stinkininkin

Bingo! That's the one. What a great page. I told some friends a few weeks ago that it was probably going to take 20k plus to get it, but I didn't WANT to believe it! Sadly, I was on target. But it was such an A+ example, the type of art that's worth the "overpay".

LOL, nope. Not in the habit of buying back any of my old artwork. Forgot I'd ever even inked Sal Velluto! But back then, seemed like I was inking EVERYBODY!

All I know is that I targeted and bid super aggressively on one piece I badly wanted and still got beat out. Bargains for thee, but not for me.

Bingo!

I think 300 is a masterpiece. And there are a couple of Sin City stories in particular that are as good as anything Miller has ever done, particularly The Hard Goodbye and That Yellow B-word .

I actually thought the price on the Miller DD cover was pretty strong, but I never see them come up for sale and can't really seem to keep up with latest prices and demand for DD covers. I remember seeing this one on a SDCC dealers wall maybe ten-ish years ago for something like 30-40k, and later regretting not making a move on it.

The engraver created the Earth in less than a week, so I doubt just banging out a couple of quick tablet edits was as tough as all that.

I went back and looked, and unfortunately, my correction needs to be...corrected. THE PAGE IN QUESTION is just as I said, Jim Lee on rough breakdowns, Whilce Portacio on finished pencils, and myself on inks. Case closed. Unfortunately, I posted that I inked the entire issue of Uncanny Xmen 286, but for some reason I had it confused with Uncanny Xmen 289. I only inked 16 of the 22 pages from 286. Apologies for the misstatement about inking the entire issue. Again, this page from this Comic Link auction is now CORRECTLY listed as Lee/Portacio/Williams, so bid with confidence.

You are correct Carlo. I sent Comiclink a notification email that I am sharing below... "Incorrect credits. I inked the entire issue (even though that issues credits list Art Thibert as inker, this was a hasty editorial mistake. I definitely inked the entire issue). Joe Rubenstein had nothing to do with this page. Also, Jim Lee provided loose storytelling breakdowns for the art, and Whilce Portacio provided all the completed pencils." Best Scott

Yeah, everyone has opinions, but as great as the Miller/Claremont Wolverine series was, the Miller/Janson DD run was transcendent at the time it came out. Wolverine will always be a more popular character than DD, but as important as the art is in this hobby, story matters, and the story revolving around DD/Electra/Bullseye/Kingpin trumps anything found in the Wolverine series IMHO. And I say this as an art collector who very early (1981) bought 3 gorgeous consecutive Wolverine #4 battle pages. I loved the stuff, but even then, I could see that the DD stuff was already a true classic run, while the Wolverine was just a rip roaring good adventure. Like what you like, but personally, I value the DD stuff over the Wolverine stuff, both artistically and yes, in terms of what I'll pay.

Couple of whales slugging it out on that one if I remember correctly.

In your scenario, I'd take Johnny Journeyman over a given A listers mediocrity too, but only if it's an example that shows off JJ's skills at his best. All of my favorite artists (Adams, Miller, Kirby, etc. etc) have hundreds or thousands of examples of published works that I have zero interest in. Even from their prime periods and best known works. Mediocre examples by my favorite artists don't interest me in the slightest, ESPECIALLY at todays modern prices. I don't think we should be overpaying for ANY art by A list creators, only their BEST art. Subjective terms? Sure. I just know that I'll wait for that "I know it when I see it" piece to overpay for, and not before.

This rings true to me and puts things in better context than what I might have implied in my previous post.

I wasn't referring to what any of us like or collect individually. There are A list creators that I have no interest in collecting, but it's still incredibly obvious their talent and contribution to the art form is unique and elite. Unless you're saying that all art is equally good and that there is no common language to define excellence in comic art and acknowledge unique greatness independent of our own personal tastes? I'm not looking for an argument here. I just feel the criteria for what makes for great and important and impactful art is changing and it's affecting how we view what is worthy of "overpaying" and what's not. Now get off my lawn!

For me, it used to be easier to know what to overpay for. I happened to covet A list artists (I usually collect artists, not titles/characters). So overpaying for art like Kirby, J Buscema, Adams, Miller, BWS, Wood, Wrightson, Frazetta, Starlin, Mignola, Bolland, Sienkiewicz and the like seemed like a relatively low risk/high reward gamble in terms of enjoyment and yes, protecting my "investment". Not to sound like the old guy here, but today there are prices paid for artist's that IMHO are C level artists or worse, that are commanding insane prices (again, IMHO). Nostalgia, movie tie-ins, and first appearance concerns seem to be the engine that drive the prices higher, rather than pure excellence. Overpaying for this type of material feels like playing on shaky ground to me, but maybe the hobby and how to determine relative worth has permanently passed me by? I hope not. People should collect whatever they want and pay whatever yields enjoyment, but old man Williams wishes that artistic merit mattered more in the hobby today.

When I was more actively collecting, I overpaid all the damn time, and was happy to do so if it was a piece I coveted. I never collected for investment, and overpayment was the accepted reality in acquiring the art that I wanted. However, I also loosely applied a "five year rule" when overpaying, which was a rule of thumb guide where I asked myself "Do I think I could at least get my money back in 5 years if I absolutely HAD to sell?". Not once did I regret that decision, and the only regrets I have are for the pieces I DIDN'T reach higher for!

I had never really looked that closely at the DD Yellow story, but seeing the scans for this auction were eye opening. Really superb artwork. What's the consensus on the story from comic fans out there-is this a collection I should track down, and is there a black and white version perhaps (that would seal the deal for me)?

Totally agree Mitch. This Hulk cover is primo Starlin and iconic. It's the one piece in this auction I would have been most happy to take home (I did not) and I'm not even really a Hulk fan/collector.

I would not put the Calvin and Hobbes Sunday into the category of big winners. For the buyer, yes.

The color piece went LOW in my opinion!

I have thoughts...lol But seriously, looks like nothing in this auction went for the crazy prices of the last 18 months. Don't know what it means going forward. Temporary? Timing? Economy? Crypto woes? I have no idea.

Just a heads up that this Arthur Adams Longshot page was entirely inked by Arthur, and not by Whilce Portacio or myself as listed in the auction notes. I was there and saw all the production of these pages. There are 2 or three other pages from this final issue of Longshot that were inked by Adams as well. Just some historical context and correction for would be bidders (I am not the seller of this page and don't know who the seller is). Really cool page and inks by the way! I have notified Heritage about this correction... https://comics.ha.com/itm/original-comic-art/arthur-adams-whilce-portacio-and-scott-williams-longshot-6-story-page-35-original-art-marvel-1986-/a/7283-97005.s?ic4=ListView-Thumbnail-071515#auction-description

Well, regarding your last point, I can't tell you the number of times (dozens at least) that I have paid for a piece of art by paying a third party directly on behalf of the seller, whether it's PayPal or check or cash. It's super common in this hobby. Doesn't take a genius to guess why this is so common.

Feels like this deserves it's own thread. I very much agree with your sentiment, but am wary to discuss it much since my own collection would put me in the category of having a vested interest, influencer, tastemaker, what have you. My collection has always revolved around the art I love most, which happens to run parallel to what was generally considered the best of the best, based on artistic merit, storylines, era, characters, etc. If I were to publicly complain that many of those attributes have gone out the window, to be trumped purely by nostalgia or movie tie ins or first appearances, etc, I'm not sure it would be received as intended. Nothing wrong with using those criteria as well in choosing what to collect, but putting blinders on to how "good" the art is (or isn't, which is what we are talking about here) and ignoring (or not learning) the subtle nuances on what makes a given piece special, well, it does our hobby no favors.

This story is one of my all time favorites. Hits all my buttons. That's a healthy price for a page that doesn't even have a flaming skull anywhere to be found!