ShareThisDear Babe: I have a Daniel Moore Artists Proof (35/50) of Liberty given to me by my late father. It is in its original frame/matting with the official lithograph of the 1982 Liberty Bowl. My husband is an LSU grad (or former Nick Saban fan), so this picture will never be hung in our house! -- Gretchen Hays, Cumming Ga.Your husband is LSU alum, but he may have new-found respect and/or interest in Alabama's legendary coach, Paul "Bear'' Bryant, when he learns the value of the print."That is one of Daniel Moore's most sought after and highly valued pieces of artwork'' said Chris Osler, owners of The Beveled Edge (www.thebevelededgeonline.com)in Homewood, Ala. "A 'Liberty' artist proof that is in great shape i.e. no fading or damages due to light, smoke or humidity, has an estimated secondary market value of $3,250 to $3,750 for the print. Depending on the framing, you could add another $100 to $400 dollars."We are a licensed Daniel Moore dealer and in my 12 years of experience have only seen two Liberty pints -- and they were both regular editions.''The Liberty you are inquiring about was issued in 1984 and only 50 were made in the artist proof edition and sold for $200.Oyler's estimate is echoed by Michael Box, owner of www.jemsonline.com in Winfield, Ala., who put it in the same range. Alabama beat Illinois, 21-15, in the '82 Liberty Bowl, the final game coached by Bryant.Dear Babe: I have 21 single-signed baseballs of the 24 members of the 500 Home Run Club. I have been collecting since I talked with an old friend where I used to work seven years ago and it keeps on growing. I don't have the Babe Ruth, Jimmie Foxx or Mel Tot baseballs. They are a little too much money for me, at least right now. I buy everything from the Steiner Sports Web site and have been very happy with them. -- Martin Sass, Alexandria, Va. You didn't waste any time adding Manny Ramirez to your collection. He just joined the club on May 31. When the big three are missing -- and that's usually the case -- it is not a "set,'' so the value is really just the total of the individual baseballs. Since all of your baseballs came from Steiner, you can just check to see what they are selling them for these days. If you started in 2001, then there's a chance you might have purchased Williams before he died. That would be one that has probably risen in value. Mathews died in February 2001, so you probably picked that one after his death. Another factor would be if the player isn't signing as much as when you purchased your baseball or only signs for Steiner exclusively these days.Dear Babe: I have a signed picture of Willie Mays with a COA from Stan's Sports Memorabilia, a signed Joe DiMaggio picture with a COA from Score Board and an 11-x-14 of Mickey Mantle and Roger Maris that both signed. -- Erika Randolph, Grand Island, Neb.The bad news first, the signature on the Mays picture from Stan's Sports Memorabilia in New Jersey is most likely bogus. Stan Fitzgerald and his wife, Donna, pleaded guilty to selling fake memorabilia as a result of the famous "Operation Bullpen'' case. A Sports Collectors Digest article said they sold between $2.5 million and $7 million worth of phony stuff. That means a lot of folks have no idea that photos and balls mounted on their walls or sitting out on display have phony signatures. You'll need to have the Mays signature authenticated, but there's probably little chance it is real.The Mantle-Maris photo could be worth $3,000-$4,000, said Mike Gutierrez, consignment director for Heritage Auctions (www.ha.com) in Dallas. He said he has never seen an 11-x-14 signed by the pair. He suggested that one be authenticated as well. Finally, the DiMaggio from Scoreboard is worth $250-$300. (Send card questions to Babe Waxpak, PO Box 492397, Redding, CA 96049-2397 or e-mail babewaxpak(at)charter.net. If possible, include card number, year and brand or a photocopy. Please do not send cards. For Babe Waxpak's blog, see www.scrippsnews.com/waxpak. Babe Waxpak is a feature of The Record Searchlight in Redding, Calif.)(Distributed by Scripps Howard News Service, http://www.scrippsnews.com)
Ask Babe: More questions for the Babe
Submitted by SHNS on Fri, 07/18/2008 - 17:15
Paying taxes unites us. It also divides us. People can pay five and even six times more in state and local taxes than other folks in similar circumstances making similar incomes.
Who's got your number?
In one of the fastest-growing forms of identity theft, crooks are stealing tax refunds by swiping personal information and using it to trick the Internal Revenue Service.
Daniel Moore reproductions, A Lack of Disclosure
I read with great interest the Redding.com's published "Babe: Value of “Bear” print may soften LSU alum" column (text copy below) by you. In part, Mr. Waxpak, one of the questions asked: "Dear Babe: I have a Daniel Moore Artists Proof (35/50) of Liberty given to me by my late father. It is in its original frame/matting with the official lithograph of the 1982 Liberty Bowl."
Unfortunately, it is not a lithograph, much less an artist proof but a non-disclosed reproduction/poster of Daniel Moore’s pre-existing painting.
Lithographs are original works of visual art created by an artist.
Reproductions are copies of art that are done by someone other than the artist.
In other words, a lithograph and reproduction would -never- be commingled as interchangeable, much less the same. This factual perspective is supported by U.S. Customs, U.S. Copyright Law, California Civil Code and many more statutory regulations.
Additionally, I read with great disappointment, Mr. Oyler’s comments. In part, he was quoted stating: “That is one of Daniel Moore’s most sought after and highly valued pieces of art work.”
Unfortunately, Mr. Oyler could not have been more wrong.
Reproductions could -never- be considered “art work.”
Additionally, Mr. Oyler is quoted stating: "The Liberty you are inquiring about was issued in 1984 and only 50 were made in the artist proof edition and sold for $200.”"
Once again, Mr. Olyer could not have been more wrong.
Aside there is no such thing as “artist proofs” for reproductions, under U.S. Copyright Law 101, to be considered limited it must be a "work of visual art" and "signed and numbered by the author."
Reproductions are not works of visual art that under U.S. Copyright Law 106 have no "Right to Attribution." The printer who reproduced the work would own not only the reproductions rights but all the reproductions they reproduced and would only be contractually obligated to give the artist the number of reproductions they paid for. All the overruns would be owned by the printer who could reproduce more in the future without the knowledge or permission of the artist.
In other words, unlike original works of visual art, like lithographs, that are laboriously created and limited by an artist, reproductions can be reproduced now, tomorrow and forever by anyone legally or not with no such limitation other than by their imagination, much less greed.
So, when you, Mr. Waxpak failed to correct misconceptions by the questioner in your column, you, with or without intent, perpetuated many of the same misconceptions that the majority of the public has, much less the art industry.
In closing, you overtures in helping the public understand what they may have, despite these serious flaws, are to be encouraged. My only recommendation is that you seriously review and consider the briefly documented definitions, regulations, statutes and laws below the next time you may write your column.