• 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.

Comic Art in the strangest places
2 2

49 posts in this topic

19 minutes ago, cesium_7 said:

Sorry for the blurry image, but this Sal Buscema Spider-Man is hanging in an ice-cream parlor in Virginia (in the town where his wife is from).  A promo for the ice-cream shop. 

64D4C90F-BB00-47DD-A500-79A2EDE970E5.jpeg

Ah! This reminds me! The McDonalds in Nipomo, California had *many* Image covers on the wall in the late '90s/early 2000s. The guy who owned the franchise was a collector.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On the Comic Art Live #18 Mike Burkey (1:11:30) said he found the Incredible Hulk 102 cover on ebay. The guy had it listed at $300 and as a HULK PRINT. Mike saw whiteout and took a chance offering the guy $5,000 to sell it out right. The guy accepted saying he owned a record store and the art was sitting in a box. I wonder if he ever had the cover hanging up in his record store? If Romitaman sees this I hope he has a pic of that art or more details on the find. Apparently there were 2-3 versions of the cover. Mike has the transforming version. Eric Roberts had one version.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, grapeape said:

On the Comic Art Live #18 Mike Burkey (1:11:30) said he found the Incredible Hulk 102 cover on ebay. The guy had it listed at $300 and as a HULK PRINT. Mike saw whiteout and took a chance offering the guy $5,000 to sell it out right. The guy accepted saying he owned a record store and the art was sitting in a box. I wonder if he ever had the cover hanging up in his record store? If Romitaman sees this I hope he has a pic of that art or more details on the find. Apparently there were 2-3 versions of the cover. Mike has the transforming version. Eric Roberts had one version.

Assuming the cover was worth a lot more than $5,000, the seller might be able to reclaim it, or its value, under the legal doctrine of “unilateral mistake”. The fact that he “ took a chance” may make it okay.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Rick2you2 said:

Assuming the cover was worth a lot more than $5,000, the seller might be able to reclaim it, or its value, under the legal doctrine of “unilateral mistake”. The fact that he “ took a chance” may make it okay.

Gee I don’t have the legal knowledge some of you guys do. And I’m not sure when that sale took place. That being said I’m almost 100% sure there’s no claim for additional monies here.

I think when you’re selling something for $300 and a buyer offers $5000...you’d be hard pressed to claim that you made a mistake and didn’t get a fair value.

I would assume the onus was on the seller the minute he was offered substantially higher then what he was asking. That is: to research and determine if he was making a fair profit.

Ok I have to stop because I’m not a legal eagle. I’m getting dizzy thinking about this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, grapeape said:

Gee I don’t have the legal knowledge some of you guys do. And I’m not sure when that sale took place. That being said I’m almost 100% sure there’s no claim for additional monies here.

I think when you’re selling something for $300 and a buyer offers $5000...you’d be hard pressed to claim that you made a mistake and didn’t get a fair value.

I would assume the onus was on the seller the minute he was offered substantially higher then what he was asking. That is: to research and determine if he was making a fair profit.

Ok I have to stop because I’m not a legal eagle. I’m getting dizzy thinking about this.

After everything being written about bad auction practices, I guess my sensitivity to bad business practices is a bit heightened right now.

You raise a good point, but not quite where the law heads. If the seller had no reason to know of his/her potential mistake, it can be rescinded. The gap, as you pointed out, might suggest he now had reason to know something, but he/she might not know or not know much. The fact that Burkey didn't explain why the increase was being offered could work against him. On the other hand, he was also taking a chance it wasn't what he thought it was; that works in his favor (it was a gamble, not a sure thing). Furthermore, if the piece, if authentic, was actually worth $100,000, Burkey would have a problem justifying that $5,000 offer in the face of a later challenge.

Where the subject is more likely applicable is if Burkey simply sent the seller a note saying "sold for $300". For those of you who might run into that amazing "barn find" in a garage sale, be careful. As the saying goes on Wall Street: you can be a bull or a bear, but don't be a pig.

Finally, I recognize there was no attempt to get more money. The legal doctrine (unilateral mistake) would result in a reversal of the sale and return of the item if still in the buyer's possession. If not, then the seller gets the fair value of the loss.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, glendgold said:

It is odd that a show that did so well with period set design and costuming punted on the comics.

I've been thinking about that. Probably the "60s street set" is a standing location on a studio backlot, with various pre-built inside rooms like the pharnacy, stocked with set decorations.  Period commercial products (whether cereal boxes, comic books, motor oil, etc.) can be a thorny problem because they're collectibles, especially in brand-new condition, and thus expensive. Recreations can run into trademark/copyright trouble. Probably the safest route would be off-brand recreations with "Blatman" and "Swooperman" and the like. Next safest (and overall cheapest) is background anachronism like in The Queen's Gambit that 99.99% of the audience doesn't notice.

Where did the original art at Mr. Glass' gallery in "Unbreakable" come from?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, glendgold said:

It is odd that a show that did so well with period set design and costuming punted on the comics.

I've always noticed that any time you're remotely deep into a hobby, you'll catch all sorts of anachronisms with movie/TV props and set design.

One of my favorites is pinball.  For the longest time, it seemed that Hollywood sound pros only had access to EM (electro-mechanical) audio recordings for pinball machines, so you would get a scene with someone playing a 90s era DMD machine, but the sound would be 50s/60s era bells and chimes.

Like RBerman said, I'm betting it's probably a mix of prop-master ignorance and it being "close enough" for most folks. 

Edited by ShallowDan
typo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

59 minutes ago, RBerman said:

Next safest (and overall cheapest) is background anachronism like in The Queen's Gambit that 99.99% of the audience doesn't notice.

I bet a lot of people noticed the anachronistic comics. That comic rack was in a prominent location in the shots, and there were multiple visits to the pharmacy. The brightly-colored comics really catch the eye. And with the popularity of superhero movies, most people nowadays have at least a passing familiarity with some of the characters. Also, that rack was way overstuffed for a small neighborhood pharmacy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, tvindy said:

I bet a lot of people noticed the anachronistic comics. That comic rack was in a prominent location in the shots, and there were multiple visits to the pharmacy. The brightly-colored comics really catch the eye. And with the popularity of superhero movies, most people nowadays have at least a passing familiarity with some of the characters. Also, that rack was way overstuffed for a small neighborhood pharmacy.

And they got the weekly magazines 100% right. And friends of mine who know chess say they got the 1960s chess details right. I don't think there's any sort of copyright issue, as the comics they showed were all real, just  from a different time period. It's a very careful show, so I still think it's odd.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Overthetopinc said:

I would imagine so. I would not think Quentin would make a poster just for the movie for a split second use. Also cool when Tim Roth is talking about the Thing from Fantastic Four as Joe if you remember at the diner. 

I did some searching and couldn't find it, only reason I asked.

Yep! And the Silver Surfer bit in Crimson Tide he wrote, and True Romance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sandwich board in NYC.  Pic taken on my flip phone in 2005.

Besides the Superman image, my main reason for taking the pic was because you really would have to be a "superman" to down 4 eggs, sausage, ham or bacon (pick just one, I suppose) and cheese.   All that for $4.99 in 2005 was a great price.

 

 

Image004=2005-12-07.jpg

Edited by Will_K
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, Bird said:

Quentin's mom was one of the OGs behind the San Diego Con, or at least that is what I heard. So he is as old school as it gets I would say.

At the David Mack panel this past weekend at Comic Art Fans Live, he talked about working with Tarantino on a Zorro comic book. Tarantino brought him over and made him watch hours of zorro films and serials with him. He is truly one of us, eager to share the hobbies he loves with anyone who will listen.

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
2 2