• 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.

Skottie Young cover dump on his website
1 1

120 posts in this topic

9 hours ago, joefixit2 said:

curious to see how much detail he ends up putting in this commissions given the higher price.

Rates were the exact same as last year, when I handled commissions for him. So no higher, no lower. We had a talk about it this time, so I would expect things to go about the same.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Nexus said:

Rates were the exact same as last year, when I handled commissions for him. So no higher, no lower. We had a talk about it this time, so I would expect things to go about the same.

Felix- it is nice to see you are still advising him even thought you are not handling his art.. very cool of you. If you do not mind me asking, how do you get to what a persons commission prices are? I have always wondered this because they can be so different from artist to artist, even ones I would think would be similar in popularity. In my head I thought it would relate to what there published art pages go for but in Skotties case that does not seem to apply.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, Unstoppablejayd said:

Felix- it is nice to see you are still advising him even thought you are not handling his art.. very cool of you. If you do not mind me asking, how do you get to what a persons commission prices are? I have always wondered this because they can be so different from artist to artist, even ones I would think would be similar in popularity. In my head I thought it would relate to what there published art pages go for but in Skotties case that does not seem to apply.

The market decides commission rates. Your fellow collectors decide commission rates. And even though two artists may be comparable in popularity/profile, if one is more available for commissions than the other, that will effect how much each can charge. In Skottie's case, he hadn't take a commission list in many, many years (maybe 10?) when I opened a list for him in 2019. He took a decent-sized list, but it still only represented a small fraction of those who wanted on. So I expect that his list will be full anytime he decides to open one going forward (with the usual caveats, of course).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/21/2020 at 7:12 PM, Nexus said:

Skottie's lower prices on his site for this first offering prompted some chatter on FB, too. Here was my reply to that as it applies here, too:

Thanks to Annabel for pointing me to these threads.

First off, I want to congratulate Skottie on a successful sale! I will always consider him a friend and will continue to root for his well-deserved success.


Regarding pricing when I helped him sell his art and now: It's always been largely determined by Skottie. Skottie is very aware of his own value, and of the value of his art. Prior to working with me, Skottie sold a lot of covers via eBay; auctions aren't necessarily a perfect reflection of market value, but they're close. Spidey covers, for example, were routinely in the $5K range. He was not going to get any less selling them through me. Same with sketches. Having sold them through his site for years before, he knew exactly what he should get for them on my site and priced them all. Indeed, between covers, pages, sketches, we sold 90%+ of the art I handled. I would say the market felt the pricing was fair.

The covers that were dropped today were all new. I did not have them on my site before. Looking at the prices, they were less than what we would have had on my site. Why? No idea. But I would not expect them to be this low forever. For today, I think collectors should just be glad they got great deals!

So in addition to Skottie, I would say congrats to buyers, as well. Always a happy day when we get new art!

 

Well said from a class act! 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In the time honored internet tradition of engaging in necromancy by replying to a dead thread, I just came across this and wanted to add my 2 cents, just because shouting into the wind is a favorite past time of mine.

Skottie recently reopened his commission list, and being the dutiful collector that I am, I inquired about being added to the list. The prices quoted were something like 2k for a black and white piece, and 3k for color.

I realize this is driven by supply and demand, and obviously there's enough people willing to pay that kind of (to me) exorbitant pricing, etc. But by charging such a high price point the vast majority of middle income collectors are simply priced out of the market entirely.

I know what some of you are thinking, "wah, so what, you save up or you don't by it, deal with it". Bear with me my unempathetic friends, bear with me.

I'm an amatuer artist myself, and I just can't countenance selling my art for that much, even if I could. I think about the people who would love to own some of my art but can't because of economics. Anyone in public service, from school employees to police officers, to nurses and members of the military, are incredibly unlikely to be able to afford thousands of dollars just to own one of my pieces. Most Americans can't afford a surprise $500 emergency bill of ANY kind, nevermind a quasi-frivolous art purchase. So, instead of my art going to a home that cherishes and loves it, my art gets hoarded by a small percentage of (relatively) wealthy "investors", who are doing so primarily as a vehicle for asset appreciation, rather than art appreciation. Either that or die-hard fans are paying prices they really can't afford, straining their personal finances beyond reasonable bounds.

Shouldn't ownership of your favorite artists work be a feasibly attainable goal for all? Secondary markets be damned, I'd want my art to be something anyone could afford, if they're willing to save a bit and get lucky enough to score a spot on the commission list. I don't expect artists to give away their art for free, or to charge such low amounts that they're not fairly compensated for their work, but I also don't like the idea that only the top 10% of income earners can afford to snag an original piece of my art.

I know this is controversial, and I'm sure there's many that would disagree with me, but I think we devalue art in the long term by placing such an emphasis on its monetary value, and by trying to squeeze every penny out it that the "market" will tolerate we turn it into just another commodity, instead of what's its actually meant to be, a connection between us and our favorite artists and characters. Art is supposed to be emotional, magical, spiritual, not a place to park my excessive wealth so I can generate more of it.

I would love to see artists offer some slots on their commission lists dedicated to those who serve (teachers, fire fighters, etc.), or low income earners (this is easily verifiable through a redacted W-2). Or better yet, pricing that reflects what the average collector can afford, not the maximum amount the market will tolerate. There will always be 10-20% who buy my art to resell, but I don't care about them. I care about the other 80-90%, who would love to own my art, but can't because they just can't afford it.

Rant over, feel free to flame at will.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, Complex306 said:

In the time honored internet tradition of engaging in necromancy by replying to a dead thread, I just came across this and wanted to add my 2 cents, just because shouting into the wind is a favorite past time of mine.

Skottie recently reopened his commission list, and being the dutiful collector that I am, I inquired about being added to the list. The prices quoted were something like 2k for a black and white piece, and 3k for color.

I realize this is driven by supply and demand, and obviously there's enough people willing to pay that kind of (to me) exorbitant pricing, etc. But by charging such a high price point the vast majority of middle income collectors are simply priced out of the market entirely.

I know what some of you are thinking, "wah, so what, you save up or you don't by it, deal with it". Bear with me my unempathetic friends, bear with me.

I'm an amatuer artist myself, and I just can't countenance selling my art for that much, even if I could. I think about the people who would love to own some of my art but can't because of economics. Anyone in public service, from school employees to police officers, to nurses and members of the military, are incredibly unlikely to be able to afford thousands of dollars just to own one of my pieces. Most Americans can't afford a surprise $500 emergency bill of ANY kind, nevermind a quasi-frivolous art purchase. So, instead of my art going to a home that cherishes and loves it, my art gets hoarded by a small percentage of (relatively) wealthy "investors", who are doing so primarily as a vehicle for asset appreciation, rather than art appreciation. Either that or die-hard fans are paying prices they really can't afford, straining their personal finances beyond reasonable bounds.

Shouldn't ownership of your favorite artists work be a feasibly attainable goal for all? Secondary markets be damned, I'd want my art to be something anyone could afford, if they're willing to save a bit and get lucky enough to score a spot on the commission list. I don't expect artists to give away their art for free, or to charge such low amounts that they're not fairly compensated for their work, but I also don't like the idea that only the top 10% of income earners can afford to snag an original piece of my art.

I know this is controversial, and I'm sure there's many that would disagree with me, but I think we devalue art in the long term by placing such an emphasis on its monetary value, and by trying to squeeze every penny out it that the "market" will tolerate we turn it into just another commodity, instead of what's its actually meant to be, a connection between us and our favorite artists and characters. Art is supposed to be emotional, magical, spiritual, not a place to park my excessive wealth so I can generate more of it.

I would love to see artists offer some slots on their commission lists dedicated to those who serve (teachers, fire fighters, etc.), or low income earners (this is easily verifiable through a redacted W-2). Or better yet, pricing that reflects what the average collector can afford, not the maximum amount the market will tolerate. There will always be 10-20% who buy my art to resell, but I don't care about them. I care about the other 80-90%, who would love to own my art, but can't because they just can't afford it.

Rant over, feel free to flame at will.

No rants, no flames, at least not from me. I like his work, it’s stylistic and expressive, as well as being popular.But last year, I wasn’t willing to pay $2k for it, and I wouldn’t do so now. There are quite a few artists who won’t charge an arm and a leg for their work, even though they could get more for it (unless Albert represents them). But more importantly, there is a tremendous amount of talent in this industry, and has been for years. Want a bargain? Get a commission from Romeo Tanghal, who you will find on Facebook. Or a lot of the name artists who show up at shows. They generally love their fans (well, some of them don’t, at least in private). The problem, as I see it, is an unwillingness by buyers to expand their horizons to other artists in favor of the flavor of the month. And by the way, the appreciation rate on commissions is pretty lousy compared to published stuff. So, if you want real value, go look at older, less popular artists for published work. You’ll even get pencils and inks on the same page.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Complex306 said:

In the time honored internet tradition of engaging in necromancy by replying to a dead thread, I just came across this and wanted to add my 2 cents, just because shouting into the wind is a favorite past time of mine.

Skottie recently reopened his commission list, and being the dutiful collector that I am, I inquired about being added to the list. The prices quoted were something like 2k for a black and white piece, and 3k for color.

I realize this is driven by supply and demand, and obviously there's enough people willing to pay that kind of (to me) exorbitant pricing, etc. But by charging such a high price point the vast majority of middle income collectors are simply priced out of the market entirely.

I know what some of you are thinking, "wah, so what, you save up or you don't by it, deal with it". Bear with me my unempathetic friends, bear with me.

I'm an amatuer artist myself, and I just can't countenance selling my art for that much, even if I could. I think about the people who would love to own some of my art but can't because of economics. Anyone in public service, from school employees to police officers, to nurses and members of the military, are incredibly unlikely to be able to afford thousands of dollars just to own one of my pieces. Most Americans can't afford a surprise $500 emergency bill of ANY kind, nevermind a quasi-frivolous art purchase. So, instead of my art going to a home that cherishes and loves it, my art gets hoarded by a small percentage of (relatively) wealthy "investors", who are doing so primarily as a vehicle for asset appreciation, rather than art appreciation. Either that or die-hard fans are paying prices they really can't afford, straining their personal finances beyond reasonable bounds.

Shouldn't ownership of your favorite artists work be a feasibly attainable goal for all? Secondary markets be damned, I'd want my art to be something anyone could afford, if they're willing to save a bit and get lucky enough to score a spot on the commission list. I don't expect artists to give away their art for free, or to charge such low amounts that they're not fairly compensated for their work, but I also don't like the idea that only the top 10% of income earners can afford to snag an original piece of my art.

I know this is controversial, and I'm sure there's many that would disagree with me, but I think we devalue art in the long term by placing such an emphasis on its monetary value, and by trying to squeeze every penny out it that the "market" will tolerate we turn it into just another commodity, instead of what's its actually meant to be, a connection between us and our favorite artists and characters. Art is supposed to be emotional, magical, spiritual, not a place to park my excessive wealth so I can generate more of it.

I would love to see artists offer some slots on their commission lists dedicated to those who serve (teachers, fire fighters, etc.), or low income earners (this is easily verifiable through a redacted W-2). Or better yet, pricing that reflects what the average collector can afford, not the maximum amount the market will tolerate. There will always be 10-20% who buy my art to resell, but I don't care about them. I care about the other 80-90%, who would love to own my art, but can't because they just can't afford it.

Rant over, feel free to flame at will.

Who gets to decide which front line and low income worker gets the cheap art? 

Malvin 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Complex306 said:

feel free to flame at will.

Actually, I don't think flaming is really allowed.

Buying / owning a one of a kind of almost anything is a luxury.  In this case, it's comic book art.  If you want something for the image itself, you can buy the comic.  Or you can look for the image on-line and make copy, I have lots and lots of those.  If you want a larger image for display, maybe you can find a print.

The first rule of collecting is buy what you love.  That doesn't have maximum or minimum price.  Since @Nexus has been mentioned in this topic and he's chimed in... I'll say one of the great things that Felix's clients does is have a wide price range.  You can find anything from random doodles to prelims to published pieces to commissions.  They sell really well and I'm sure the artists and buyers are happy. 

But you can still find artists to create art from scratch at lower prices.  There's still a lot of nice art that can be bought without breaking your budget.  But I don't think anyone "deserves" to own art (i.e. owning art is not a human right).  Also, anyone that wants to be able to buy art can also afford to create art.  The art may not be up to professional standards but a lot of artists are self taught and there's a lot of satisfaction in being able to create something on your own.

Pricing something lower to make it affordable to as many people as possible is honorable.  The same for discounting for certain professionals, senior citizens or AAA members.  But... just as civil servants don't work for free, I would not expect an artist to produce art for free.  But sometimes you can ask your doctor friend about "this thing" that's been bothering you.  Not withstanding the high valuations of the last 5 years or so, up until about 10-15 years ago, in-demand artists would have very affordable convention sketches.  It's probably happened a lot of times but there's the famous occurrence where an Adam Hughes convention sketch appeared on ebay within hours of it being completed, resulting in Adam opting out of doing sketches for a period.  Just to get on Adam's sketch list was a big deal since he still got choose which requests he would or would not draw.  My recollection is Adam said that the commissioner / flipper made big deal about how much a sketch would mean to him, did the "aw shucks" thing, etc.  And it just seemed to be a show to get Adam to choose to do take on that request.

I don't know which artists might still do free sketches or doodles (maybe just Walt Simonson).  And those artists probably don't want to be swamped with requests.  Man, for those Simonson sketches, you really have to earn them/camp out.  So many free sketches have ended up on ebay that a lot artists no longer do them.  And the same goes for getting comics signed.  I'm glad I got my fill of getting comics signed when signatures were free.  A few years ago, I foolishly paid an artist to sign 4 comics for me.  And I say foolishly because the artist had a sign with his signature fee.  But he didn't really enforce it, he'd sign comics for people and not charge anything.  "A fool and his money are soon parted."  That has applied to me more times than I'd like to admit.

I've always thought that if artists were going to do free sketches, it should be the same free sketch.  So that there would be so many of those sketches that they don't necessarily have a strong secondary market.  Except with the Internet, you can sell to almost anyone in the world.  One of the few viable secondary markets for the dozens (100's?) of the same free sketch is the Rocketeer head sketches by Dave Stevens.  There's a quite a few of them and they're very desirable.  But you still don't see them come up for sale very often.  Dave did one for me and it's definitely a keeper.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Complex306 said:

In the time honored internet tradition of engaging in necromancy by replying to a dead thread, I just came across this and wanted to add my 2 cents, just because shouting into the wind is a favorite past time of mine.

Skottie recently reopened his commission list, and being the dutiful collector that I am, I inquired about being added to the list. The prices quoted were something like 2k for a black and white piece, and 3k for color.

I realize this is driven by supply and demand, and obviously there's enough people willing to pay that kind of (to me) exorbitant pricing, etc. But by charging such a high price point the vast majority of middle income collectors are simply priced out of the market entirely.

I know what some of you are thinking, "wah, so what, you save up or you don't by it, deal with it". Bear with me my unempathetic friends, bear with me.

I'm an amatuer artist myself, and I just can't countenance selling my art for that much, even if I could. I think about the people who would love to own some of my art but can't because of economics. Anyone in public service, from school employees to police officers, to nurses and members of the military, are incredibly unlikely to be able to afford thousands of dollars just to own one of my pieces. Most Americans can't afford a surprise $500 emergency bill of ANY kind, nevermind a quasi-frivolous art purchase. So, instead of my art going to a home that cherishes and loves it, my art gets hoarded by a small percentage of (relatively) wealthy "investors", who are doing so primarily as a vehicle for asset appreciation, rather than art appreciation. Either that or die-hard fans are paying prices they really can't afford, straining their personal finances beyond reasonable bounds.

Shouldn't ownership of your favorite artists work be a feasibly attainable goal for all? Secondary markets be damned, I'd want my art to be something anyone could afford, if they're willing to save a bit and get lucky enough to score a spot on the commission list. I don't expect artists to give away their art for free, or to charge such low amounts that they're not fairly compensated for their work, but I also don't like the idea that only the top 10% of income earners can afford to snag an original piece of my art.

I know this is controversial, and I'm sure there's many that would disagree with me, but I think we devalue art in the long term by placing such an emphasis on its monetary value, and by trying to squeeze every penny out it that the "market" will tolerate we turn it into just another commodity, instead of what's its actually meant to be, a connection between us and our favorite artists and characters. Art is supposed to be emotional, magical, spiritual, not a place to park my excessive wealth so I can generate more of it.

I would love to see artists offer some slots on their commission lists dedicated to those who serve (teachers, fire fighters, etc.), or low income earners (this is easily verifiable through a redacted W-2). Or better yet, pricing that reflects what the average collector can afford, not the maximum amount the market will tolerate. There will always be 10-20% who buy my art to resell, but I don't care about them. I care about the other 80-90%, who would love to own my art, but can't because they just can't afford it.

Rant over, feel free to flame at will.

Heh...no "investors", wealthy or otherwise, are getting commissions as a vehicle for asset appreciation.

Otherwise, nothing really controversial here. You're welcome to feel how you feel, to believe what you believe. But let's say Skottie charges a commission rate that's far below his market value, so that it's something "anyone can afford". When it comes time for those "real fans" to sell, though...will they be offering it to another "real fan" at that same discounted price? Or will they try to get what the market will bear at that time?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Complex306 said:

In the time honored internet tradition of engaging in necromancy by replying to a dead thread, I just came across this and wanted to add my 2 cents, just because shouting into the wind is a favorite past time of mine.

Skottie recently reopened his commission list, and being the dutiful collector that I am, I inquired about being added to the list. The prices quoted were something like 2k for a black and white piece, and 3k for color.

***

I would love to see artists offer some slots on their commission lists dedicated to those who serve (teachers, fire fighters, etc.), or low income earners (this is easily verifiable through a redacted W-2). Or better yet, pricing that reflects what the average collector can afford, not the maximum amount the market will tolerate. There will always be 10-20% who buy my art to resell, but I don't care about them. I care about the other 80-90%, who would love to own my art, but can't because they just can't afford it.

Rant over, feel free to flame at will.

If you want his work that badly, this was just listed on Comic Art Tracker for $250.

 

Anpy8frI_2305210641311gpadd.jpeg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, malvin said:

Who gets to decide which front line and low income worker gets the cheap art? 

Malvin 

In my mind it would be some sort of lottery. You'd apply for one of the low income slots, and they would be awarded at random. This would at least allow a chance of lower income earners to purchase some OA from their favorite artist.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Rick2you2 said:

No rants, no flames, at least not from me. I like his work, it’s stylistic and expressive, as well as being popular.But last year, I wasn’t willing to pay $2k for it, and I wouldn’t do so now. There are quite a few artists who won’t charge an arm and a leg for their work, even though they could get more for it (unless Albert represents them). But more importantly, there is a tremendous amount of talent in this industry, and has been for years. Want a bargain? Get a commission from Romeo Tanghal, who you will find on Facebook. Or a lot of the name artists who show up at shows. They generally love their fans (well, some of them don’t, at least in private). The problem, as I see it, is an unwillingness by buyers to expand their horizons to other artists in favor of the flavor of the month. And by the way, the appreciation rate on commissions is pretty lousy compared to published stuff. So, if you want real value, go look at older, less popular artists for published work. You’ll even get pencils and inks on the same page.

Thanks for the response! I should have clarified that this wasn't directed at Skottie in particular, its just a trend I've noticed lately in the OA market. Clayton Crain is my favorite modern artist, and I have a few quick sketches that he's done for me, but I could never afford one of his commissions (I work in a middle school). I agree that there are plenty of talented artists out there selling OA for very reasonable sums (Steve Kurth and Lydic come to mind), but for every one of those there seems to be an equal number who are pricing most of their fans out of the market. I guess I'd just like to see more artists be willing to take less than the maximum amount they can to ensure a broader spectrum of their fans can own their work. For me personally a huge part of why I like doing art is for the joy it brings to others, income is and always will be secondary. I suppose that colors my perception of the issue quite a bit. That and I'm poor lol.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Will_K said:

Actually, I don't think flaming is really allowed.

Buying / owning a one of a kind of almost anything is a luxury.  In this case, it's comic book art.  If you want something for the image itself, you can buy the comic.  Or you can look for the image on-line and make copy, I have lots and lots of those.  If you want a larger image for display, maybe you can find a print.

The first rule of collecting is buy what you love.  That doesn't have maximum or minimum price.  Since @Nexus 

 

Thanks for the response, and for being civil lol. I agree with the basics of what you're saying, I'm just making the point that it would nice if more artists found a way to ensure more of their fans from a variety of socio-economic backgrounds have an opportunity to purchase and own some of their OA. I understand what you're saying about buying the comic for the image itself, but there's something special about owning a one of a kind piece by your favorite artist. Its a personal connection between you and them, its something special that gives you the warm fuzziness. I'm a fairly talented artist myself, and I could make reasoble facsimiles of Skottie's work without too much difficulty, but its not the same as owning something he made for me. It looses that je ne sais quoi.

Now I don't expect anyone's work to be free, and I don't think anyone is "entitled" to anyone else's work. You're right, its a luxury. I just think it would be a kind and altruistic thing to do to come up with ways to ensure more fans had access to that luxury, fans for whom there is currently a large financial barrier that bars them from having that one of a kind, special connection.

Maybe I'm being too naive, but I'd rather do 10 $500 sketches, with the understanding that 2 or 3 will be flipped immediately for a profit, if it meant those other 7 or 8 were in the hands of people who truly loved and cherished them, rather than charging 2k for 10 sketches with the hopes they won't be resold or for fear of leaving money on the table. Does that make sense? Although this is coming from someone who took their MA and went to work for a school district instead of the private sector where I'd make double what I do now, so maybe I'm just biased in favor of sacrificing income in the name of making others happy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Complex306 said:

Thanks for the response, and for being civil lol. I agree with the basics of what you're saying, I'm just making the point that it would nice if more artists found a way to ensure more of their fans from a variety of socio-economic backgrounds have an opportunity to purchase and own some of their OA. I understand what you're saying about buying the comic for the image itself, but there's something special about owning a one of a kind piece by your favorite artist. Its a personal connection between you and them, its something special that gives you the warm fuzziness. I'm a fairly talented artist myself, and I could make reasoble facsimiles of Skottie's work without too much difficulty, but its not the same as owning something he made for me. It looses that je ne sais quoi.

Now I don't expect anyone's work to be free, and I don't think anyone is "entitled" to anyone else's work. You're right, its a luxury. I just think it would be a kind and altruistic thing to do to come up with ways to ensure more fans had access to that luxury, fans for whom there is currently a large financial barrier that bars them from having that one of a kind, special connection.

Maybe I'm being too naive, but I'd rather do 10 $500 sketches, with the understanding that 2 or 3 will be flipped immediately for a profit, if it meant those other 7 or 8 were in the hands of people who truly loved and cherished them, rather than charging 2k for 10 sketches with the hopes they won't be resold or for fear of leaving money on the table. Does that make sense? Although this is coming from someone who took their MA and went to work for a school district instead of the private sector where I'd make double what I do now, so maybe I'm just biased in favor of sacrificing income in the name of making others happy.

If an artist charges $500 for sketches that are worth $2K, I suspect 2 to 3 will be kept if you are lucky, and the rest flipped.  Or all flipped.

Malvin

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Nexus said:

Heh...no "investors", wealthy or otherwise, are getting commissions as a vehicle for asset appreciation.

Otherwise, nothing really controversial here. You're welcome to feel how you feel, to believe what you believe. But let's say Skottie charges a commission rate that's far below his market value, so that it's something "anyone can afford". When it comes time for those "real fans" to sell, though...will they be offering it to another "real fan" at that same discounted price? Or will they try to get what the market will bear at that time?

 

Thanks for the reply! I'm surprised at the number of people who read this tbh lol. To your first point, I have a wealthy brother who "parks" his wealth in a variety of disparate assets, art being one of them. Yes, he frequently purchases art (and this occasionally includes comic art) for the sole purpose of appreciation and/ or tax avoidance. He's bought many pieces he couldn't give a fig about when they appear hot or have a very constrained supply, and flips them shortly thereafter. He usually makes money, and when he doesn't he uses it as a tax writeoff through his 1099-NEC/ Schedule C. I've called him Smaug on many occasions due to his hoarding of these types of items, especially when he tries to buy out multiple slots on a coveted commission list. He calls it "cornering the market". He does not, at all, care about the art. He has an assortment of wealthy friends that do the same, and they will occasionally dabble in market manipulation and arbitrage together. So yes, this does happen, more frequently than most people probably realize. 

To your second point, I feel like I addressed this in my original novel. Whatever he charges, the secondary market will likely charge more, due to the constrained supply and the "greater fool" theory. Much of my brother's wealth, and occasionally losses, are firmly planted in that territory. Its also why I advocated for low income slots, as this would allow the artists to continue to charge what they perceive of as FMV while also providing an opportunity to those less fortunate to own some of their art. I personally would be fine if some of my art was resold at a profit if it meant more "regular joes" could have a piece of my work, but I don't expect others to feel the same.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, malvin said:

If an artist charges $500 for sketches that are worth $2K, I suspect 2 to 3 will be kept if you are lucky, and the rest flipped.  Or all flipped.

Malvin

I have a hard time envisioning every single slot on a commission list being taken up by scalpers, but maybe my faith in humanity is misplaced. I also don't think that a 400% markup could reasonably be expected in most cases. Most remarks/ sketches sold on ebay are sold at cost, with some outliers in the 25-100% markup region. I've sold enough of my collection during times of desperation to know that market pretty intimately. Its also why I was advocating for certain low income slots, rather than a wholesale price reduction. I personally would be fine charging less overall, but I understand why other artists might not feel the same way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Rick2you2 said:

If you want his work that badly, this was just listed on Comic Art Tracker for $250.

 

Anpy8frI_2305210641311gpadd.jpeg

I like it, thank you fine sir! And I should've clarified in my original rant, but this really wasn't aimed at Skottie in particular. I enjoy his work and would love to own some, but I'm not dying to own his work or anything. It was meant as more of a commentary on modern art sale practices, based on pricing trends I've seen repeatedly in the recent past, rather than a complaint that I can't afford Skottie's work. Although that is by and large also true lol.

I think seeing this thread just catalyzed some long simmering class resentments I have from being poor my whole life and being priced out of alot of experiences and items due to my financial status. I have several degrees, a responsible and kind disposition, and a fairly adequate IQ/ work ethic, and yet I struggle to maintain the basics, nevermind being able to afford some inconsequential art piece because it distracts me from the sissiphean drudgery of my daily existence. I imagined others might feel the same, and would appreciate someone standing up and saying "can you make some of this more affordable to some of us poor bastards out here please?". I apologize if that is misdirected or comes across as whiny or entitled.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, Complex306 said:

Thanks for the reply! I'm surprised at the number of people who read this tbh lol. To your first point, I have a wealthy brother who "parks" his wealth in a variety of disparate assets, art being one of them. Yes, he frequently purchases art (and this occasionally includes comic art) for the sole purpose of appreciation and/ or tax avoidance. He's bought many pieces he couldn't give a fig about when they appear hot or have a very constrained supply, and flips them shortly thereafter. He usually makes money, and when he doesn't he uses it as a tax writeoff through his 1099-NEC/ Schedule C. I've called him Smaug on many occasions due to his hoarding of these types of items, especially when he tries to buy out multiple slots on a coveted commission list. He calls it "cornering the market". He does not, at all, care about the art. He has an assortment of wealthy friends that do the same, and they will occasionally dabble in market manipulation and arbitrage together. So yes, this does happen, more frequently than most people probably realize. 

To your second point, I feel like I addressed this in my original novel. Whatever he charges, the secondary market will likely charge more, due to the constrained supply and the "greater fool" theory. Much of my brother's wealth, and occasionally losses, are firmly planted in that territory. Its also why I advocated for low income slots, as this would allow the artists to continue to charge what they perceive of as FMV while also providing an opportunity to those less fortunate to own some of their art. I personally would be fine if some of my art was resold at a profit if it meant more "regular joes" could have a piece of my work, but I don't expect others to feel the same.

Is your brother trying to corner the market on commissions (what we've been talking about)? If so, he's really bad at investing.

You've either missed my second point, or you're avoiding it. Which is, you're advocating that artists provide art for below fair market value so "regular joes" can afford it. What I'm asking is, if those "regular joes" decide to sell the art, for whatever reason, shouldn't they then also sell it to other "regular joes" for that same discounted price? So they, too, can experience that "one-of-a-kind, special connection"? You've mentioned that you've sold art from your own collection in the past. Did you sell the art at a discount? Did you make an effort to vet all your buyers for their income levels? Or did you put it up on eBay and hoped to get as much as you could?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Complex306 said:

I like it, thank you fine sir! And I should've clarified in my original rant, but this really wasn't aimed at Skottie in particular. I enjoy his work and would love to own some, but I'm not dying to own his work or anything. It was meant as more of a commentary on modern art sale practices, based on pricing trends I've seen repeatedly in the recent past, rather than a complaint that I can't afford Skottie's work. Although that is by and large also true lol.

I think seeing this thread just catalyzed some long simmering class resentments I have from being poor my whole life and being priced out of alot of experiences and items due to my financial status. I have several degrees, a responsible and kind disposition, and a fairly adequate IQ/ work ethic, and yet I struggle to maintain the basics, nevermind being able to afford some inconsequential art piece because it distracts me from the sissiphean drudgery of my daily existence. I imagined others might feel the same, and would appreciate someone standing up and saying "can you make some of this more affordable to some of us poor bastards out here please?". I apologize if that is misdirected or comes across as whiny or entitled.

Seems to me that you've made life choices, but you didn't consider the potential consequences of these choices. You've chosen to live a life that is (presumably) spiritually fulfilling, but doesn't afford you the opportunity to purchase luxury items like comic art commissions. Well, I don't know too many people who can have it all. So to me, this does come across as whiny and entitled. If you want to indulge in this ridiculous hobby, then be more like your brother. If that's not appealing, if you can't live with yourself doing whatever it is he does, then fine. But don't expect anyone to feel sorry for you that you can't afford expensive commissions, either.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Complex306 said:

Thanks for the reply! I'm surprised at the number of people who read this tbh lol. To your first point, I have a wealthy brother who "parks" his wealth in a variety of disparate assets, art being one of them. Yes, he frequently purchases art (and this occasionally includes comic art) for the sole purpose of appreciation and/ or tax avoidance. He's bought many pieces he couldn't give a fig about when they appear hot or have a very constrained supply, and flips them shortly thereafter. He usually makes money, and when he doesn't he uses it as a tax writeoff through his 1099-NEC/ Schedule C. I've called him Smaug on many occasions due to his hoarding of these types of items, especially when he tries to buy out multiple slots on a coveted commission list. He calls it "cornering the market". He does not, at all, care about the art. He has an assortment of wealthy friends that do the same, and they will occasionally dabble in market manipulation and arbitrage together. So yes, this does happen, more frequently than most people probably realize. 

This has taken a bizarre turn.

 

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
1 1