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
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.