Keeping your collection private 4 4

[The Voord]

1 minute ago, Mephisto said:

I’m not a fan of posting too much of my stuff on Facebook. Don’t want that much stuff so easily traced to me under my real name and other personal stuff.

I don’t use my real name on CAF for this reason but when using contact on CAF I’ll always respond with my real name.

Mr Mephisto had a nice ring to it . . .

 

[delekkerste]

2 hours ago, Nexus said:

So why not do both? FB for the instant gratification, CAF to display/curate a collection? Too much work? Just curious. I AM absolutely biased, can't stand FB, so this is all very new/interesting to me.

I can see the draw of Facebook.  There are far less posts in a typical group on FB than there are on CAF.  Far more manageable.  And, far more exposure - the last piece I posted on CAF has 363 views after almost 3 months, and, it's a pretty nice piece.  Not to mention, I'm a reasonably well known individual in this hobby, so, if a lesser known collector had posted the same piece, they'd probably only have a fraction of the views, because, on CAF, the number of views often correlates more with how widely followed a gallery is rather than how strong a particular piece is.  An A-list collector might post a B-list piece and get a few hundred views, while a no-name collector might post an A-level piece and not even crack a hundred views.

But, on FB, anyone can post in a group with a few thousand members and probably get seen by at least a few hundred people (if not a thousand or more) during a week.  A ham-and-egger who might get 25 views and zero comments posting the same piece on their CAF might pick up 10-15 likes and a comment or two on FB and be seen by hundreds.  I agree that CAF is far more comprehensive, lasting, better organized and all-around a more serious venue.  But, there are reasons why FB and Instagram have been cutting into CAF's mind share in our hobby.  It is far more egalitarian and accessible for ham and eggers, newbies and those who aren't well-known or well-connected.  You don't have to organize or maintain anything and can easily slip in and out at your leisure.  Those with strong insights relative to the strength of their collection can get noticed through their comments. 

Whether old-timers and those at the top of the OA food chain like it or not, it seems like these alternative platforms to CAF are not only not going away, but, will probably take even greater mindshare over time.  

Edited September 10, 2018 by delekkerste

[eewwnuk]

how is a 'ham and egger' defined?

[BitterOldMan]

18 minutes ago, eewwnuk said:

how is a 'ham and egger' defined?

In polite terms, a "ham and egger" is an ordinary person.

In olden days, mining towns would sponsor boxing matches, where the winner would win money, whereas the loser would get a ham and egg meal.  Many non-boxing miners fought just to get the meal.

Term was used in the first Rocky movie

Edited September 10, 2018 by BitterOldMan

[Sooners151]

I'm a (really) latecomer, ham and egger both, so I use CAF as the best way to plug into the hobby.  These boards provide a lot of great information, but the audience here is almost all seasoned collectors mostly having conversations around silver and copper age pieces. IMO.  I have no issues there as that's what is dominant in the market, but with CAF, I can search galleries of collectors similar to myself.  With most of my pieces posted, they can find me as well.  I've stuck up many conversations though DMs this way and have actually made a couple true friends from people thousands of miles away.  I have yet to run into anyone dickish. 

My thoughts, keeping the collection private probably maximizes value, making it public maximizes the social enjoyment.

The hobby is niche and one's tastes in the hobby even more so, so by posting I can connect with people with shared interests.  

[ESeffinga]

Just spitballing, but with Facebook, I do have to give credit that the Art groups I've tried following are often curated. i.e. not just any old schmuck can post to them. The group managers keep tabs on who is posting what. Some are more freewheeling than others, but it wouldn't surprise me if it keeps the titty tracers out of the mix which, let's be honest, CAF does allow to a maddening degree in the interests of participation by all. Even though many of us wish some folks would get booted or flagged in a way that we could set their accounts to ignore when we view the site.

 

[artdealer]

11 hours ago, Peter L said:

I have had a bad experience with Keif Fromm.  I didn't know he had a reputation about him.  What's the story about him?

Fromm is quite possibly the biggest scumbag out there. 

The stories I could tell you would curl your hair.

MI

[PhilipB2k17]

50 minutes ago, delekkerste said:

I can see the draw of Facebook.  There are far less posts in a typical group on FB than there are on CAF.  Far more manageable.  And, far more exposure - the last piece I posted on CAF has 363 views after almost 3 months, and, it's a pretty nice piece.  Not to mention, I'm a reasonably well known individual in this hobby, so, if a lesser known collector had posted the same piece, they'd probably only have a fraction of the views, because, on CAF, the number of views often correlates more with how widely followed a gallery is rather than how strong a particular piece is.  If an A-list collector posts B-list piece and gets a few hundred views.  No-name collector posts an A- level piece and may not even crack a hundred views.

But, on FB, anyone can post in a group with a few thousand members and probably get seen by at least a few hundred people (if not a thousand or more) during a week.  A ham-and-egger who might get 25 views and zero comments posting the same piece on their CAF might pick up 10-15 likes and a comment or two on FB and be seen by hundreds.  I agree that CAF is far more comprehensive, lasting, better organized and all-around a more serious venue.  But, there are reasons why FB and Instagram have been cutting into CAF's mind share in our hobby.  It is far more egalitarian and accessible for ham and eggers, newbies and those who aren't well-known or well-connected.  You don't have to organize or maintain anything and can easily slip in and out at your leisure.  Those with strong insights relative to the strength of their collection can get noticed through their comments. 

Whether old-timers and those at the top of the OA food chain like it or not, it seems like these alternative platforms to CAF are not only not going away, but, will probably take even greater mindshare over time.  

I can say as a regular guy collector, that getting a lot of positive feedback on one of your pieces (albeit on Facebook) from seasoned collectors is cool. I also post a Facebook gallery of my art that is not as transient, that my friends can see. It's not all of my stuff, but a decent sample size. CAF is kind of unwieldy in its user interface, IMHO. Its got a lot of great qualities, but ease of use isn't really at the top of that list.

[Marwai]

Sharing art on social media is making your collection even less private than putting it on CAF.  You won't see the hobby expand if it's kept to CAF.  If you just wanted to share a sketch from a lesser known artist, it is not appreciated on CAF.  10 views maybe?  It gets buried there.  So why not put it where you can actually show appreciation for the artist and his followers can see it and easily appreciate it too?  

Most of us don't have delusions of grandeur of having a great A+ collection that belongs in a museum and don't have their grail already so we don't want be to sized up by the content of the CAF gallery when trying to buy or trade for something.

      

Edited September 10, 2018 by Marwai
added a word for clarity

[inovrmihd]

3 hours ago, The Voord said:

Not forgetting his (Keif Fromm's) shoplifting excursions . . .

I find the turn this thread has taken to be hysterical.  When I got serious about this hobby, he was one of the first persons i contacted.  I saw he owned a Mac Raboy Captain Marvel Jr. cover that I inquired about buying from him, but he wasn't interested.  He said he intended to leave it to the LOC, if I recall correctly.  (I have no personal knowledge about him, by the way, just the stuff I have subsequently heard/read).

[glendgold]

1 hour ago, artdealer said:

Fromm is quite possibly the biggest scumbag out there. 

The stories I could tell you would curl your hair.

MI

My introduction to him was when he offered me a Golden Age splash for 16K.  On the same day that Mitch offered it to me for 8.  Guess which one of them actually had it. 

[The Voord]

1 hour ago, inovrmihd said:

I find the turn this thread has taken to be hysterical.  When I got serious about this hobby, he was one of the first persons i contacted.  I saw he owned a Mac Raboy Captain Marvel Jr. cover that I inquired about buying from him, but he wasn't interested.  He said he intended to leave it to the LOC, if I recall correctly.  (I have no personal knowledge about him, by the way, just the stuff I have subsequently heard/read).

Keif was one of the first American collectors I contacted via snail-mail, back in pre-internet days.  Long story but cut short, he tried to con me out of a complete EC story as a freebie for himself.  As such, I'm speaking from personal experience.  He even phoned me up in the UK several times.  He has the warmth, sincerity and charisma of a snake-oil salesman.

Threads often get steered away from the original intent.  So what's new?  As I said, I didn't bring up Keif in the discussion . . . I'd just as soon try to put him out of mind.

Edited September 10, 2018 by The Voord

[Brian Peck]

3 hours ago, Nexus said:

So why not do both? FB for the instant gratification, CAF to display/curate a collection? Too much work? Just curious. I AM absolutely biased, can't stand FB, so this is all very new/interesting to me.

For new art I post in CAF and on comic art related FB groups I post older artwork. Depending on  what people are discussing on FB or some have theme posts.

[Peter L]

How is the issue of the fresh art being valued more highly quantified? 

For example, Is it by increased bidding on HA for a piece that has not been on the market for 20 years?  Let's say there were hypothetically two covers for late 1978 Thor, and one was in a CAF gallery and had a few owners, and the cover for the next issue has not been seen since that time sitting in a personal collection.  If both went up for auction at HA this month, would the previously unseen cover get higher bids?

[The Voord]

8 minutes ago, glendgold said:

My introduction to him was when he offered me a Golden Age splash for 16K.  On the same day that Mitch offered it to me for 8.  Guess which one of them actually had it. 

Along similar lines to my own experience with Keif when he was acting as a go-between involving myself and Roger Hill (who, at the time, I was unaware of being a third party).  Keif was pretending to own the stuff he was offering me (belonging to Roger) and was adding extras into the deal he hoped I would go for (that would result in him gaining a complete EC story as a freebie).

Years later, Keif wanted to buy a 1966 Ditko 'Captain Atom' cover from me.  His pitch was that I should not expect much in the way of a cash offer from him, as what he was wanting to buy wasn't something of any great value.

 

[Marwai]

6 minutes ago, Peter L said:

How is the issue of the fresh art being valued more highly quantified? 

For example, Is it by increased bidding on HA for a piece that has not been on the market for 20 years?  Let's say there were hypothetically two covers for late 1978 Thor, and one was in a CAF gallery and had a few owners, and the cover for the next issue has not been seen since that time sitting in a personal collection.  If both went up for auction at HA this month, would the previously unseen cover get higher bids? 

 

Heritage would be smart enough not to put two similar covers back to back.  But the fresh to market one would get higher bids since the previous owners of the one that has passed hands would probably be out of the bidding unless they all had seller's remorse.

[delekkerste]

So, going back to the original topic...

I posted almost everything I had in my collection from when I joined CAF in 2004 up through the spring of 2014.  At that point, I not only took down many pieces from my collection, but, I greatly reduced the rate of my posting, for a number of reasons:

1. For the first 11 years of my collecting, I hardly sold anything save for the occasional 3-figure piece that I had gotten bored with.  Starting in late 2013, with my tastes/collecting focus having changed, and OA prices ratcheting up again, I found myself starting to sell and trade more (and, nowadays, I mostly sell to buy rather than just writing checks like in the old days).  While freshness is sometimes a non-factor, it is almost never a liability, so, I thought that less exposure would be worth more in this case. 

2. I kept running into other collectors who would extol the virtues of the non-visible portion of their collection.  While my goal was not to have a portion of my collection hidden to hold it over people, I did like having things that no one or just a few know about.  I mean, is it really a laudable goal to have a fully transparent collection?  I like to think that I can still pull out some surprises for show-and-tell or in the midst of a trade negotiation, just to name a couple of examples.   

3.  As some have mentioned before, not everything in one's collection is worth posting.  It may be redundant to better examples, or may not really be of interest to people to begin with.  I have come to believe that curation is a more admirable quality in a CAF gallery rather than a data dump of hundreds/thousands of entries. 

As such, since May 2014, I have:

- acquired 217 new pieces

- sold or traded 82 old pieces

- posted 25 of the new acquisitions on CAF (and a number of these are from my For Sale gallery; the rate of posting "keepers" has been far less than the 25 out of 217 ratio)

I still like to post occasionally to remind people that I'm still active in the hobby, to share a particularly meaningful piece, and/or to just to "give back" and be a part of the CAF community.  But, mostly, I like to keep my acquisitions either to myself or to share them with a small number of friends who I think will appreciate the art.  

[buttock]

17 hours ago, batman_fan said:

Some of the most fun I have had was at the old Wondercon's in Oakland.  I use to take a portfolio to show folks and they would do likewise.  Now that I am Colorado, I really don't interact with anyone that collects.

When are we going to fix this? 

[Peter L]

11 hours ago, mtlevy1 said:

Post or Not - I vote Post!

I have my grail because I posted on CAF - so if you want yours you might want to do the same.

That said, I don't post every piece. When I get a piece, if it fits well in one of my galleries - and it is not too repetitive - then I generally post it.

Most probably know, but CAF has a default by artist listing now so you don't need to organize your CAF by artist - I found organizing in themes helps focus my buying as well.

In terms of inquiries, I don't get so many that I can't write appropriate responses - and have some fun with it sometimes.

In terms of fresh to market effect,  I haven't seen any data but I imagine it depends on a variety of factors I am not investing any time in thinking about just now

My 2 cents!

Mark

 

 

 

 

I have a question then.  How does the CAF default listing work?  When I try to post art, it makes me choose a gallery to put it in.  It won't let me put it into a general unsorted group.

[malvin]

26 minutes ago, Peter L said:

I have a question then.  How does the CAF default listing work?  When I try to post art, it makes me choose a gallery to put it in.  It won't let me put it into a general unsorted group.

It all has to be in a gallery. Some people just have one big gallery.

Malvin