Author Topic: Post-auction analysis - OMGs!, LOLs!, WTFs!, whatev.... (Read 2837074 times)

MoviePosterBid.com · « **Reply #3575 on:** November 15, 2012, 05:29:28 PM »

Quote from: eatbrie on November 15, 2012, 05:13:32 PM

There is only ONE artist who can paint this, and he's done it. Everyone else will copy it."

1000% correct

Louie D. · « **Reply #3576 on:** November 15, 2012, 06:15:50 PM »

Quote from: eatbrie on November 15, 2012, 05:13:32 PM

There is actually a simple answer to this: "No, there are not. There is only ONE artist who can paint this, and he's done it. Everyone else will copy it."

FightClub12 · « **Reply #3577 on:** November 15, 2012, 06:32:44 PM »

I'm really not interested in hijacking this thread, so if anyone would like to continue it after this response, feel free to PM me.

I like to speak in generalities, like to paint with a wide brush (haha!) and use a lot of indefinite pronouns. I don't feel like anything I said was way off-basis. If you guys go watch the 60 Minutes piece, you'll see it focuses on the multi-million dollar auctions and how those pieces are primarily bought for later profit.

The "unreasonably high" cutoff (which I never listed) is, in my opinion, larger than it has been, respective to wages. Maybe this is a naive assumption, but I'd have to see the relationship of prices of art versus the number of super-wealthy today compared to the 1800s.

As for my "Why is THIS piece $21 million" comment, I think you guys took that the wrong way. I know a bunch of artists who do really great work, and even some who paint abstracts that compare nicely to the Rothko, but they never received the same recognition. The point I was trying to make is that the artistic merit of the work is rarely the sole decider in determining its value.

On a different note, how does one determine the value of a poster that has never been sold on an online auction site?

eatbrie · « **Reply #3578 on:** November 15, 2012, 06:40:09 PM »

Quote from: MoviePosterBid.com on November 15, 2012, 05:29:28 PM

1000% correct

The more I look at this piece, the more I like it. I have seen a lot of shit selling for way more money than this. So all things considered, I think it's $21mil well spent.

T

Hallucination Generation · « **Reply #3579 on:** November 15, 2012, 06:59:37 PM »

Quote from: Dread_Pirate_Mel on November 15, 2012, 06:30:57 AM

Putting things in perspective, Mark Rothko's "Black Stripe (Orange, Gold and Black)" sold for $21.3 million yesterday, probably more than the annual total sales of movie posters. The color combination is intriguing but still it's just a few paint stripes.

People will buy anything if it's promoted in the right way.

How else do you explain Twilight?

ddilts399 · « **Reply #3580 on:** November 15, 2012, 07:11:03 PM »

It looks like an unfinished match book cover, just needs a little verbage on each side and something on the black spine area.

It is unfathomable to me that this guys art is worth .21 let alone 21 million. I guess I have to technical of a brain to "get" it.

Ari · « **Reply #3581 on:** November 15, 2012, 07:14:32 PM »

Different strokes, but don't let people tell you that you only don't like it because you don't "get it".

Silhouette · « **Reply #3582 on:** November 15, 2012, 07:22:38 PM »

I believe this documentary will make it clearer.

Harry Caul · « **Reply #3583 on:** November 15, 2012, 09:42:12 PM »

Quote from: MoviePosterBid.com on November 15, 2012, 02:16:55 PM

in order to understand Rothko's work, you need to understand and study the history and transformation of art through the 18th to the 20th century. Youneed to study the works of a variety of artists that includes Warhol, Rothko, Pollack as well as Picasso, Dali and the French Impressionists.

By the time the modern artists of the 1950s-60s were coalescing into what are known as their popular styles, our society was at a crossroads of a new age in many ways culturally, culminating in much radical thought which changed not only painted art, but popular music, writing and film. Each is just a stairstep in a greater picture of the many constituents of modern culture, each influenced by the culture that preceeded it.

Kind of like young whipper snappers dissing Citizen Kane without understanding how monumental it was for it's time. Film too has been a progression of ideas, techniques, and technical advancements. Just because Tarantino copies (and arguably improves on) someone like Peckinpah shouldn't detract from what either one accomplishes.

archie leach · « **Reply #3584 on:** November 15, 2012, 11:19:27 PM »

Or here is the real documentary that will make it clearer...

Ari · « **Reply #3585 on:** November 15, 2012, 11:31:07 PM »

Who argues Tarantino improves upon peckinpah? What's their address? And where's my chainsaw?

50s · « **Reply #3586 on:** November 16, 2012, 02:30:20 AM »

Quote from: Dread_Pirate_Mel on November 15, 2012, 06:30:57 AM

Putting things in perspective, Mark Rothko's "Black Stripe (Orange, Gold and Black)" sold for $21.3 million yesterday, probably more than the annual total sales of movie posters. The color combination is intriguing but still it's just a few paint stripes.

Just imagine how much more it would have sold for if that thread hadn't been pulled

Tang Lung in Rome · « **Reply #3587 on:** November 16, 2012, 12:08:46 PM »

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Batman-Movie-Poster-1966-27x37-England-/110960121125?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item19d5bd1525&nma=true&si=9ND%2FtHpR4RUXbYtc4TqvN3ONShE%3D&orig_cvip=true&rt=nc&_trksid=p2047675.l2557

Trimmed or re-issue ?

paul waines · « **Reply #3588 on:** November 16, 2012, 12:17:04 PM »

Neither, it's a Repro from the late 70's early 80's...

Someone will be disappointed, it's worth maybe £15-20...

Charlie · « **Reply #3589 on:** November 16, 2012, 12:17:17 PM »

Paper is a bit shiny...

CSM · « **Reply #3590 on:** November 16, 2012, 12:21:37 PM »

Quote from: paul waines on November 16, 2012, 12:17:04 PM

Neither, it's a Repro from the late 70's early 80's...

Someone will be disappointed, it's worth maybe £15-20...

Yep

marklawd · « **Reply #3591 on:** November 16, 2012, 12:42:14 PM »

The seller has listed it as a reproduction.

Mark

paul waines · « **Reply #3592 on:** November 16, 2012, 12:50:15 PM »

He's listed it IN reproductions, but no where on his listing dose it say so, and he's dropping hints at an original 66 version... That's what I call arse covering if there's any come backs, fly sod.

Anyone know the buyer?

erik1925 · « **Reply #3593 on:** November 16, 2012, 01:40:26 PM »

Hi Paul,

Can I ask what hints this seller dropped in his auction that made you think he was suggesting this was from 1966?

Here's what I got out of his listing:

* He has it listed in the 1980s reproduction section
* He gives the measurements (is 27x37 correct or incorrect for this particular poster?)
* He only states (and shows via pics) what is printed on the poster: Printed in England, and the copyright year of 1966.
* He says he bought it in the 1980s.

He never comments that he thinks it could be from 1966. His title listing is fine to include the year because that is when the film came out (and many posters are listed this way).

Just curious to know what I was missing.

Mondo Hazardo · « **Reply #3594 on:** November 16, 2012, 02:03:03 PM »

Paul's right. Seller is obviously aware of it being a reproduction and stays nicely clear of that in the description and title which is obviously what most buyers are looking at. If you are a novice buying a poster you won't be aware of sizes and if you don't read the smallprint of the category you will think it's the real thing. I mean man, it's old, the seller "got it in the eighties". "It also says 1966". Yeah right. In any case the description of the item should tell what it is, not the Ebay-category. Pretty sure, we have a duped buyer here.