I have made an occasional point that I disapprove of buying cels for the purpose of simply reselling them at inflated prices. Not only does it make it harder for genuine collectors to get their hands on the pieces they really want, but it also creates an unrealistic, inflated appearance of what a cel is actually worth. The Disney Company, upon giving their employees artwork under their contract, sometimes gave them a legal condition that they could not sell the artwork until a certain period after obtaining said artwork (we're talking years).
This cel, which has just appeared on eBay, may appear to be a good deal. It has a seal. No copy background, but that doesn't determine the value of the cel. It's a clear, decent pose, and $1550 doesn't seem too bad a price by comparison.
Which is why the truth of this cel irks me greatly:
Barely two weeks after winning this cel, he's got it back online, inflated to over three times what he has paid for it, and promising that it comes "from a smoke-free/mold-free home/workplace". I don't know how he can promise that since the auction was on-line and I don't think he ever got to meet the previous owner.
An argument for this is that it's a fair entrepreneurial practice, and it's true that wealth can be created through opportunism. As a genuine collector, I find it annoying.
Another point of dis-ingenuity comes from galleries' websites. To attract clientèle, some leave on their sites listings of cels that they have purportedly sold, with the implication that the gallery can help a new client that wants a similar piece.
In reality, it works something like this:
In case you have to examine it closely, it's the same cel, signed by Jodi Benson. So, why is it implausible that the same cel passed through both galleries within a short amount of time? This is because when you buy through a gallery, you are paying the premium price: what the cel is worth, at least to the seller, plus the gallery's commission. You cannot cruise a cel between galleries and hope to turn a profit; they know the value of the cel. Plus, their commission is determined by the sale price, so they'll want it as high as possible. It's possible one of these two galleries may have sold the cel, but I couldn't tell you which one.
Some people go through multiple galleries, and don't consign them exclusively to just one, but the photo is the same between galleries a lot of the time. When it sells, they (eventually) find out, and mark it as sold. A piece can remain on a gallery's site for years after it has been sold, even if the gallery in question was not the one that sold it.
The third piece that has caught my attention is this piece on eBay:
I recognise the cel as having sold about three or four years ago, for about half the price. The price hike may be in part due to entrepreneurial practices, but the cel has been paired with a drawing from the same scene:
It's not a perfect match, but it's rather close. The seller certainly seems to think that this is an ideal pairing. In honesty, I wouldn't touch this listing with a forty-foot pole.
Cels come with seals to prove two things:
1. That the cel is authentic
2. That the cel left the studio legally (wasn't stolen by an employee)
The only exception to the seal rule for Little Mermaid cels that I know of are the ones sold through Sotheby's Auction in 1990.
Animation drawings were never offered for sale from the movie. I have seen some available from the television series, often paired with their drawing, but no drawings or concept artwork were offered to the public by Disney.
A fellow collector once argued that the statute of limitations would have run out, but considering the plaintiff in such a case would be the Disney Corporation, I wouldn't risk it. Legal repercussions aside, trading in stolen artwork is simply unethical.
