel like Michael Corleone when he saw the rebel blow himself up with a captain of the Cuban military command in Godfather II.) Why would the "buyer" in this case ship back the 8-1/2" x 11" color photo copy of the art back via a giant package designed to fit the original larger painting? He's literally overpaying postage to ship back the art in a larger package to trick the seller into accepting it so as to complete the Paypal refund process. (Unless Paypal requires you to ship it back in the same package, in which case never mind!). That piece of information, alone, would be enough for me to believe the seller over the buyer in this dispute. There would be absolutely no reason in the world to ship the piece back in the larger package, unless you were trying to scam the person on the other end. UPDATE: If, on the other hand, the buyer did ship the 8-1/2" x 11" print/copy back in a regular, appropriate-sized package, why would the seller accept it if he knew who it was from, and knew it was supposed to be the returned art? (It was tracked, right?). It would seem pretty easy to verify the package sizes, and shipping labels, etc. (By the same token, it would make no sense for the seller to send a smaller print vs the larger painting in a larger package that fits the painting. He gets no benefit out of it, because the buyer would find out it's not the painting and have the ability to ship it back via the Paypal case process.)

Leaves open the question of who the donor was. I've heard it was both Lee and Severin from different sources. But, if Severin's children, for example, donated it then technically she could say Severin wasn't the donor, right?

So the story about how ASM #1 art "hit the market" in that story is different than the one I've seen here, and elsewhere. A dealer was cold called, and met the seller in a public place? And it was sold for $10K?

I've yet to sell a single one of my pieces, and I have actually declined to buy art that I knew was undervalued in the market, that I didn't otherwise really like, just to flip it. That's too much effort and work for a hobby I want to be fun. I don't want to buy stuff I don't really love or enjoy just to commoditize it. Yes, I know I could do that and build up a war chest for art I do like, but as I said, that turns the hobby into something less fun for me personally. Some folks are OK with doing that, or think it's fun. but, I don't. That said, I do think about the value of a piece I am buying and while I am willing to pay a premium (somewhat) directly to an artist (or via his or her rep), for a piece, I am not going to do that with a dealer or on CAF or eBay via the second hand market. I'm fine with "overpaying" a bit for something if the money goes directly into an artist's pocket, though.

I was just playing devil's advocate to the absolutist position taken here that the seller in this instance has absolutely no reason to lie.

If what you are saying is true, he wants to protect a lot more than his reputation. He wants to avoid jail.

I just hope PayPal fixes this massive gap in their security. One thing I would not do if I were you. I would not touch that print he sent back. The authorities could test it for fingerprints, and if only his are on it, then it would tend to back up your story.

Maybe he knows it won't work, but wants to pro-actively protect HIS reputation? I'm not saying that's what is going on, but there are a number of reasons why the seller in this scenario would want to publicize this, if he wants to pro-actively avoid being labelled a scammer. Maybe he thought the other guys was going to go public with this first? In any case, its weird, and I hope this is worked out, and there is some way to avoid this problem in this future. It seems like a blueprint for a scam artist.