AJD

1) Bruce Timm: A good artist, though I prefer Darwyn Cooke for this type of style. Timm allows his interest in drawing sexy girls overpower his storytelling abilities. Cooke's work generally remains focused on storytelling and visual invention, and at a very high level. I'd put Cooke in the pantheon greats, and Timm as a solid craftsman.
2) Alex Ross: Despite his popularity, I am not fond of most of Ross's work. He has done a few things I liked, such as a pencil drawing for the cover of Hulk. I was surprised to discover it was by Ross, because it was so unlike the work I was familiar with. I find Ross's compositions boring, though a few work that way. My main quibble though is his coloring, which often relies too much on heavy blacks. His interior painted style doesn't work well for me. This is likely because of the time it takes to execute and his over-reliance of photo reference. In combination, he has very little flexibility with his compositions, making them very stiff. This, btw, is a general criticism I have for all artists who draw directly from photo reference, starting as far back as Mac Raboy. There is a big difference between copying a photo (or near-tracing it) and using it as reference for the appearance of an object, and then redrawing it from a different camera angle. Jack Davis and any of the better artists do the latter, but Ross does the former. Frazetta, btw, although he has made excellent covers, was not very strong at drawing interiors for the same reason it is a weakness for Ross: too reliant on his source photo reference.
3) John Byrne: I like John Byrne and at one time owned about a dozen pages of his original art from Wonder Woman and Next Men. He is a terrific storyteller and has become a very interesting inker. His drawings are usually quite solid. He makes drawing errors, as do most comic book artists, even the best: Gil Kane, Walt Simonson, Johnny Romita Jr., etc. The errors, however, such as the ones pointed out in the first post in this thread, are made up for with quality storytelling. Byrne does rush a job sometimes, and those are usually not as well done due to lack of finish as others, but he hits a very high standard overall as a comic book artist. With a few exceptions, I do not think of him as an "illustrator" the way Frazetta, Wrightson, or Dave Gibbons are illustrators. The exceptions are Byrne's OMAC, Wonder Woman, and Next Men. There may be others I don't know about, but Byrne put a tremendous effort into those titles and raised the bar for his own art.
4) George Perez: He made some very good covers for the Avengers and is perfectly good at interiors as well. He isn't my favorite artist, but he is good at what he does, so I have no serious complaints. If I had a choice between a Perez original or an Alex Ross, I'd take the Perez. Between Byrne and Perez, though I much prefer Byrne, I might go for Perez, depending on what the art is. If it was one of the Avengers covers vs. a Next Men cover, I'd go for Perez. If it was an Avengers interior or a Next Men interior (or Omac), I'd take the Byrne.
5) Adam Hughes: Hughes is a significantly better colorist than Ross. Put another way, Hughes is a good colorist. Overall, I think Hughes has much better-developed art skills than Ross. However, I find most of Hughes' work to be uninteresting and far too reliant on his photo reference. Unlike Ross, Hughes apparently has better quality reference. The "sexy girl looking sexy while posing in a sexy way in a sexy outfit" genre is not my favorite. For this kind of work, I prefer the Dodsons, because they usually manage to add some story detail to their images (or at least, more often than Hughes). One thing Hughes does very well is organize the tones of the colors in his images. Ross is not very good with this and ends up with very high contrast value differences that are inappropriate and jarring. Hughes gets the contrast levels either right or at least more comfortable than Ross and almost every other painter/colorist working in comics. If I had to pick an original by Ross or Hughes, I'd probably go for Ross, though I think Hughes is a better artist. The reason is that I like the golden age feel of Ross' work more than the cheesecake feel of Hughes, which often crosses the line between tasteful and tacky.
Keep in mind what comic books are and what they aren't. They are a storytelling medium utilizing sequentially-arranged panels. Artists that think they will improve on the medium by making laboriously drawn hyper-realistic panels miss the point. If you are too realistic, as many modern artists are or try to be, they lose the dynamism that make comics fun or interesting to read. The best blend of realism and storytelling I've ever seen is by Mazzuchelli in the Daredevil "Born Again" storyline, as well as "Batman: Year One." Neal Adams, by the way, I don't count as very realistic because of his frequent use of odd panel shapes and extremely wide virtual "lenses" that distort his drawings. It was an interesting look, but I wouldn't call it realistic.
I've never seen Byrne try to do anything in color, so I have no idea if he knows how to color, if he's any good at it, or if he can paint. The same is true of Perez. The other three artists, Timm, Ross, and Hughes have some painting/color skills, with Hughes being the standout best of the group. However, the primary advantage Hughes has over Timm, Ross, and other color artists is that he understands value structure. The other two are aware of it, but not as adept at handling it. That said, I might prefer an original by Timm or Ross over a Hughes, and would definitely prefer a Byrne or Perez over any of the other three. 
Once you get into painted covers, I start looking at illustrators who paint. There a lot who do and who are much better at it than almost all illustrators who have ever worked in comics. So when I look at Ross, Hughes, Suydam, and other comic book artists who paint, I tend to compare them to Norman Rockwell, Howard Pyle, Jon Whitcomb, the Leyendecker brothers, and the brothers Hildebrandt. These other artists are so much better than their counterparts in comics that it is unfair to compare them. There is some crossover, but not much. The Hildebrandts have done a limited amount of work in comics, as has Frazetta, but there isn't much after those two. Also, as great as Frazetta is, he doesn't hold a candle to Rockwell. 
The area where comic book artists can, and often do, have a signific aesthetic advantage over painter illustrators is in dynamic composition. This is because comic book artists have to make so many compositions every day that if they are any good, they become extremely good at it. They create a kind of mental flexibility with camera angle choices and character poses that Norman Rockwell would find nearly impossible to imitate. This is where artists like Frank Miller, Jack Kirby, Darwyn Cooke, John Byrne, John Romita (sr), and others excel.
It's interesting to me that the "popular" artists at any given time are often the flashiest but not the most solid. I would take Gil Kane, John Romita Sr., Don Heck, or Mike Ploog over Jim Starlin any day of the week. The same goes for Frank Miller, John Byrne, Mazzuchelli over Ross, Hughes, Dodsons, or Suydam. Richard Corben and Robert Crumb are both a couple of oddballs that are each extremely good at what they do, but the subject matter puts me off, so I woudn't be interested in anything they did. Frank Thorne also, now that I think of it.
Here are a few of my favorite comic book artists:
1) Carl Barks
2) Curt Swan
3) C.C. Beck
4) Johnny Craig
5) Joe Kubert
6) John Romita Sr.
7) GIl Kane
8) Frank Springer (inking himself)
9) Jack Kirby
10) Darwyn Cooke
11) David Mazzuchelli
12) Frank Miller 
13) Harvey Kurtzman (war titles at EC)
Also, in case you are curious, I draw comics myself from time to time. You can see my work on my website, www.paqart.com

Wasn't he in Blake's 7?

Grown up not very well trained puppy...

But unless I'm reading this wrong, that's how eBay is supposed to work. If the current winning bid was $856, that bidder could have bid all the way up to $866 - eBay will only reflect the max winning bid. So unless some one comes in and bids higher than $856, the current high bidder wins at the current leading bid (even though their max could be higher). So the $856 bidder likely set a max bid higher, but your snipe bid was just enough to outbid their max...

Hotflips wont mail me their free used comic boxes at their expense. This ruined my childs Xmas and they turned to hard drugs to cope with the disappointment.
Just lost a customer forever! I will never buy free stuff them again!!1!

 
 
This is pretty generous for those local and I hope someone takes advantage of it. Some of the full art short boxes have gotten pretty expensive at $20+ ea.

Not a cover appearance, but first Uncle Scrooge

 

Well, first appearance in Australian comics (and a series that's still going at #1970 as of last week)

The bend is visible in the photos. It doesn't look good and I wouldn't be happy. The other thing I noticed is that we have the same light yellow/tan tile in the foyer by our back door.

A lot of dollar box drek there and no bags and boards are included, and so I personally feel that the 5 figure asking price is a little bit on the aggressive side.

Here's the clip if you still can't see it:
 

IIRC, I decided to collect the Four Color run circa early 2009. It helped that I had found a honey hole that had a good portion of the run in the back of the shop and I could buy them in buckets so long as I took the time to dig through the completely disorganized backstock.
Along the way, I started to track my progress. I gave myself 10 years to complete the set and occasionally took snapshots of my progress.
Here's an early one from February 2010. Thanks to the honey hole, I was past 50% completion that early on.

Fast forward to May 2018, pre-COVID, and I tracked pretty well with my original goal -

Here's where I am at today, well past the 10 years original goal, May 2024, with many completed "100's" (in red) and several just one issue away from completion and still chipping at the run. I'll say that there were some years in there where I probably did not add much, if anything, to the run, my attention elswhere. The quest goes on

Not a cover appearance, but first Uncle Scrooge

 

It almost certainly was. And there's even an index of the comics that covers that period. Not being a collector, I don't have the index volume. @Duffman_Comics - do you have it, or know someone who does? The trouble is you probably have to know the story arc title.
Edit: The printed index probably isn't necessary. There's an online Phantom Wiki that lists all the daily and Sunday stories. You can click through the story title and the page (usually mostly blank, unfortunately) has a set of hyperlinks to reprints from various countries. None of the titles suggest the Roman soldier story, but they are all a bit generic anyway.
Edit the second: the complete dailies and Sunday strips have all been collected into books, and the Kindle versions are pretty cheap on Amazon, so you could get the 1965-66 volumes and see if you find your story.
They pop up rarely, but I think I've seen most of them at some stage - I don't really track them though. To make life more complicated, back in the 90s the publisher started including replica copies with the annuals. The replicas of #1 and #2 were pretty similar to the originals and I've seen a few scam attempts on ebay - "I don't know much about this comic but I know it's very old"... #3 had a small 'R' printed on the cover villain's cufflink and I saw one for sale as an original 'with one small ink stain on the cover'. Guess where the ink stain was? From #4 on they have a barcode, so are easy to spot.

Buying a big Duck book at Heritage in an auction and then trying to flip on Ebay a month later is .....  a choice.