tth2 Posted January 16, 2018 Share Posted January 16, 2018 23 minutes ago, Nexus said: I don't have a problem with anyone saying or doing whatever they want in these situations, either. It helps me form an opinion about them. My opinion is already formed about all of the relevant people that have been cited! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter G Posted January 16, 2018 Share Posted January 16, 2018 (edited) 59 minutes ago, SquareChaos said: I'm not sure I agree with the central theme of the complaints here, but I admit to rolling my eyes a bit while reading the critique of a cover that said critiquer had very recently offered a quarter of a million dollars for. Putting aside the conflict of interest and lack of professionalism, disparaging another sellers art is inappropriate and indecent. But the conflict makes it cringe worthy. Edited January 16, 2018 by Peter G Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vodou Posted January 16, 2018 Share Posted January 16, 2018 47 minutes ago, Nexus said: I don't have a problem with anyone saying or doing whatever they want in these situations, either. It helps me form an opinion about them. And some opinions are duly reinforced. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
romitaman Posted January 16, 2018 Share Posted January 16, 2018 3 hours ago, glendgold said: Welp, Mike has talked me out of bidding on the ASM 100 cover. Glen has talked me out of ever buying a howard the duck page....as he has tainted the market for me now.,....ughhhh Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John S. Posted January 16, 2018 Share Posted January 16, 2018 7 hours ago, Nexus said: I vaguely recall a controversy from many years ago where Fishler may have cast aspersions upon a Steranko piece which showed up at auction. Which he then proceeded to win. Someone can find it in the comicart-l archives. Never mind, I found it: https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/comicart-l/conversations/topics/253824 https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/comicart-l/conversations/topics/257341 https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/comicart-l/search/messages?query=Fishler FOOM The piece was subsequently sold to a collector. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhilipB2k17 Posted January 16, 2018 Share Posted January 16, 2018 (edited) On 1/13/2018 at 8:50 AM, bisquitodoom said: That's really interesting. I guess someone decided to fix 2 Kingpins with a strategically placed banner. Never hit me that it was so strangely-angled, but I'll never not see it now. No. The Kingpin above Spidey is a Stat. Look closely. They wanted to move Kingpin up either to make him more prominent, or to add the banner and not wanting to cover his face. Not only that, you can see the glue residue from the missing banner. What happened to it? Edited January 16, 2018 by PhilipB2k17 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bronty Posted January 16, 2018 Share Posted January 16, 2018 (edited) 16 hours ago, Peter G said: disparaging another sellers art is inappropriate and indecent. But the conflict makes it cringe worthy. Well. On the one hand I know what you're saying, as you don't want to bring down someone else's sale. On the other hand, where do you draw the line? Everyone who has ever made anything other than a glowing comment about a piece at auction has done the same thing. There also has to be some intellectual freedom to reasonably discuss the strengths and weaknesses of a piece without it becoming an issue. The words you chose ('inappropriate'... 'INDECENT'... cringeworthy) are far too strong for what happened here. Mike had a legit and reasonable criticism of the piece. We do this every day. I've never met Mike, and I don't think I've ever done a deal with Mike, btw. Reasonable opinions or critiques, even on pieces we are interested in, are just not that big a deal. They are no deal at all. I'd like to think that anyone with enough money to buy the ASM 100 cover is also smart enough to take Mike's opinion with a grain of salt, and to bid based on their own beliefs not based on what Mike says on a message board. Edited January 16, 2018 by Bronty trimpehulk 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pete Marino Posted January 16, 2018 Share Posted January 16, 2018 2 minutes ago, Bronty said: Well. On the one hand I know what you're saying, as you don't want to bring down someone else's sale. On the other hand, where do you draw the line? Everyone who has ever made anything other than a glowing comment about a piece at auction has done the same thing. There also has to be some intellectual freedom to reasonably discuss the strengths and weaknesses of a piece without it becoming an issue. The words you chose ('inappropriate'... 'INDECENT'... cringeworthy) are far too strong for what happened here. Mike had a legit and reasonable criticism of the piece. We do this every day. I've never met Mike, and I don't think I've ever done a deal with Mike, btw. Reasonable opinions or critiques, even on pieces we are interested in, are just not that big a deal. They are no deal at all. Can we also add with all those cringeworthy critiques he also openly said he offered a quarter-million dollars cash for it?? So, let's make sure we keep proper perspective here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nexus Posted January 16, 2018 Share Posted January 16, 2018 (edited) 21 minutes ago, Bronty said: Well. On the one hand I know what you're saying, as you don't want to bring down someone else's sale. On the other hand, where do you draw the line? Everyone who has ever made anything other than a glowing comment about a piece at auction has done the same thing. There also has to be some intellectual freedom to reasonably discuss the strengths and weaknesses of a piece without it becoming an issue. The words you chose ('inappropriate'... 'INDECENT'... cringeworthy) are far too strong for what happened here. Mike had a legit and reasonable criticism of the piece. We do this every day. I've never met Mike, and I don't think I've ever done a deal with Mike, btw. Reasonable opinions or critiques, even on pieces we are interested in, are just not that big a deal. They are no deal at all. I'd like to think that anyone with enough money to buy the ASM 100 cover is also smart enough to take Mike's opinion with a grain of salt, and to bid based on their own beliefs not based on what Mike says on a message board. I think you may be missing the "conflict" part. You didn't click on the comicart-l archive links, but I think Hans K. put it best: Fishler essentially "poisoned the well" by publicly suggesting the piece at auction had highly questionable provenance. Was it a legitimate concern? Maybe. But he also drove away competition for a piece he wanted to win. In this case, whether or not the same thing is happening...at the very least, the optics are bad. Edited January 16, 2018 by Nexus Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bronty Posted January 16, 2018 Share Posted January 16, 2018 (edited) 3 minutes ago, Nexus said: I think you may be missing the "conflict" part. You didn't click on the comicart-l archive links, but I think Hans K. put it best: Fishler essentially "poisoned the well" by publicly suggesting the piece at auction had highly questionable provenance. Was it a legitimate concern? Maybe. But he also drove away competition for a piece he wanted to win. I was talking about Mike not Fishler... Maybe Peter G was talking about Fishler? Not sure. I agree that what you're suggesting is going too far. I assumed Peter G was talking about Mike given that his quote was with respect to ASM 100 and the 250k Mike offered. Edited January 16, 2018 by Bronty Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nexus Posted January 16, 2018 Share Posted January 16, 2018 4 minutes ago, Bronty said: I was talking about Mike not Fishler... Maybe Peter G was talking about Fishler? Not sure. I agree that what you're suggesting is going too far. I assumed Peter G was talking about Mike given that his quote was with respect to ASM 100 and the 250k Mike offered. Heh...you're always so damn fast with replies! I was in the middle of editing. But did add that last line to make the connection. At least how I read it, Peter G was talking about Mike, and politely suggesting that he be careful of "managing perception" of valuation. (Specifically as it relates to an ongoing auction?) He then adds that this is something certain other dealers wouldn't do. Bless his heart. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vodou Posted January 16, 2018 Share Posted January 16, 2018 1 hour ago, Bronty said: I'd like to think that anyone with enough money to buy the ASM 100 cover is also smart enough to take Mike's opinion with a grain of salt, and to bid based on their own beliefs not based on what Mike says on a message board. I'm not sure you can. Taking Mike's comment at face value (so no ulterior motives or false information given)...at a minimum, if you pay more than $250k (maybe even less than if Mike wouldn't pay that anymore as he suggests) then you've lost at least once potential customer when it's re-sale time, at least in the near term. That's valuable information IF there's no BS factor involved (which...c'mon...we know there is ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dirtymartini1 Posted January 16, 2018 Share Posted January 16, 2018 I'm confused. So is giving your 2 cents on a piece you used to own, wanted to own again, then negatively critiqued publicly more offensive, as offensive, less offensive or none of the above as shilling your own pieces at auction? There is so much OA etiquette to learn, I wish someone would write up a rule book. Bird and SquareChaos 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter G Posted January 16, 2018 Share Posted January 16, 2018 8 minutes ago, Nexus said: Heh...you're always so damn fast with replies! I was in the middle of editing. But did add that last line to make the connection. At least how I read it, Peter G was talking about Mike, and politely suggesting that he be careful of "managing perception" of valuation. (Specifically as it relates to an ongoing auction?) He then adds that this is something certain other dealers wouldn't do. Bless his heart. In hindsight, I regret giving a pass to Vincent Zurzolo and Stephen Fischler. God knows, I hate most everybody in this hobby; mike Burkey included. But in fairness, everybody rubs me the wrong way here on these boards. ? Burkey though is so sanctimonious and hypocritical though. He is one of the worst. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vodou Posted January 16, 2018 Share Posted January 16, 2018 1 minute ago, dirtymartini1 said: There is so much OA etiquette to learn, I wish someone would write up a rule book. There is only one rule: The Golden Rule. However, just as in all of life, in comic art life the Rule is rarely if ever observed. Those I trust without question in this hobby...maybe countable on two hands, but only for sure one one. That's after 24 yrs and counting of transactions and interactions. A whole lot of 'em. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bronty Posted January 16, 2018 Share Posted January 16, 2018 54 minutes ago, Nexus said: Heh...you're always so damn fast with replies! I was in the middle of editing. But did add that last line to make the connection. At least how I read it, Peter G was talking about Mike, and politely suggesting that he be careful of "managing perception" of valuation. (Specifically as it relates to an ongoing auction?) He then adds that this is something certain other dealers wouldn't do. Bless his heart. Well exactly. The whole "you're a professional art dealer, shame on you" bit is such a farce. Let's think about the top echelon of art dealers in the world, the fine art guys. They 'manage perception' all the time, I would argue. Its sort of part of the gig. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter G Posted January 16, 2018 Share Posted January 16, 2018 (edited) 12 minutes ago, Bronty said: Well exactly. The whole "you're a professional art dealer, shame on you" bit is such a farce. Let's think about the top echelon of art dealers in the world, the fine art guys. They 'manage perception' all the time, I would argue. Its sort of part of the gig. I am not going to pick a fight with you Bronty. You are just what I consider merely a "useful idgiot". But Mike Burkey pretending to be a nice guy" is just pure marketing. He is NOT a nice guy. He constantly, and always, violates basic rules of etiqutte to serve his own agenda. Which is ALWAYS about the art of the deal. It is disgusting to behold. I have no problem with "deal making" but don't pretend that you are a nice guy when you violate basic rules of etiquette and decency. Disparaging a sellers piece that you are interested in is indecent. And this awww shucks, Im just giving my honest interpretation based on mere objective factors, please ignore that I am an interested buyer in this piece. Who falls for that garbage ? It is better if he just kept his mouth shut. Edited January 16, 2018 by Peter G Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bronty Posted January 16, 2018 Share Posted January 16, 2018 Just now, Peter G said: I am not going to pick a fight with you Bronty. You are just what I consider merely a "useful insufficiently_thoughtful_person". - "I am not going to pick a fight" followed by 'insult' - I hate everyone in the hobby Hey, maybe the problem is you? Just sayin' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter G Posted January 16, 2018 Share Posted January 16, 2018 1 minute ago, Bronty said: - "I am not going to pick a fight" followed by 'insult' - I hate everyone in the hobby Hey, maybe the problem is you? Just sayin' I thought about that. But after careful consideration, NO. I just call a spade a spade. I don't make excuses for behavior that is WRONG. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter G Posted January 16, 2018 Share Posted January 16, 2018 (edited) 16 minutes ago, Bronty said: The whole "you're a professional art dealer, shame on you" bit is such a farce. Let's think about the top echelon of art dealers in the world, the fine art guys. They 'manage perception' all the time, I would argue. Its sort of part of the gig. Why would you give Burkey a pass merely because "everybody does it". Your argument is so weak. And reveals something about your moral character. Shame on you. Edited January 16, 2018 by Peter G kbmcvay 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
