Batman 251 Cover 0

[Bronty]

38 minutes ago, NicoV said:

In Europe (and in fact in many countries but not in the US) we have what is called "droit de suite" ("resale right" in English). Basically it means that when an artwork sells for any price higher than 750€ (with a few exceptions such as the seller bought the art directly to the artist less than 3 years before and for less than 10k€), the seller has to pay a 4%-fee to the artist or his legal heirs, up to 70 years after his death (this 4% fee is degressive for prices above 50k€ and the total fee can't exceed 12500€). This fee is usually collected by the auction house / dealer.

More details here: https://www.adagp.fr/en/user/resale-right

Honestly that makes me sick.

[vodou]

11 minutes ago, Bronty said:

Honestly that makes me sick.

An excellent reason not to live in Europe

[grapeape]

1 hour ago, Randall Dowling said:

I think you guys are being pretty hard on the guy.  It’s not like he made a fortune drawing comics for Marvel and DC.  His work is broadly loved and now, almost 50 years later, he’s despised for wanting a small percentage of the hammer when his artwork sells for a thousand times what he was originally paid for it?  It’s not greed.  This isn’t even a new phenomenon.  This issue has come up in other art markets (although as yet, it’s still unresolved).

I try to imagine how it would feel if I spent much of my career making a living drawing artwork for commercial purposes just to see someone make $100,000 selling that artwork many years later that I only got paid $500 for.  I think that would feel pretty lousy.  And I don’t see anything wrong with him asking for a fee when it gets resold.  I hope he gets it.

BTW, you’re talking about the guy that arguably broke his career going to the mat for Jerry Siegel and Joe Shuster, fighting to get those guys recognition and compensation when they were nearly destitute.  Maybe somebody should go to the mat for Neal now.

I know sentimental feelings are there for the artists. I have them. I want a balance though. Ask John Romita and all these other artists. No one thought these pieces of art board were going to be worth 2 cents. 

The value for the artists is what they are able to do now. I don’t know what Neal makes a year. I do know this. He’s working Cons, has a website. Fans do support his talent and legacy and want to buy from him directly.

I wish Neal the best:

[grapeape]

Many artists did get some of their art back. Then they sold those pieces at FMV. By today’s standards pennies on the dollar. That’s life. My first house I bought in Las Vegas in 1993 for $90k. I sold it in 2000 for $125k. 

Today the house is worth half a million. As much as I’d like to revisit the new owner to “authenticate” that half million dollar valuation and collect more money that’s not how life should work.

imagine listing your home for sale with your agent today. The real estate market  is at a place where you’ve decided to cash in on your investment. The signs are up and the property is listed. Original owner, builder whatever shows up and says;

Your house could go for a million.

Or.....not.

Also he wants a commission for today’s value.

???????

But this is my house, I paid for it. Why would I pay you?

Because......

I drafted the architecture design, which I was paid for. But now I’d like to get paid again. For my design drawings which was meant for the bin once the house was built.

Or yes I owned it. But when I sold it I didn’t know it would sky rocket  in value. So I’d like more.

Tell me something. if I grapeape win that BM cover 251 at HA and five years from now at resale it goes 200k less which one of you kind folks will cover my losses?

 

 

 

[Bronty]

precisely

[vodou]

22 minutes ago, grapeape said:

if I grapeape win that BM cover 251 at HA and five years from now at resale it goes 200k less which one of you kind folks will cover my losses?

That's usually where Brian Peck comes in (and a point I very much agree with). Oddly...John Byrne...famously perma-butthurt on this entire subject...never wants to go near the downside discussion.

[grapeape]

1 hour ago, vodou said:

That's usually where Brian Peck comes in (and a point I very much agree with). Oddly...John Byrne...famously perma-butthurt on this entire subject...never wants to go near the downside discussion.

It’s a touchy subject for artists. John Romita has handled this with the most grace. I admire him greatly.

I love to support artists in any way I can. I prefer buying directly from them if and when possible.Ive kept every sketch or drawing obtained by artists for the personal memory and out of respect.

if artists today can keep the rights to their work, the art, that’s great. Anyone who listens to minute 42-44 of that clip should be able to understand where this is going. We don’t need adversarial relationships via a vi collector and artist. Save the bile for the companies that hired you  and help make changes. Don’t let them take advantage. Sort it out in contract before your artistic journey.

 

[ESeffinga]

Very odd side story...

I was in a local Thai restaurant a couple weeks ago. Stopped by the men's room to wash my hands.

What was on the wall of this Thai restaurant men's room? The cover to Batman 251.
Not the original of course. But a framed color print reproduction at roughly 20" x 26" or so.

Totally random. No other comic decor in the restaurant.

Not sure what the ultimate message was re: hanging that cover in their bathroom.
But it tells me that it's a super popular image, I guess.
I almost stopped and took a picture for this thread.
Then my better sense took hold and I realized I never want to be the guy in the bathroom taking pictures.
Even of Batman covers.

Heh.

[Bronty]

that's odd alright.    Somewhere out there is an LCS with a Thai restaurant ad in their crapper.

Edited September 9, 2019 by Bronty

[glendgold]

4 hours ago, grapeape said:

Tell me something. if I grapeape win that BM cover 251 at HA and five years from now at resale it goes 200k less which one of you kind folks will cover my losses?

 

 

 

That's easy: the Free Market Police who force the sale of the Swamp Thing 37 cover will use the proceeds to cover your loss. It's just the ethical thing to do. 

[comix4fun]

When I was a teenager I helped by brothers restore and rebuild a '67 Z28. I learned how to bend exhaust pipes, assemble engine parts, bleed brakes, and more on that car.

It was a real work of art I tell ya.

Then they sold it. 

I've often thought of following that car from owner to owner seeking a portion of the subsequent sale prices and yelling... "I'm responsible for those VALVE COVERS...pay me muh money!!!"

 

[grapeape]

There seems to be a question...in some people’s......

There seems to be a question, of the authenticity of that cover. There’s some question....I’m hoping to settle that question, but I cannot at this time so.

I think it could go for a million dollars.But the authenticity in question I don’t see how it can do anything like that. But..we’ll see what happens.———Neal Adams (see the video above 42-44)

I’ve spoken today with a high level HA rep. The cover is 100% without a doubt the real original art cover. 

Neal has raised the issue of authenticity with HA recently...same as he did with the GL GA cover. So......Neal if I win the cover I’ll let you take a picture with me and the art, for 10%

[vodou]

32 minutes ago, grapeape said:

There seems to be a question...in some people’s......

There seems to be a question, of the authenticity of that cover. There’s some question....I’m hoping to settle that question, but I cannot at this time so.

I think it could go for a million dollars.But the authenticity in question I don’t see how it can do anything like that. But..we’ll see what happens.———Neal Adams (see the video above 42-44)

I’ve spoken today with a high level HA rep. The cover is 100% without a doubt the real original art cover. 

Neal has raised the issue of authenticity with HA recently...same as he did with the GL GA cover. So......Neal if I win the cover I’ll let you take a picture with me and the art, for 10%

Consignor probably has some room to play with "interference" here.

[delekkerste]

Are we to assume regarding Neal's comments about the Superman vs. Muhammad Ali comic in the interview that he and his family own the original cover art?  I've just assumed that was the case ever since seeing him selling prints of what looks to be the OA at shows, but, I haven't heard that reliably confirmed by anyone. 

[Comic Art Factory]

10 hours ago, Bronty said:

Honestly that makes me sick.

Honestly, that makes me proud to give money back to the creator and his heirs. But of course, you can think you have the right to make money over and over on someone's else work. 

[vodou]

1 minute ago, Comic Art Factory said:

Honestly, that makes me proud to give money back to the creator and his heirs. But of course, you can think you have the right to make money over and over on someone's else work. 

That's cool, so you voluntarily give back much more than is statutorily required in Belgium? Or...just what they make you ( ).

You can imagine which answer impresses me more.

I also suggested that Warren B and Friends go ahead and send the IRS a bunch extra too, they'll take it, to help assuage the B-boys guilt they're carrying around.

[Randall Dowling]

2 hours ago, Comic Art Factory said:

Honestly, that makes me proud to give money back to the creator and his heirs. But of course, you can think you have the right to make money over and over on someone's else work. 

Agree 100%.  Thanks for posting this.

[Randall Dowling]

14 hours ago, NicoV said:

In Europe (and in fact in many countries but not in the US) we have what is called "droit de suite" ("resale right" in English). Basically it means that when an artwork sells for any price higher than 750€ (with a few exceptions such as the seller bought the art directly to the artist less than 3 years before and for less than 10k€), the seller has to pay a 4%-fee to the artist or his legal heirs, up to 70 years after his death (this 4% fee is degressive for prices above 50k€ and the total fee can't exceed 12500€). This fee is usually collected by the auction house / dealer.

More details here: https://www.adagp.fr/en/user/resale-right

I had heard about this.  Thanks for posting. 

[Superhero]

 

On 9/8/2019 at 8:23 AM, comix4fun said:

He has, he sold one a few years ago, but I believe the also hand lettered and inked the title/logo/trade dress so there was no mistaking it for the real thing. 

I stared at the 251 recreation on Neal's site for several years knowing the original cover was well beyond me so I eventually picked it up.  link below.  It is a great piece.  I confirmed with him that it was all him.  The title/logo/trade dress are stats on a separate overlay.  I talked to Neal about it for a while.  At that time, he didn't know if the original cover still existed or who might have it.   Interesting thing is I know he did it in the late 90's early 2000s but he dated the certificate of authenticity when I purchased it instead of when he actually drew it. 

 

https://www.comicartfans.com/gallerypiece.asp?piece=807921

Edited September 10, 2019 by Superhero

[comix4fun]

13 hours ago, Comic Art Factory said:

Honestly, that makes me proud to give money back to the creator and his heirs. But of course, you can think you have the right to make money over and over on someone's else work. 

He's not "making money over and over on someone else's work". We are talking about personal property. The "work" is a physical piece of property that, once sold, belongs entirely to the person who purchased it. Like a car, a house, a comic book, or any other item that is bought and sold in the course of regular and every day commerce. 

If a piece of property is sold, outright, without reservation or condition at the time of sale it belongs entirely to the person who paid the agreed upon price for it. 

The person who created the work has the right to strike whatever legal terms they would like at the time of sale. They can retain copyright (such as they are entitled) or set any other term they and the person they are contracting with for the sale shall agree. If they don't set additional terms concerning the rights to the physical piece of art changing hands then they cannot demand those additional terms at a later date, unilaterally.