Dorbin biblio, signed and numbered with art (1 Viewer)

[cirerita]

Very nice item, I must say. Too bad I already have a copy, or I would bid on this one.

http://cgi.ebay.com/SIGNED-CHARLES-...ryZ29223QQssPageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem

 

[bospress.net]

shhhh.......

 

[hank solo]

You're breaking up Bill... was that shhh...

...it? or maybe shhh...

...ut the f... ...up?

:D

 

[LickTheStar]

Wow, another nice BSP design. Out of my price range, sadly.

 

[1fsh2fsh]

shhhh.... killer art. one of my favorites now. looks kind of like asian brush strokes. nice book. shhhhhh....( just admiring damnit...)

 

[chronic]

The cover looks really, uh, RED in that photo. My signed (but not illustrated) copy is orange.

 

[Father Luke]

If you won't mind an unsolicited, objective viewpoint, the book looks orange on my monitor.

I'm sincerely not trying to be contrary; it is orange here.

 

[chronic]

Hmm. On my monitor it looks about the color of a blood orange (that is to say... red). The photo of the spine label looks orange. Probably some weird windows voodoo curse. That, or too many psychedelics as a teenager.

 

[Father Luke]

Probably some weird windows voodoo curse. That, or too many psychedelics as a teenager.

Well, considering that I see it as orange, then probably not enough psychedelics as a teenager. ;)

 

[chronic]

It's never too late to catch up.

Does the color of the spine label and the cover look the same to you? I'm getting all freaked out here.

 

[Father Luke]

The cloth spine is different colors than the book. The book is orange. . . but not paisley.

 

[chronic]

Ummm, no... the paper label on the spine.

 

[Father Luke]

I stand corrected. The paper label on the spine. It is a goldish color. It has the reddish, black, and golden squares. 3 golden 1 1/2 Reddish 1 Black

 

[Purple Stickpin]

Maybe Chronic has been eating too many carrots. Or perhaps not enough. ;)

 

[Father Luke]

Monitors, especially the differences between PC's and Apples are significant, as I understand it, and colors on the internet will vary, strangely enough.

Either that or maybe some psychotropics aren't such a bad idea, because the funny thing is? Maybe my monitor is wrong. . . ;)

 

[chronic]

Compare this (which is a pretty close representation of the color of the book) with this. Do they actually look the same, or even close? Does it matter? Am I losing my mind?

 

[1fsh2fsh]

yep, orange and red. apples and oranges...oh, shit, shuddup rick. alright.....

 

[Father Luke]

There are color variations.

See here:

http://www.auctiva.com/hostedimages...,163868801,163868822&formats=0,0,0,0&format=0

 

[mjp]

I think that book is obviously FAKE, and I would strongly urge everyone to AVOID BIDDING ON IT!

Thanks.

 

[Ponder]

Thanks!

 

[chronic]

Oh, never mind.

 

[Father Luke]

I concur. Worthless book. Not worth a second glance. Nothing to see here . . . move along.

 

[Purple Stickpin]

And we sit here with fingers poised.

 

[Purple Stickpin]

Sold for $1,036.99. Strange; I originally estimated the value at about $1,500 - $2,000, considering how much the BSP books with art are going for. I couldn't find any copies on abebooks or elsewhere.

Then today I found an old auction result from PBA, and a similar copy sold for $690 in April 2007. So then I figured that since it was a Dorbin book, that must take away significantly (relative to Buk books) from the value.

Then again, the artwork varies quite a bit, so that must play a role.

 

[LickTheStar]

Wow that's certainly a bit of change right there... Congrats to the winner of the pretty book!

 

[jordan]

all it takes is two people to want it... and look at the price jump.

 

[PBBUK]

Sold for $1,036.99. Strange; I originally estimated the value at about $1,500 - $2,000, considering how much the BSP books with art are going for. I couldn't find any copies on abebooks or elsewhere.

Then today I found an old auction result from PBA, and a similar copy sold for $690 in April 2007. So then I figured that since it was a Dorbin book, that must take away significantly (relative to Buk books) from the value.

Then again, the artwork varies quite a bit, so that must play a role.

If you look back at that auction - you will see some real bargains for Buk stuff. Just too many books at one time. So I don;t think that auction truly reflects worth of items. Examples being lettered copies of Buk and Crumb books going for $200!

 

[mjp]

all it takes is two people to want it... and look at the price jump.

Idiots!

 

[Purple Stickpin]

Hey mjp, could you give us a touch more on this? I struggled with value, given the selling prices of other Buk books with art. My research indicated that the price should be between $700-$800 given the time since that previous PBA auction that I posted above.

What is your opinion of Buk art just for the sake of it, with no book attachment?

A water color like this, I would have said $1,000; add the book with Dorbin and Buk sigs, some $1,200.

Does the detachment of Buk art from a Buk book make that much difference? Apparently so...

 

[weary.tune]

Idiots!

Why? The price is not unreasonable.

wt

 

[cirerita]

I paid $602 for my copy after Scott Harrisson relisted it THREE times because no one would pay $700 or $750 -can't recall now which was the opening bid or the BIN price. I think my max. bid was $602 and mjp's was $601.99. Ouch! ;)

 

[Rekrab]

Aside from monitors being different, colors are affected by the lighting during photography. That book could be any shade of red or orange. Nice art. Looks like a fish to me (but then what doesn't look like a fish?)

 

[mjp]

Idiots!

Hey mjp, could you give us a touch more on this?

Why? The price is not unreasonable.

I was the second place bidder, so I was just goofing on myself.

I think it was worth more than dermaface got it for (I assume that's him, I don't know for sure). The value of the books with paintings seems to be based primarily on the rarity of the book, with a premium tacked on for art, whatever the art looks like.

I do not look at them that way. To me the quality of the art is the basis of the value. Unless it's Terror Street or Post Office, which are going to cost you as much as a car these days, no matter what the art looks like. So this particular book, even though it's Dorbin, which yes, generally has a lower value, had an interesting painting in it. Very uncharacteristic and unique, and it reminded me of some of my own scribblings, which is why I went after it.

The prices really follow no logic. If they did, Dorbin (with Bukowski signature or art) would be worth more than it is as it is a scarce book. Certainly much more scarce than the later (late 70's/early 80's) hardcovers with paintings. And if you applied logic the quality of the art would have an effect on price, but booksellers are not generally art dealers, so how do they set a price based on the "quality" of the art? Besides, quality is subjective.

But I think most people would rather have this than this.

What is your opinion of Buk art just for the sake of it, with no book attachment?

Free standing art tends to be more expensive than the books because there is much less of it available. And it is a thousand times easier to display. What's the value of a painting really if it is closed up inside a book on your shelf? You can't enjoy it.

 

[roni]

yes to all what mjp said!

except:

[...] What's the value of a painting really if it is closed up inside a book on your shelf? You can't enjoy it.

if somebody is wanting to put it on the wall, it's not too hard to carfully remove it and still have a hardcover first.
so why should an only-painting (of the same size that is) be of more worth than a tipped-in in a HC-first?

besides, as i said, i totally go with you concerning the value depending on the quality of the art. your examples talk!

 

[mjp]

if somebody is wanting to put it on the wall, it's not too hard to carfully remove it and still have a hardcover first.
so why should an only-painting (of the same size that is) be of more worth than a tipped-in in a HC-first?

If I'm not mistaken, a few people fainted when you said "remove it." ;)

I think the book would hold little value on it's own, because there are signs that it is not just a first, but a special first, and if that "special" bit is gone...well, it's going to be very difficult to sell the book should you ever want to.

If you're resourceful and careful you can find ways to display the paintings in the books.

 

[bospress.net]

If you're resourceful and careful you can find ways to display the paintings in the books.

Plus, if is was a watercolor, it could be scanned with a high res scanner and that could be framed. then if someone asked, you could tell them that it is a scan of the original in a book and then show them the original.

Yes, PLEASE don't remove these from the books!

Bill

 

[LickTheStar]

If I'm not mistaken, a few people fainted when you said "remove it." ;)

If you're resourceful and careful you can find ways to display the paintings in the books.

I definitely felt a pinch behind my eyes...

And that display is really cool!

 

[roni]

Yes, PLEASE don't remove these from the books!

of course I wouldn't do.

 

[james]

framing the book that way, you're not worried at all about damaging the spine of a $1000-$3000 or more book? :eek:

 

[mjp]

No. That's a shadow box. The pages/painting do not touch the UV glass cover. It floats below that. The book is supported from the bottom by a wooden block covered in acid free paper, and the covers are attached to the backing by an elaborately shaped coated wire-thingy that I personally bent to my own specifications. ;)

The book is really under no stress, and I take it out every year or so to check the spine, etc. So far so good. If I thought it was being damaged I wouldn't have it in there. I won't keep it in there forever, but it's been in there for a few years and it's fine.