• When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.

Batman 251 Cover
0

132 posts in this topic

2 hours ago, BCarter27 said:

Please let's not fall into those internet traps here.

Not a trap. For some people, me for example, Property Rights are inherent and absolute and exist outside of prior to any government formation. That's what 1776 was about. The British wanted to take the ammunition away from the Colonists, thus robbing them of any reasonable form of equivalent self-defense technology.

If you agree re: Property Rights, then as a result they cannot be legislated away, even though nobody has gone 1776 yet due to encroachment. But...it's coming.

Of course you can disagree. But then you're challenging the Constitution there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, BCarter27 said:

I don't think this is a case of blanket virtue signalling on my part. I'm saying this money should come from the seller and not the buyer and not from some random donation from such as I... and not in a vacuum either, but rather in the case of an effective "found money" six-figure windfall on a piece with a possibly shady sales history.

(With all of the politics being thrown around in this thread -- property rights, socialism as a dirty word, etc. -- you'd think I was trying to restart the October revolution! lol I'm not suggesting burn the whole hobby down to the ground. No matter how much people want to turn any discussion into a battle of idealogues and absolutes and catch each other out with "gotchas", there are always extenuating circumstances and context. You have to take these things a case at a time -- both in real courts and the court of opinion. Please let's not fall into those internet traps here.)

In cases when you have Nazi-stolen or any stolen art, it is a much more difficult situation for the recent buyer who has just shelled out FMV than it is for the previous owner who bought the thing years ago at a much smaller cost basis.

If I were a potential bidder on this, due diligence would definitely include making sure that Adams and his future estate wouldn't have a potential claim on it. I might request the consignor pay Adams for a COA just for peace of mind going forward.

"Strong arm", pressure, whatever you want to call it... I think Adams is taking the only course of action available to him. And I think he was put on the spot in the moment in a live broadcast without some non-existent PR person standing over him.

This is an artist whose work many of you purport to love to the tune of tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars. So I am a little shocked at the lack of empathy or respect for him -- "antics", "pound sand", etc. We're not talking about McFarlane who is able to kick back due to his toy empire. We're talking about a guy who still goes to every con to presumably pay the bills and engage with his fans.

And without Adams, guess what? The entire OA hobby would probably be non-existent (or its birth delayed by many years.)

I don't think enough people here are putting themselves in his shoes. This is his life's work. And these pieces of it keep popping back up for headline, industry-building sales at a time when it is only natural to be looking back and taking stock.

Are there any other artists or writers in here who want to comment? Those are the people I feel can offer further perspective on this.

You say that if you were bidding on Neal’s art it would be good to have him approve so that he or his estate would not later claim ownership.

At first glance that would seem prudent. However should art collectors use due diligence with every piece of art out there on the market concerning the dateline and provenance of ownership?

Should we seek out the living relatives of all the great artists who’ve passed away? Do they have a claim or issue on the art I want to buy. Will they pursue me legally after I buy. Did Romitaman do his due diligence on the page he’s selling me?

if I try to sell do I do the same? To avoid some artist or relative showing up a month before my presumably owned and paid for art goes to auction.

Im arguing for Neal to privately speak to consignors and auction houses if he must to avoid interference.

I’m asking Neal or other artists to reveal which pieces were stolen? 

List ALL individual stolen art pieces.

Not blanket lists suggesting all your pages could be in question when you know that simply isn’t true.

Don’t hit me again with statute of limitations boardies please. Don’t insist this is Neal’s only course of action please boardies.

The only way collecting-buying-selling- trading comic art works is if the parties involved have trust. If this BS continues along with other nonsense ( fake art, criminal behavior like forged signatures on art) we will lose our way. The seas are rough and I’m looking for calm.

I do empathize with Neal. I’m almost always on the artists side. I would however betray common sense by not calling Neal out.

i will give you that the question Neal was asked maybe put him on the spot. Never the less his response was telling and mirrors an attitude of belligerence and cuteness when it comes to negotiating.

Mitch noted a rage about stolen art. Mitch notes a more reasonableness when Neal was reminded of just how much art was sold on his behalf.

This argument never was about what Neal may or may not be due. 

Its calling out Neal for interference. Neal is a smiling, jovial sometimes grumpy beloved man. A genius artist.

I am a fan and a collector. I’m standing up to Neal because he is thinking only of himself and what he deserves.

He’s doing what he has to do.

Im pushing back because I don’t want to traffic in Neal’s work if there’s the slightest chance I’ll be accused  of thievery. No one will come to me after I pay for a piece of art and “ask” for a percent and get it.

I won’t be bullied.

No one will come to me when I want to sell something I own and paid for and “ask” for a consulting-authentication fee and get paid.

I won’t handover the “protection” money.

I love Neal but if any artist, or estate is going to approach me for a bite you better

( 1 ) Show me proof of ownership

( 2 ) Show me the police report with my art listed as your stolen art 

You can see where this is going. Auction houses are going to have to help establish a data base with legal status of everything bought or sold in their auctions. Every page splash and cover.

How would we possibly establish such a thing? All art held privately or circulating on dealer web sites at this point should be clear of any cloud or suspicion.

Any living artist or estate for deceased artists should publicly present a list of any disputed art. Maybe the auction houses as well as CAF fan based web sites publish that list for the good of all.

Even if the statute of limitations has passed. Then at least we can have a civil discourse on all the different solutions offered up here.

The resolution of any disputed past statute of limitations would take place between artist- estate and seller-rep.

99% of these situations would rely on a resolution recognizing that it’s the owner not the artist- estate that will decide if they will act out of generosity.

Generosity.

If I were to give Neal anything, it would be based on generosity.

Not obligation.

Whether artist, collector, buyer or seller we must represent the collecting of original comic art with passion, integrity and positivity. 

Neal the passion collectors feel for your work or any other artists work fuels the demand for what you are doing everyday. I truly believe that interfering with the presumed integrity of buying and selling in this hobby will be damaging using the current approach.

In turn it can effect what your doing everyday selling art to fans. Your COAs mean nothing to me honestly. What if the OA market collapses?

I can study the lines on your work and determine a real or fake. It’s what I do. Please chill out and enjoy what you’re doing. Your fans like me are not your enemy.

I’m asking for everyone to play nice. It’s not fair for me to buy something or sell something and have the Ghost of Opportunity visit my wallet. 

Like Mitch suggested list individually what is stolen or....... 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All I wanted to add was how very easy it is to hypothetically spend, or give away someone else’s money.

All the self-righteous rhetoric in the world can’t tell anyone here what they would actually do, were they put in the same position. 

It looks different, feels different and undoubtedly is different when it’s other people trying to browbeat you into what they think you should do.

In this hobby you might as well also tell people what to collect, how to collect it, how to store it, keep it, look at it, etc.

Good luck with that. The rest is just (to paraphrase) dancing about architecture.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, ESeffinga said:

All I wanted to add was how very easy it is to hypothetically spend, or give away someone else’s money.

All the self-righteous rhetoric in the world can’t tell anyone here what they would actually do, were they put in the same position. 

It looks different, feels different and undoubtedly is different when it’s other people trying to browbeat you into what they think you should do.

In this hobby you might as well also tell people what to collect, how to collect it, how to store it, keep it, look at it, etc.

Good luck with that. The rest is just (to paraphrase) dancing about architecture.

yes sir! It's not always obvious. It's a casual throwaway line or two. "There are people....." "authenticity" "question"

ESeffinga I'm sure you recognize some of the arguments in this thread and in the Purchase of the Year  SWAMP THING 37 thread. Many hands in the pockets of the buyer of the ST 37 cover. In this BM 251 thread to some it seems obvious and "moral" to collect a tax or dictate a percentage to be given to the artist. This thinking is exploding beyond these threads but we'll leave it there. No warnings needed for things we're not allowed to say here. Under the circumstances I believe some of us made a rational defense of the ownership of our art. Yourself included.

Edited by grapeape
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, grapeape said:

You can see where this is going. Auction houses are going to have to help establish a data base with legal status of everything bought or sold in their auctions. Every page splash and cover.

The historical position Houses have taken is that the consignor is presenting the object for consignment on good faith with proper unencumbered title, unless other evidence presents itself (not that the House would go looking, ever, mind you).

1. This was always BS.

2. It all tends to fall apart under scrutiny, and spectacularly so.

3. Tread carefully with this "auction houses are going to have to..." stuff. They would most likely just walk away from that part of their business instead. Imagine the hot air rushing out of that balloon for all the bag-holders lol

Coincidentally, just finished this book this morning over coffee:

image.png.4458c52a7480bb3524add2d75b996149.png

It's ancient (pun intended!) news now, being published in the late 1990s and most relevant to things now resolved but then in motion re: Medici and Symes, but nonetheless a great read. And insight into what you can and cannot expect Houses to give a flying fig about if it might impact their most important clients or their fee takings.

HA, CLink, et al may all be super-duper stand-up where Christie's and Sotheby's were not, but...I lean toward skepticism in all things ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, vodou said:

The historical position Houses have taken is that the consignor is presenting the object for consignment on good faith with proper unencumbered title, unless other evidence presents itself (not that the House would go looking, ever, mind you).

1. This was always BS.

2. It all tends to fall apart under scrutiny, and spectacularly so.

3. Tread carefully with this "auction houses are going to have to..." stuff. They would most likely just walk away from that part of their business instead. Imagine the hot air rushing out of that balloon for all the bag-holders lol

Coincidentally, just finished this book this morning over coffee:

image.png.4458c52a7480bb3524add2d75b996149.png

It's ancient (pun intended!) news now, being published in the late 1990s and most relevant to things now resolved but then in motion re: Medici and Symes, but nonetheless a great read. And insight into what you can and cannot expect Houses to give a flying fig about if it might impact their most important clients or their fee takings.

HA, CLink, et al may all be super-duper stand-up where Christie's and Sotheby's were not, but...I lean toward skepticism in all things ;)

Precisely. It’s absurd I know. we’re clearly working in circles where in many cases we collectors know more than the auction houses. 

The “Kirby” recreations and on and on. Skepticism is prudent and knowing that money drives so much of the shady parts of what we love about art collecting is crucial.

 

Edited by grapeape
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have been working in the tech sector for about 33 years, during that time I have generated dozens of patents for various companies I have worked for.  Every company had you sign something when you were hired that they owned anything you invented while working for them.  You didn't have to sign it but if you didn't, you didn't get the job.  I made maybe $100k total off all the patents I did from what the company paid you per patent but the company made literally hundreds of millions of dollars off the patented ideas plus lawsuit settlements for infringement cases.  My take is I accepted a job where I knew what I was agreeing to upfront.  That said, anyone using wireless or wired connections to the internet can send me a check since your data is 100% passing through something I had a handle in developing.  Let me know and I can send you my paypal user name lol.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, batman_fan said:

I have been working in the tech sector for about 33 years, during that time I have generated dozens of patents for various companies I have worked for.  Every company had you sign something when you were hired that they owned anything you invented while working for them.  You didn't have to sign it but if you didn't, you didn't get the job.  I made maybe $100k total off all the patents I did from what the company paid you per patent but the company made literally hundreds of millions of dollars off the patented ideas plus lawsuit settlements for infringement cases.  My take is I accepted a job where I knew what I was agreeing to upfront.  That said, anyone using wireless or wired connections to the internet can send me a check since your data is 100% passing through something I had a handle in developing.  Let me know and I can send you my paypal user name lol.

I’m not giving you money. You’ll probably just “waste” it on Schulz dailies and Sundays.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Squeezy McSphincter said:

I'm not going to lie, batman_fan, this was some top shelf work.

 

wired.jpg

wifi.jpg

I think you just infringed on my 63rd patent ! lol

Oh wait, yours uses a zip tie to hold the can, mine used a piece of yarn.

Edited by batman_fan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, BCarter27 said:

This is an artist whose work many of you purport to love to the tune of tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars. So I am a little shocked at the lack of empathy or respect for him -- "antics", "pound sand", etc. We're not talking about McFarlane who is able to kick back due to his toy empire. We're talking about a guy who still goes to every con to presumably pay the bills and engage with his fans.

This is the part that baffles me about this thread.  It’s always impressive when people achieve certainty about complex situations given very limited information, swiftly followed by overly simplistic ideologies to rationalize their conclusions.  In the end, I guess bashing Neal Adams is a cheap way to feel less small.  (thumbsu

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Randall Dowling said:

This is the part that baffles me about this thread.  It’s always impressive when people achieve certainty about complex situations given very limited information, swiftly followed by overly simplistic ideologies to rationalize their conclusions.  In the end, I guess bashing Neal Adams is a cheap way to feel less small.  (thumbsu

 I feel like this is the perfectly written ouroboros.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
0