Keeping your collection private 4 4

[Timely]

The whole topic of whether art is "fresh" or "fresh to market" is kind of bringing me down. Art is meant to be seen, not squirreled away so it can be "fresh to market" for a day some day 20 years in the future. 

[Mr. Machismo]

1 hour ago, Timely said:

The whole topic of whether art is "fresh" or "fresh to market" is kind of bringing me down. Art is meant to be seen, not squirreled away so it can be "fresh to market" for a day some day 20 years in the future. 

Particularly because it shifts from art appreciation to making a buck. 

[Peter L]

10 hours ago, AnkurJ said:

Indeed! So sorry for your loss.

On a side note, and maybe discussion for another topic....setting up proper instructions on how to liquidate your estate or doing so hopefully before something happens to you.

 

9 hours ago, ESeffinga said:

Me as well.  That is a terrible blow.

I think on some ways the members here can see it as a cautionary tale, and I agree with Ankur that future/estate planning would make a very worthy topic for this board, and I suspect we might all learn a little something from such a thing.

Thanks for the comments.  Yes, the main reason I posted it was as a cautionary tale regarding black hole art.  If I were to pass away, he was the only one who knew or cared what was in my collection.  My family doesn't even know or care what I own.  I have tried to tell them often.  I could easily see them throwing away the art thinking they were posters or junk.  This is one of the reasons I started to post more of my art on CAF.

Edited September 15, 2018 by Peter L

[Marwai]

11 hours ago, Timely said:

The whole topic of whether art is "fresh" or "fresh to market" is kind of bringing me down. Art is meant to be seen, not squirreled away so it can be "fresh to market" for a day some day 20 years in the future. 

Yes, I agree you should share your art.  The discussion is irrelavent if you have no intention of ever selling the art.  My latest update only has 13 views in over 9 days, so it really doesn't matter if it's not A material popping up for sale.   

[delekkerste]

17 hours ago, MYNAMEISLEGION said:

(A) Black-hole:  things go in, but don't come out- I think that is pretty much understood- but the key point is that you cannot see inside a black hole.

(B) more often than not, the black hole collectors simply are over the age of 60, and that explains their behavior more than anything else.  There's nothing intentional about it, or strategic, or shrewd, or shy- they simply aren't online.

(A) If we're making a literal parallel to a black hole, this would of course make sense as the preferred definition.  Things go in, but they don't come out, and you cannot see inside.  That said, the way I have most often heard the term used in the hobby is to refer to a collection whose gravitational pull is thus that pieces that go in cannot be sucked out.  No mention of not being visible.  For example, I have heard people say things like, "Forget about ever getting that piece that just sold at Heritage; it went into a black hole collection".  And then I later find out that they were referring to Dave Mandel, Joe Le or Eric Roberts - all of whom have posted at least some substantial portion of their collection online and all of whom actually do let go of pieces!  So, at least in the vernacular, I have my doubts whether everyone is on the same page with the "not being visible" part of the equation.  And, in fact, may even be playing loose with the "things do not come out" part as well.  

(B) Again, the way I have heard people refer to black hole collectors, they are most definitely still active and winning auctions and such (hence, the "Forget about ever getting that piece that just sold at Heritage; it went into a black hole collection" example).  Even under the radar, I suspect that there are not many 60+ year olds beating the 40 and 50-somethings at auction and sucking pieces into their black hole collections.  

Edited September 16, 2018 by delekkerste

[MyNameIsLegion]

1 hour ago, delekkerste said:

(A) If we're making a literal parallel to a black hole, this would of course make sense as the preferred definition.  Things go in, but they don't come out, and you cannot see inside.  That said, the way I have most often heard the term used in the hobby is to refer to a collection whose gravitational pull is thus that pieces that go in cannot be sucked out.  No mention of not being visible.  For example, I have heard people say things like, "Forget about ever getting that piece that just sold at Heritage; it went into a black hole collection".  And then I later find out that they were referring to, Dave Mandel, Joe Le or Eric Roberts - all of whom have posted at least some substantial portion of their collection online and all of whom actually do let go of pieces!  So, at least in the vernacular, I have my doubts whether everyone is on the same page with the "not being visible" part of the equation.  And, in fact, may even be playing loose with the "things do not come out" part as well.  

(B) Again, the way I have heard people refer to black hole collectors, they are most definitely still active and winning auctions and such (hence, the "Forget about ever getting that piece that just sold at Heritage; it went into a black hole collection" example).  Even under the radar, I suspect that there are not many 60+ year olds beating the 40 and 50-somethings at auction and sucking pieces into their black hole collections.  

yeah, I can't disagree there- certainly those actively collecting are under 60, in their prime earning earning/buying years, so the gravity aspect of the black-hole metaphor is more apropos. I guess I was speaking more of the the cohort of current 60+ year olds, active or not in the hobby, their collections are less visible, less "fresh" or "fresh to market/" They are more likely to get dumped all at once on the market via estate liquidation ( ex. Ethan Roberts) or proactively like Berk's. Those are both "known" high profile examples of course.  There are many many more minor instances, and maybe black holes isn't quite the right term. Those collectors that had a handful of pieces they acquired back when art was $10 a page, that got tucked away along with other related items in a comic collection. I think they are the most at risk of getting lost or thrown out, as the general non-collecting public simply is not well-versed enough in the world of Comic art to even recognize it as such.  OA is still on the periphery of comic collecting.  What to call those?  Dark Matter Collections?  

Edited September 16, 2018 by MYNAMEISLEGION

[BCarter27]

45 minutes ago, MYNAMEISLEGION said:

Dark Matter Collections?

Funny enough, that's how my wife and I refer to them just between the two of us. That or "soft collectors".

Edited September 16, 2018 by BCarter27

[thethedew]

8 hours ago, Peter L said:

If I were to pass away, he was the only one who knew or cared what was in my collection.  My family doesn't even know or care what I own.  I have tried to tell them often.  I could easily see them throwing away the art thinking they were posters or junk.  This is one of the reasons I started to post more of my art on CAF.

Easiest way to cover that problem is to mention the collection in your will, along with a spreadsheet of the estimated value.  Maybe even some suggestions as to the best way to, err... (speaking in precise legal terms)... dispose of the collection.

Problem solved.  We should all have wills.

There are a few books I'm trying to put together, and nothing keeps me up at night more than wondering if vintage pages have been thrown away by the ignorant.  Or destroyed in fires, storms, or floods.

[AnkurJ]

Great part of my insurance policy with collect insure is they ask you to declare anything over $5k. So I gave my wife a list of those items. Hopefully she will know enough not to toss them ?

[Comic Art Factory]

There are very few collectors who like to discuss this topic, because it refers to our mortality. But it's as stupid as having a secret cache where you put thousands of dollars, not disclose it, and let the movers find it later instead of your flesh and blood.

Also, because many collectors lied to their  wife and family regarding the price they paid for the art (very, very bad idea long-term although people getting a divorce will contradict me with a smile) to avoid a heated conversation. And another batch don't want to pay insurance money, which would have been associated by an official estimate from a third party (they don't want anyone to know what they have). Also a very bad move long-term.

If anything happens to these collectors, their family will often sell their collection for cheap. give it for free, or even throw it away. I've seen that happen. Another thing, write down a list of people (professionals or well-educated flippers) that your family must avoid at all cost when it's time to sell if you passed away. Cause some are as hypnotic as the snake from the Jungle Book. 

[Rick2you2]

On 9/15/2018 at 10:02 AM, Timely said:

The whole topic of whether art is "fresh" or "fresh to market" is kind of bringing me down. Art is meant to be seen, not squirreled away so it can be "fresh to market" for a day some day 20 years in the future. 

I guess that’s a “white hole” collector?

[mister_not_so_nice]

Coming late to the discussion, but wanted to add my 

I'm a firm believer that their are more benefits than negatives with sharing at least a portion of your collection on CAF.  I have more than one page in my collection that was offered to me because of me sharing on CAF.  Some CAF galleries can give a little insight into the collecting strategy.  

A page can be posted in one CAF and I'll think, "Dang, missed it."  or in another CAF and it's "Oh, maybe I can get it when it's for sale in 4-6 months." 

So the page in the first CAF is off the market, but we get to enjoy the scan. If/when it does come back to the market those paying attention will know it's a rare opportunity to get it from CAF A and react accordingly. Even though we've known where it has been and able to view it at any time. 

I don't subscribe to the 'fresh to market' hype. To me it's inline with any number of other sales hype ploys. I can see why sellers do it. It's ingrained in the hobby. Even comic sellers do it. "Fresh to market. Another copy of that same comic you can already get from a multitude of other outlets"  

Edited September 17, 2018 by mister_not_so_nice

[Twanj]

I keep most of what I have on CAF. (That reminds me, I have a couple things to put up!)

As far as other stuff, my family members have an "In Case of Death" file we keep updated with links and descriptions of family things/valuables and what they cost or what they're worth along with where to liquidate them.

[aokartman]

LINK to David S. Albright Vintage Art Discoveries on CAF

I put significant pieces on CAF, some are for sale, some are in the vault, but I have a curious resistance to posting what I think is my most valuable piece, the cover art for HULK #209.

This thread is making me rethink that I'm just being nervous about hurting the value of it.

I have some free time coming up, so I will try to get a pic of that cover, though it is in a frame.

Best, David S. Albright

OK!  I just remembered I put in my Lowry as an entry for 2017 and it got 6 or 7 votes!  David

 

 

Edited September 18, 2018 by aokartman
pic added

[Mickey7]

I remember Hulk #209 as one of the few Hulk books I had as a kid.  Always really liked that issue.  I'd love to see the cover art if you decide to show it. 

[JadeGiant]

16 hours ago, aokartman said:

LINK to David S. Albright Vintage Art Discoveries on CAF

I put significant pieces on CAF, some are for sale, some are in the vault, but I have a curious resistance to posting what I think is my most valuable piece, the cover art for HULK #209.

This thread is making me rethink that I'm just being nervous about hurting the value of it.

I have some free time coming up, so I will try to get a pic of that cover, though it is in a frame.

Best, David S. Albright

OK!  I just remembered I put in my Lowry as an entry for 2017 and it got 6 or 7 votes!  David

 

 

I LOVE this cover - this is a great example of (me) being appreciative of those who share great art online. Thanks!

[Panelfan1]

16 hours ago, aokartman said:

LINK to David S. Albright Vintage Art Discoveries on CAF

I put significant pieces on CAF, some are for sale, some are in the vault, but I have a curious resistance to posting what I think is my most valuable piece, the cover art for HULK #209.

This thread is making me rethink that I'm just being nervous about hurting the value of it.

I have some free time coming up, so I will try to get a pic of that cover, though it is in a frame.

Best, David S. Albright

OK!  I just remembered I put in my Lowry as an entry for 2017 and it got 6 or 7 votes!  David

 

 

That is a truly outstanding piece of art.  Thanks for posting.

[Tony D]

This Amazing Spider-Man #23 page is not in my CAF gallery and is not for sale. I have resisted posting it in the past because I didn't want to field posts asking me if it was for sale.

[thethedew]

18 minutes ago, Tony D said:

I have resisted posting it in the past because I didn't want to field posts asking me if it was for sale.

If I may ask, why not?  I ask out of ignorance. 

From my perspective, this cuts right to the heart of the matter.

Why do some collectors have such an aversion to such enquiries?  Is it really that painful/irritating?  Is it such a volume as to be a real time-waster? Is it worth not interacting with the rest of the hobby?

I'm the first to cop to the possibility that I'm probably in a quieter corner of the hobby.  When it comes to having to field FS requests, Micronauts is never going to generate the interest of Ditko Spidey, or a zillion other comic properties or creators that I could mention.  I've fielded more enquiries for my modest Doctor Doom collection than any of my Micros, ROM, or Galactica - probably combined!

Just like everyone else, I get the occasional CAF email, but I often don't even respond, especially if there isn't a gallery on the other end of the email to glance over, or if I feel like it's part of some sort of CAF email blitz (little better than SPAM in my opinion).  I kinda respond if I feel like it.  But it isn't painful to field such requests.

[zhamlau]

8 hours ago, thethedew said:

8 hours ago, Tony D said:

I have resisted posting it in the past because I didn't want to field posts asking me if it was for sale.

If I may ask, why not?  I ask out of ignorance. 

From my perspective, this cuts right to the heart of the matter.

Why do some collectors have such an aversion to such enquiries?  Is it really that painful/irritating?  Is it such a volume as to be a real time-waster? Is it worth not interacting with the rest of the hobby?

I'm the first to cop to the possibility that I'm probably in a quieter corner of the hobby.  When it comes to having to field FS requests, Micronauts is never going to generate the interest of Ditko Spidey, or a zillion other comic properties or creators that I could mention.  I've fielded more enquiries for my modest Doctor Doom collection than any of my Micros, ROM, or Galactica - probably combined!

Just like everyone else, I get the occasional CAF email, but I often don't even respond, especially if there isn't a gallery on the other end of the email to glance over, or if I feel like it's part of some sort of CAF email blitz (little better than SPAM in my opinion).  I kinda respond if I feel like it.  But it isn't painful to field such requests.

Honestly ive wondered this too. I mean, you owe random email guy nothing. Whats the harm in listening? If its boring or worthless talk, ignore it/delete it after reading.