A Dealer's Pricing 1 1

[CartoonFanboy]

While I find much of what the DB's do confusing, counterintuitive and with regards to "unused covers" outright abhorrent, I've been especially surprised recently with how much they overpay for new art. On occasion I'll see a piece within my areas of focus sell on Click or another auction site for substantially more than what I expected. While this is not an uncommon occurrence in our hobby, I've observed that many times the same piece of art will show up in the DB's CAF shortly there after. 

Marking up the price of art you got a good deal on is logical, doing the same thing on pieces you (by my estimate) overpaid for does not a seem like a sound business plan. 

[alxjhnsn]

3 hours ago, Rick2you2 said:

Hmmm...

I simply wanted to say that it was not my intention to create a dumping ground on the DB's. 

 

I wasn't trying to dump on them. I simply provided an example of what they do with (I hope) minimal editorial commentary and direct quotes.

[cesium_7]

Not to defend their practices, but they do correct misattributed 70s British Marvel art, when I have taken the time to inform them about it (they still have several other misatributed pieces on their site).  The same cannot be said for many of the other art dealers out there.  

[vodou]

1 hour ago, cesium_7 said:

Not to defend their practices, but they do correct misattributed 70s British Marvel art, when I have taken the time to inform them about it (they still have several other misatributed pieces on their site).  The same cannot be said for many of the other art dealers out there.  

But don't give a whit to correct the Captain America Annual #5 cover from Frank Miller to Ed Hannigan, even though Hannigan has publicly stated it's his. Somehow they got Frank to sign it and...that's the way it's staying.

[malvin]

1 hour ago, cesium_7 said:

Not to defend their practices, but they do correct misattributed 70s British Marvel art, when I have taken the time to inform them about it (they still have several other misatributed pieces on their site).  The same cannot be said for many of the other art dealers out there.  

For the ones they correct, is it generally upwards or both upwards and downwards?  They have a lot of pieces where they claim that Romita Sr, Frank Miller, or others have touched when 99% of collectors feel differently.

Malvin

[vodou]

2 hours ago, CartoonFanboy said:

While I find much of what the DB's do confusing, counterintuitive and with regards to "unused covers" outright abhorrent, I've been especially surprised recently with how much they overpay for new art. On occasion I'll see a piece within my areas of focus sell on Click or another auction site for substantially more than what I expected. While this is not an uncommon occurrence in our hobby, I've observed that many times the same piece of art will show up in the DB's CAF shortly there after. 

Marking up the price of art you got a good deal on is logical, doing the same thing on pieces you (by my estimate) overpaid for does not a seem like a sound business plan. 

Are you sure they're actually buying these pieces from an actual somebody else? I mean a real third-party, maybe somebody you know with a known collection, not them or their associates.

I'm asking being I've observed the same phenomenon in markets I follow, but it's art they've owned (and I've kept an eye on) for literally decades. It was never not owned by them. They list them on their site, or eBay, or CAF, moving them around here there and everywhere, then later they pop up on various (not to name names, as it's now more than just one) marketplaces with big stickers. (Mostly because certain venues require an actual number not the bullsheep "ask/inquire" noise.) Then after (literally) dying on the vine there, they're "sold" and moved back to their site with the usual ask/inquire posting instead of a price. Then...sure as you-know-what...the same piece will get recycled to CAF or another marketplace or auction and the whole thing repeats again. Once you follow this cycle a few times (on the same unique piece of art)...you can only laugh and know that you will never ever ever do business with them again

[CartoonFanboy]

27 minutes ago, vodou said:

Are you sure they're actually buying these pieces from an actual somebody else? I mean a real third-party, maybe somebody you know with a known collection, not them or their associates.

I'm asking being I've observed the same phenomenon in markets I follow, but it's art they've owned (and I've kept an eye on) for literally decades. It was never not owned by them. They list them on their site, or eBay, or CAF, moving them around here there and everywhere, then later they pop up on various (not to name names, as it's now more than just one) marketplaces with big stickers. (Mostly because certain venues require an actual number not the bullsheep "ask/inquire" noise.) Then after (literally) dying on the vine there, they're "sold" and moved back to their site with the usual ask/inquire posting instead of a price. Then...sure as you-know-what...the same piece will get recycled to CAF or another marketplace or auction and the whole thing repeats again. Once you follow this cycle a few times (on the same unique piece of art)...you can only laugh and know that you will never ever ever do business with them again

I see what you're saying (and I got to say it doesn't surprise me), but in at least one instance I've seen a piece I know they didn't have come up on Clink that they bought really high. It was a cover that was part of a collection that was slowly getting pieced out with several other covers from the same series and artist selling prior. I had actually bought two of the other covers but had no interest in this one, still I was watching the price anyway. Much to my surprise the piece sold for about twice what I was expecting, so it naturally stuck out for me. A couple months later the cover shows up in one of my alerts (can't remember which) and I click on it wondering who the person was that bought it, that's when I saw it was a DB.

There was also the time that I was selling a page that I had purchased two years prior on ebay. Again, to my surprise the page sold for 2.5X what I had paid. I was thrilled of course, then I looked at the buyer and saw the name Donnley. As an interesting side note, he took over a week to pay me and ignored several emails I sent saying that I had specified payment was due within three days. 

[alxjhnsn]

I think they are collectors in dealer's clothing.

[cesium_7]

2 hours ago, malvin said:

For the ones they correct, is it generally upwards or both upwards and downwards?  They have a lot of pieces where they claim that Romita Sr, Frank Miller, or others have touched when 99% of collectors feel differently.

Malvin

 

The latest case was a downgrade from Mooney to Dave Hunt, but to be fair, they still keep "Mooney's" name on it as the inspiration.  

They have other British covers/splashes misidentified as Starlin, Graham, and Andru (when the actual artists are Don Vaughn, David Wenzel, and Ron Wilson) , so I see everyone's points.   Plus one they got Romita Sr to sign, though he didn't have anything to do with it (other than being the artist who drew the original cover the British one was based on).

Edited January 5, 2018 by cesium_7
added info

[artdealer]

35 minutes ago, cesium_7 said:

 

The latest case was a downgrade from Mooney to Dave Hunt, but to be fair, they still keep "Mooney's" name on it as the inspiration.  

They have other British covers/splashes misidentified as Starlin, Graham, and Andru (when the actual artists are Don Vaughn, David Wenzel, and Ron Wilson) , so I see everyone's points.   Plus one they got Romita Sr to sign, though he didn't have anything to do with it (other than being the artist who drew the original cover the British one was based on).

Who is Don Vaughn? When Duffy Vohland was working for Marvel back in the 70's he said those DV initials on the British covers were his, not some guy named Don Vaughn.

 

[cesium_7]

4 minutes ago, artdealer said:

Who is Don Vaughn? When Duffy Vohland was working for Marvel back in the 70's he said those DV initials on the British covers were his, not some guy named Don Vaughn.

 

Not to divert from the topic at hand too much, but Don Vaughn was an artist who had one story published for Warren, and also worked for Continuity Associates in the mid 70s (worked on the Charlton Black and White magazines).  He was a mentor for guys from the Detroit area, like Arvell Jones and Keith Pollard, and some of his work appears in their old fanzine, Fan Informer.   He collaborated on a few British covers and pinups with Arvell, Keith, and Aubrey Bradford, while he was living with them in NYC.  Here's an example of his work from the British books.  But, you are correct, I think just about all the "DV"s on the British covers/splashes are Duffy's.   I suspect he probably inked that particular (non-Starlin) cover on the DB's site since he assigned job numbers to all of his work (and apparently kept records about it, though I have never seen them).

[artdealer]

1 hour ago, cesium_7 said:

Not to divert from the topic at hand too much, but Don Vaughn was an artist who had one story published for Warren, and also worked for Continuity Associates in the mid 70s (worked on the Charlton Black and White magazines).  He was a mentor for guys from the Detroit area, like Arvell Jones and Keith Pollard, and some of his work appears in their old fanzine, Fan Informer.   He collaborated on a few British covers and pinups with Arvell, Keith, and Aubrey Bradford, while he was living with them in NYC.  Here's an example of his work from the British books.  But, you are correct, I think just about all the "DV"s on the British covers/splashes are Duffy's.   I suspect he probably inked that particular (non-Starlin) cover on the DB's site since he assigned job numbers to all of his work (and apparently kept records about it, though I have never seen them).

"Don Vaughn's" signature and Duffy's are the same.

 

[cesium_7]

1 hour ago, artdealer said:

"Don Vaughn's" signature and Duffy's are the same.

 

I'm 99% sure Don and Duffy aren't the same person.  

http://www.bailsprojects.com/whoswho.aspx?mode=AtoZsearch&id=VAUGHN%2c+DON

While, this isn't much proof, most I know about him comes from Arvell Jones directly, who also lived in the Detroit area.  He's mentioned in this interview.

https://www.cbr.com/standing-on-the-shoulders-of-giants-arvell-jones/

He also had a story published in Creepy 34  (August 1970), when Duffy would have been 18 years old.

[SquareChaos]

7 hours ago, alxjhnsn said:

I think they are collectors in dealer's clothing.

They seem to willfully attempt to mislead, and then attempt to sell it. I remember a thread here not too long ago when a poster discovered they'd been mislead and was struggling to have it made right. I don't recall / know what happened there, but that wasn't the first time I've heard a similar story. I personally filter them out of any of my searches, it just seems better safe than sorry.

[chrisco37]

17 hours ago, SquareChaos said:

They seem to willfully attempt to mislead, and then attempt to sell it. I remember a thread here not too long ago when a poster discovered they'd been mislead and was struggling to have it made right. I don't recall / know what happened there, but that wasn't the first time I've heard a similar story. I personally filter them out of any of my searches, it just seems better safe than sorry.

Pretty sure you’re referring to the “unused” or “prelim” NM87 cover that they sold to a friend of Comix4fun.  

They misrepresented it as having been penciled by Liefeld and inked by some guy when, in fact, RL never touched it.

They’re hucksters.  They’ve got a lot of great art, so they’ll always be around.  I’ve never heard a positive thing said about them in all my collecting years.

[Rick2you2]

2 minutes ago, chrisco37 said:

I’ve never heard a positive thing said about them in all my collecting years.

That has to be a little harsh. In a few conversations, with one of them, he was very pleasant to talk to. And, I got the feeling they really do love this stuff on a personal level. So count those as good things. 

It's the business model I still don't understand (although, some of the comments here are pretty enlightening).  

[mister_not_so_nice]

26 minutes ago, Rick2you2 said:

That has to be a little harsh. In a few conversations, with one of them, he was very pleasant to talk to. And, I got the feeling they really do love this stuff on a personal level. So count those as good things. 

It's the business model I still don't understand (although, some of the comments here are pretty enlightening).  

And he could have been a lot harsher. 

I've never heard a 100% positive comment in my many years of collecting, also.  Even the collectors that admit to doing business with them say they got the art, are glad and will never deal with them again.  But as long as even seasoned collectors do at least one deal with them they will continue as they do. 

A small amount of chit-chat and pleasantries doesn't negate the years and years of blatant and willful misrepresentation of art.  Not once has a situation arisen where they've come forth publicly and said, "Wait, this is what really happened . . . " because they know they don't have a leg to stand on.   Anyone that continues to do business with them gets everything they deserve. 

[Rick2you2]

1 hour ago, mister_not_so_nice said:

And he could have been a lot harsher. 

I've never heard a 100% positive comment in my many years of collecting, also.  Even the collectors that admit to doing business with them say they got the art, are glad and will never deal with them again.  But as long as even seasoned collectors do at least one deal with them they will continue as they do. 

A small amount of chit-chat and pleasantries doesn't negate the years and years of blatant and willful misrepresentation of art.  Not once has a situation arisen where they've come forth publicly and said, "Wait, this is what really happened . . . " because they know they don't have a leg to stand on.   Anyone that continues to do business with them gets everything they deserve. 

I hear you. 

[theflashunc]

3 hours ago, Rick2you2 said:

That has to be a little harsh. In a few conversations, with one of them, he was very pleasant to talk to. And, I got the feeling they really do love this stuff on a personal level. So count those as good things. 

It's the business model I still don't understand (although, some of the comments here are pretty enlightening).  

Anyone who loves the hobby and the art wouldn't misrepresent altered and reworked art as original, nor deal with fellow enthusiasts they way that they do if the legion of stories out there are to be believed. 

 

They may personally love it, but that doesn't seem to extend much beyond their own self-interest. 

[Rick2you2]

Aside from conversations, I only had one direct dealing with them and it was fine.

A piece was listed on eBay, on the high side. I made an offer for a lesser amount, we negotiated, and I bought it for a little more than I think it was worth, but acceptable (maybe 10-15% high). It was shipped, the condition was what it looked like, and that’s it. The only thing I don’t like is that it is still listed on their website, but they aren’t the only ones to do that. 

So while their business model eludes me, I think there is a difference between a tough businessman and a flat out crook. From my limited experience, they deserve the benefit of the doubt (although, I would be cautious in the future).