Khazano

At the end of the day it's unpublished and features a very obscure villain. Punisher is minimally shown. No different than a commission of just Barracuda really and we all know how commissions do on the resale market. Stegman is a big name yes but not big enough that any character he draws can command over 1k. This was always a sub-500 piece IMO.

TBH, I can't believe it hasn't happened yet. They've got what, 25+ years of angering people in this hobby? (Although I do recall some stories back in the comicart-l days of people confronting them...) I'm sure when the inevitable showdown between them and I happens, my friends will have camera's rolling. Although I would image the title they would upload to tiktok would be something like "man child becomes unhinged over spider-man drawing" all the while sad/inspirational music plays in the background.

Who even if the one supposed to launch the legal recourse? I own the art, but not the image. So. It would probably have to be Marvel, cause they're the ones whom technically still own the rights to the image. All commissions fall under a gray area of copyright law.

In terms of the cover's coloring. You've gotta remeber you're looking at them through the view lens of today's sensibilities and technology. That book debuted in 2000. Over 20 years ago. Back then that look wasn't dated, it was fresh. CGI was in it's infancy. PS2 hadn't even come out yet. Bill Clinton was still in office. But more importantly, NO ONE was buying comics. So, with the entire Ultimate line, they were just trying to make stuff look new and stand out. Which those books did. There was nothing on the stands that looked like that at the time. Now it just looks like bad CGI. But then, that really was a different story. Yes, I agree, what they've done with my issue 36 covers (and others like it) it is downright evil. I initially sent them a polite email informing them about the fact that it was a commission. After seeing no change, I sent some scathing emails, and after that, pretty sure I posted both on this message board and Facebook groups about the deviousness of it all. To this day, should I ever see either brother at a con, I plan on ripping into them something fierce about it all. I was wrong, it wasnt issue #24, it was issue #16. Again, speaking to technology. Waicom had just introduced the Cintiq tablet and Mark figured he'd give it a shot. Thankfully, he didnt like using it. So, this was the only page ever done that way. Attached is a scan.

I can add a little bit on context here.... All the OG covers were pencils only. When Bagley came back at the end, those three covers were pencil over inks the old fashioned way. Side note. At the time it happened, I sent a pretty snarky message to the collector whom had BATT ink that issue 35 cover, basically chastising him for ruining that cover for the rest of us. To which he told me "it's his to do with what he wants and since he'll never sell it, it doesnt matter." I knew that was a lie the moment I read it. I own the original cover to 36. The Donellys took a recreation that a collector commissioned after unsuccessfully trying to buy my cover from me, and then slapped those logos on it and called it an alternate. That was probably the angriest I've ever been in this hobby. All the originals except some of the early Venom issues, and later Death of Ultimate Spider-Man were all pencils over inks the old fashioned way. Also, the last page of issue 24 (i think it was 24...) was done almost entirely digitally. I have the layouts used to make it, and its a very loose outline of Spidey's body, thats it. Mark was trying something new, but didn't like it. Ill dig out that page and upload a scan. I dont think an image of has ever been put online.

As long as you make them pay "letting it go when I dont really want to tax" it should stave off the flippers. It'll only hurt if you give a bargain cause of the lie. Ive only ever sold something cause of a sob story once. They paid double market value, and to this day, 10 years later, its still sitting in their CAF which is dedicated to the character. I feel like its where it should be. Subsequently, I've only ever pulled the sob story card once in 20 years. Me and another collector (very well known) both put in an offer for the same amount for a piece on eBay, the seller accepted his instead of mine. Fair enough. However, the buyer then instantly listed/flipped it on his CAF for 3x the sold offer. I pretty much messaged him using words I never do like "please" "If you could" "I would be so grateful" Blah blah blah. Ugh, hated myself for it, but, I also offered him a 50% profit (rather than 300%) on his investment, and he let it go. To this day, it's still in my CAF.

My bad! Fixed.

Hi Everyone, Selling something special. This is the first time it's been for sale in 10 years. Scott McDaniel - Wizard Magazine #112: Batman, Nightwing and the Bat Family Pin-Up $4000.00 Size is 17x22 inches. Pencils and inks the old fashioned way, all done by Scott. Published in Wizard #112. A vintage center piece for any McDaniel or Batman collectors. Price includes shipping within North America. International, please email for a quote. Payment is in USD (US Dollars) via PayPal FF, money order or check. Please add $160.00 if paying via G&S. Time payments are doable. Thanks everyone!

Hello Everyone I havent sold here in years, so dipping my toes in and selling a book I bought of these very boards many moons ago. Amazing Spider-Man 20. First appearance Scorpion. I bought it as a 5.5 - 6.0, so that's what Im advertising it as. But I've included a lot of pics to make your own decision. All pages intact, no cutouts etc. Price is $850.00 USD which includes shipping in North America. Firm. PayPal only. All sales are final. No returns. Thanks !!

Itll probably appear a year down the road on ebay through that company that sells lost USPS items that have been paid out via insurance.

Who knows if it's actually on hold, or, if it's just being labeled as such to create a sense of false demand.

This was my thought as well. All it takes it one or two to go "Gee, this is only 10ETH? I spent more on a digital image of a monkey with a popsicle yesterday."

The game just changed for a lot of us...

Im surprised no one has brought up this fact, as its the same one I tell numerous new collectors who get sad they dont have what I have, or feel they are being priced out... You're 20-30 years too late. This isnt society punishing you for being poor, you simply missed the boat. But that's okay, because there's always more boats docking. (At least, until everything goes digital...) Skottie has worked hard over 20 years to charge what he charges for commissions, he doesn't owe anyone a discount at this point. (Although, Ive always been under the impression he does the dice roll at cons to be a good guy?) Heck, once upon a time Skotties covers could be bought for 400 a pop. But this is a moot point because Skottie always has some covers you can buy from him for under >1k. And you can get cool published pages for under 300. Anyone with a little bit of discipline to do time payments, whether through the vendor or on credit, can get in on his stuff still. And tbh, this is still the case for most hot modern artists who came into the game during the 2000s+. So. You know. Perhaps expectations need to be tempered, some hustle needs to be applied, and what you seek can still be attained...

I hope you realize coming in here and asking that is akin to someone addicted to wine going into a heroin den and asking if you should quit drink for dope.

Yes sir. For what it's worth, I have been collecting USM artwork for 20 years. Literally since issue one. So trust me when I say, you are good to go.

No inked pages of USM by Mark were done via blueline method. All pages are inks over pencils the old fashioned way.. Certain pages (like less than 1%) are pencil only (so no inks exist) as they were colored straight off pencils. The Ultimate Venom flashback pages for example. And all the covers. (Save one that a not so intelligent collector had inked after the fact.) Mark did sometimes do his initial layouts on page with blue pencil, so you might see that. Although it's pretty rare, especially on his Ultimate Spidey stuff. (Doesnt effect value one way or the other.)

I am saying that. Im only speculating that he was unaware of the price. I dont know that for a fact. (Although I strongly suspect it.) No, the gray area for me is, he made it VERY clear during the sale that this was so his real fans could own a piece of art. He literally did not allow anyone who didnt participate in the group discussions or joined within the last few months to buy it. There was a very clear line being verbalized and drawn about the purpose of these pages being so cheap. Ive never really seen a circumstance like this before in 20 years. So, I was curious what the consensus is.

Well, yeah, one can argue theres no such thing as moral obligation at all in any facet of life. Survival of the fittest and all that. So I guess thats a check next too, collectors doesn't owe artists anything, its the artists mistake for being generous/naive. For what its worth, I dont know what the answer is, cause A> the flip wouldnt stop me from buying it and B> if I were to buy the page, I wouldnt worry about whether the artist got a share of my money. So am I just as "bad".... I would disagree with artists knowing exactly how much the art is worth. Before this, his pages fetched 300 on a good day. He may have not truly realized what he was giving away.

I dont wanna shame anyone, but I am curious about peoples thoughts on this situation. Some of you may have seen this play out on Facebook already. But - The artist who did the Ninja Turtles Last Ronin held a private sale, in a private group, where he sold a bunch of pages 80%-90% off market value from the first issue, to collectors who otherwise would never have had a shot. (Im sure you can see where Im going with this.) A few days ago one of those collectors posts a page he scored from this sale to his FB. Tagging the artists. Talking about how grateful he is yada yada.... Five days later its listed for sale. Highest offer was 1k. (Which is right around what its worth IMO.) Then the seller decided he didnt wanna sell it, but would trade it for a nice Mignola or Art Adams or artists of similar caliber... So this piece went from 150 to 1000 in five days. Then in the span of a 1 minute decision, jumped from 1k to costing 3k+ in lopsided trade. (So clearly this guy doesnt need the money either, he's just trying to maximize his return.) My question to you is, if he were to make a 2000% profit off this scenario, is there any moral obligation to give the artists some of the profit, considering said artist sacrificed that profit specifically so a true fan could own a piece of his work / TMNT history they would otherwise never have had a shot at it?

I was pleasantly surprised by the numbers Adventures of Superman 501 brought in (26k), especially since it's a 90's Superboy cover. (Albeit extremely memorable...) I think this is the highest a Reign of Supermen cover has sold for by a mile.

No it's not. They're bona fide fraudsters and borderline confidence artists. I'd say sociopath is an accurate description.

There's a lot more than I realized... 60s-70s Kirby - Fantastic Four 80s Romita Jr - Daredevil (Typhoid Mary) Bolland - Killing Joke 90s Nolan - Knightfall Dillon - Preacher Ross - Earth X Miller - Sin City Mcfarlane - Spawn 2000s Quietly - New X-Men Dodson - Black Cat ETMD Finch - Avengers (Dissembled) Brubaker - Cap (Pre-Death) Kubert - Batman 2010s Copiel - Spider-Verse Bennett - Immortal Hulk Lemire - Sweet Tooth

Fake is a kind term too... They used to hire a letterer to put those logos on an acetate overlay . But now a days, it looks like theyve started printing them out themselves on copy paper and then gluing straight on to the art.

Done. Im actually really surprised. They usually ride that gray line when they do stuff like this which allows their apologists to exist. But this is so blatant even for them.