Ames Bros - Is This Right?

Ok

So granted I don't follow Ames as closely as I do other poster artists - but does it bug anybody that they're selling their older posters on their own site for hundred's of dollars more than they were originally sold for?

I can see from an artist's perspective (i.e. Anton Corbijn for example) if they had some etc. copies of something in their personal collection that they released years later for more than they sold them for originally, but typically this is done to raise money for charity, etc.

I'm not by any means an "art expert" but for some reason it doesn't sit well with me. Anybody else have similar thoughts? See below:

http://amesbrosshop.com/1998pearljambrisbane-1.aspx

candleofthought

I have no problem with that. The "market value" determines what someone will get if they sell a poster. That goes for an ebayer or an artist. Even Brad Klausen was selling his LA 06 at Flatstock this year for $125.00. Why shouln't the artist get a piece of the pie?

jimed14

Many comtemporary rock poster artists sell their older prints for more. I don't have a probelm with it.

As for that Arists Proof 2 business a few tours ago ... that I have a probelm with.

(Much like an "OV" edtion ... whatever the hell that is :roll: )

Ok

It also struck me as odd that they were sort of "tayloring" the price currently to how popular to the particular print is (in today's value) - i.e. look at the 96 Albany print, relatively cheap compared to the other older prints - isn't that a bite of a gouge?

maybe i'm off base...

100 Pacer

jimed14 wrote:

Many comtemporary rock poster artists sell their older prints for more. I don't have a probelm with it.

As for that Arists Proof 2 business a few tours ago ... that I have a probelm with.

(Much like an "OV" edtion ... whatever the hell that is :roll: )

agreed,...

Wilds

It doesn't bother me at all. If they have extras and the market value has risen, then why shouldn't the artist profit?

I think they should. Look at what happened to Frank Black. He sold a bunch of 98's and then a bunch of people flipped them.

Now Black Francis doesn't care and probably wasn't even aware of the value, but Ames would be.

Tuolumne Mama

I like their work
very much and IMO it's their artwork so there's nothing wrong with pricing their work at market value. I think it's odd that folks on here regularly sell posters for a whole lot more than they paid at the show and all they did was stand in line for it not create it and noone questions that.

SolarWorld

jimed14 wrote:

Many comtemporary rock poster artists sell their older prints for more. I don't have a probelm with it.

As for that Arists Proof 2 business a few tours ago ... that I have a probelm with.

(Much like an "OV" edtion ... whatever the hell that is :roll: )

+1

Ok

jimed14 wrote:

Many comtemporary rock poster artists sell their older prints for more. I don't have a probelm with it.

As for that Arists Proof 2 business a few tours ago ... that I have a probelm with.

(Much like an "OV" edtion ... whatever the hell that is :roll: )

I ask - what's the difference b/w doing an "OV" and holding some back for sale at a later time?

100 Pacer

Ok wrote:

jimed14 wrote:

Many comtemporary rock poster artists sell their older prints for more. I don't have a probelm with it.

As for that Arists Proof 2 business a few tours ago ... that I have a probelm with.

(Much like an "OV" edtion ... whatever the hell that is :roll: )

I ask - what's the difference b/w doing an "OV" and holding some back for sale at a later time?

i believe when bK sold his posters marked OV he didn't intend for them to be taken into account as part of the general poster run/edition, so for those who would get technical about such things the OV versions would be worth less on the secondary market,...

jimed14

100 Pacer wrote:

Ok wrote:

jimed14 wrote:

Many comtemporary rock poster artists sell their older prints for more. I don't have a probelm with it.

As for that Arists Proof 2 business a few tours ago ... that I have a probelm with.

(Much like an "OV" edtion ... whatever the hell that is :roll: )

I ask - what's the difference b/w doing an "OV" and holding some back for sale at a later time?

i believe when bK sold his posters marked OV he didn't intend for them to be taken into account as part of the general poster run/edition, so for those who would get technical about such things the OV versions would be worth less on the secondary market,...

They were actually supposed to be scratch and dent prints, but, they were in good shape, so he marked them OV. The fact he marked them OV means he never had any intention of selling them.

To be fair, he only charged $45 for them when I'm quite certain he could have got more ... but still, I'm a fan of disclosing an entire run up front and that's that.