Basically, he found a legal way to "print money" with his prints. A few years later, that market collapsed, and his company filed Chapter 13 (yet it didn't affect him or his calssic car collection). It only resulted in the "little people" down the line being laid off, as well as many buyers who realized that the prints we bought for $800 were selling for $200 8 years later....he sold my ex a "bill of goods", so to speak...
I meant the LA Times, not you. If Jackson Pollack or some other worthless, no-talent splatterer engaged in the same business practices they would never print a word about it.
Hmmm... So your "ex" purchased the prints DIRECTLY from Kinkade??? Himself??? Unless you bought them direct, I cannot see how you can blame him for what a gallery owner did. I can't find a problem with his actions. (Winne-the-Pooh notwithstanding). It seems that he paints a picture, and a PRODUCTION COMPANY makes prints of it. Sells them to Independent (Note the word independent?) galleries that a license the Kinkade name... and then the manufacturer (artist) gets royalties. As far as I can see, it is capitalism at its finest.
It would appear that you have a sad case of sour grapes. Your "ex" got you to shell out for something that a gallery rep said would give you a return n your investment. Hmmm.. investment..... personally I don't make ANY investment without doing a little homework. You see, I bought an ORIGINAL Kinkade for my late mother. She enjoyed his work and said it gave her a lift because it reminded her of her childhood. I didn't buy the damn thing because some sleezy gallery owner said it was a "wonderful investment" I bought it to make my Mom happy.
The bottom line is that sometimes people buy stuff just because they like it. Not everyone has to have some ulterior motives in their purchases. Sounds to me like you are just bitter becuase that investment grade Yugo you bought isn't paying off.....
Semper Reflective