-
When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.
RabidFerret
-
Posts
333 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Forums
CGC Journals
Gallery
Events
Store
Posts posted by RabidFerret
-
-
While the prices are high, I’ll just chime in to say Drew’s art is even more breathtaking in person than any scan or print appears, and if you can afford it, it’s worth it.
Check out this detail:
You can get seriously lost in his work in person:)
The book covers especially are almost bargains given the poster prices.
The only prices that truly surprised me were the Indy video games at $100+. That was impressive.
-
On heritage scans the trick I use is to throw it in photoshop and tweak the levels. You can usually get a clearer look when it's not as washed out.
Seen below you can see stats and loads of whiteout, but I don't see anything that would indicate markers to me.
My two cents.
-
3 hours ago, MagnusX said:
Great Art guys; congratulations...
I have a question, McFarlane use Inks, markers or a mix of both?
Thanks...A mix of both, sadly.
Most of his work is with good ink and has lasted well, especially the figure work. The problem areas with marker seem more in the backgrounds or when he did touch-ups and filled in missed blacks.
Here're some great examples from the game show 'Guess Where He Used Marker':
Interestingly, that's a surprise positive to the few random inkers who tried Todd's pencils - those pages often aren't fading:)
This is similar to Liefeld too, whose NM87 inked by Wiacek looks pristine, whereas all issues inked by Liefeld have fading markers.
Here's a piece of Todd's I have inked by Pennington - the non-fading inking is a HUGE appeal! The sharpie signature Todd added a couple years ago will fade before the art will.
-
I've been wondering about this topic recently as well, and while fire protection is one of my concerns, it's not the only one.
On the most basic of levels - theft concerns me. Not that most people know what this stuff is when they see it, and they couldn't sell it publicly without drawing attention, but plenty of people still steal things for the thrill or because they like the pretty pictures.
Water damage is another concern. Not that a safe solves that entirely, but it certainly seems a lot more watertight than a bookcase or whatever piece of furniture we store our art in.
So I'm curious for thoughts from people who have bought safes for their art.
- Did you go with a gun safe or a burglary/fire safe?
- How big of a safe did you get dimension-wise?
- Any particular brand?
- Do you store the art in portfolios? Museum boxes?
- Do you store the art inside of plastic tubs inside the safe?
- Are you concerned about moisture inside the safe? Do you use desiccant bags to reduce moisture or does that risk drying out the art?
- In retrospect, was it worth it to you? Do you sleep easier?
And anything else I'm overlooking that a safe owner may find important.
-
1 hour ago, comix4fun said:
And it did do better. The 248 wasn't really a better cover, and it didn't have a better art team, so it was missing the things that make people really go hard after a Lee X-men pieces (without even getting into the lack of characters present).
Both pieces over-performed from my pre-auction quarterbacking. The only knock on the FF was that it was from a title that had the least connection to Lee (as opposed to X-men or Batman, for example) but it had everything else going for it. The not-so-great elements of the 248 were far more tangible and easy to tick off in rapid succession. Still, it went almost 20% above where I thought it would go, given lesser competition from the guys who really wanted a great Lee/Williams X-men piece that included more than a couple of the regulars from the run on it. It was missing the factors that lend itself to garnering a super-premium. That was clear since it appeared in the catalog, not after the hammer fell.
I think it would have been interesting to explore the larger stack of Lee art from that auction beyond just the two covers. There were 10 Jim Lee pieces in that auction and almost none of them fell how I expected them to.
The 2 Williams inked Uncanny X-Men pages I felt were far better examples than the Thibert inked X-Men page, yet the Thibert more than doubled the Gambit page and was 50% more than the Colossus. I assume it was the Wolverine factor more than anything, but it was still surprising. By the same token, the Batman 615 DPS of batmobiles topped all the X-art, while the Hush wash piece(without Batman) also hammered for more than the Gambit.
Combined with the Superman cover selling for $20k less than the FF, I found most of the Lee results to be a surprise.
-
7 hours ago, jjonahjameson11 said:
If everyone thinks this way, then it will definitely impact the final results downwards for consignors.
I’m always amazed when I find anyone who doesn’t think this way.
Regardless of if the piece is on Heritage or Comiclink my high bid is the same. If I’m willing to spend $1000 on a piece I bid $800 on Heritage + 20% BP and $1000 on Comiclink.
Bid based on the art, not the house.
-
It took a few more weeks for my piece to finally show up, but in case anyone wanted to connect the dots of Luca's CAF post, here's that 'better page' page he mentioned. I'm not sure if either page is 'better' than the other though; they're both insanely epic!! I know I struggled between them and went back and forth. I think we both walked away happy:)
http://www.comicartfans.com/gallerypiece.asp?piece=1465933
-
3 hours ago, BeholdersEye said:
I hope Liefeld gets it if he's interested in it to the degree it goes back home to the artist.
I saw this other internet article about the page too:
http://comicbook.com/marvel/2018/04/21/deadpool-first-appearance-art-up-for-auction-/
So, I hope Liefeld puts a definitive nail in the coffin to seal the deal and acquire it at a good price for him.
A friend of mine tapped out at $7k, so I think there's a large population of collectors who want it, would love to have it, but are out-priced at this point. But, when you look at historical precedent of what Marvel super-hero panel pages have sold for, it's not unreasonable to anticipate higher bidding on the Deadpool piece possibly.
That's why my original inquiry of the "over/under at $50k" was trying to figure the FMV of the piece based on the opinion of collectors here, who seem to have a good finger on the pulse of the hobby.
As someone who collects a lot of prime era Liefeld art I've been surprised at the bidding so far. I expected it to be strong, but figured it'd hammer for $25k or less.
The page has already become the most expensive Liefeld ever listed on Heritage, passing the NM93 cover McFarlane inked by 50%. The only other DP art to have sold recently in public were XF2 & XF5 pages that hit $3-4k.
The idea that this would've hit $50k seemed laughable to me 2 weeks ago. Now, I have no idea where it will end. It wouldn't surprise me to see it fly to $100k or never get another bid. It seems completely untethered from reality:)
So the idea of FMV is out the window I think. This is going well above 'fair':)
- Twanj, Bill C and F For Fake
-
2
-
1
-
10 hours ago, Twanj said:
Wow, so the Deadpool page is already at $36k
@RabidFerret, you had a shot at $3500?
Different page. I was offered this page for $3500 4 years ago, but the seller had second thoughts and later sold it to Fish when he bought the cover: http://www.comicartfans.com/gallerypiece.asp?piece=1096012
It was a bummer.
Luckily, I already had the Deadpool trading card art from X-Force #1(http://www.comicartfans.com/gallerypiece.asp?piece=620611) which I had more personal nostalgia for, so the tears eventually stopped after a few weeks.
Probably not worth as much though...
- Catwoman_Fan and John E.
-
2
-
52 minutes ago, tfish said:
that is not accurate I did thank you!!
THANK YOU AGAIN !
Better late than never;) you’re welcome:)
-
8 hours ago, O. said:
Hope you got a nice finder's fee at least!
Hahahaha, I didn't even get a thank you.
-
1 hour ago, Bronty said:
50k hammer? Good googly moogly. I'd disagree but you've been good at guessing on these types of pieces before.
Whatever Fish paid for the cover feels like a pretty good deal right now.
I’m going to forever regret not only leading Fish to the cover, but also not locking down the deal for the panel page he later snagged($3500 deal was struck, but the seller had second thoughts and yanked it back).
One of the most regrettable missed opportunities of my collecting career...
-
1 hour ago, comicinkking.com said:
Maybe this has been covered before (couldn't really find anything in the archives though), but there are a few auction houses, who shall remain nameless, who use the practice of extended bidding. So if you bid in the last minute or so of the auction, it automatically extends the auction for a set amount of time (minutes to hours longer). I just won an item through one of these auction houses. I put my bid in with about 20 seconds to go - not realizing that they were going to extend. Once entered, mine was the highest bid at that point - and not much higher than the prior bid. The auction was then extended a few minutes, and suddenly, within that extended period, the bid increased by about 45% - quite a bit higher than my current bid, but just below my max bid.
I thought that was strange - if someone had that level of interest, why hadn't they bid in the last seconds as I did? It seems very fishy to me. With this kind of bidding practice, what's to stop the auction house from going in during those extended minutes and pushing up everyone's bid to below the max? It's an easy revenue stream. I don't think that's legal, but I think I read long ago that Heritage was set up in Texas because it was one of the states that allows the auction house to bid on their own auctions. They don't do the extended bidding period, so it's probably less likely that they do that. But, with these other auction houses, you have to wonder.
Anybody have thoughts on this? Do you avoid these types of auctions? It certainly makes me uneasy and suspicious.
Regards,
Tony
I'm assuming you're talking about Comic Connect since their auctions ended tonight.
I put in my high bid early and didn't attempt to snipe.
Turned out my high bid was triple what it hammered for.
If they wanted to bid me up and cheat, they could have, but didn't.
-
A few years ago Marat Mychaels listed the cover to Youngblood #1 by Liefeld. It eventually sold.
Does anyone know where it ended up?
-
-
4 hours ago, stinkininkin said:
With only a couple of exceptions, I've overpaid for every d*amned piece of art I have. I only buy art that I love (in my collecting philosophy there is no such thing as a grail, a term I really dislike in this hobby), and I only buy art that are examples of what I consider to be the best available example by a given artist and/or title within price ranges that I can afford. I definitely have a quality over quantity mindset. And in all those times I've overpaid, I've never regretted it. Not once. And that's what works for me. Don't spend money that should be spent on rent/mortgage, food, education, retirement, etc. Otherwise, all bets are off and to the victor go the spoils.
Yes. Exactly! All my best stuff, the stuff that I truly love, was always overpaying for. Almost across the board, probably 15 of my top 20 pieces will be in that situation of paying more than the market, more than other people, pushing prices, and biting the bullet and never regretting it.
In most cases, the market eventually caught up to me and made it seem a bargain. In a few cases, it never did, but I still never regretted it. This stuff is so unique, if you truly love it, you need to chase it. You won't get the chance again.
And strangely, it almost makes me love it more because I overpaid. It's like rescuing a puppy from the pound and being like, "I know nobody loved you the way I love you, so here's a good home where nobody will ever try to flip you*".
* - Please do not attempt to flip puppies. They get dizzy.
-
20 minutes ago, Nexus said:
Yup. Is it hype? It is. I’ve never denied it. But is it also TRUE? It is!
As a collector, I want a shot. I’m letting everyone know...here’s your shot. You can choose to take it or not.
I think of all the things I’ve missed over the years, where I wish I had had that shot. Where I didn’t know if/when art would be available. And thus, never had a chance. I’d love to be able to set my alarm and Just have that shot, win or lose...”before it’s gone”!
I understand this sentiment entirely:)
I love it when art is available at a set time and place for everyone, and I seriously appreciate that you do it - and honor it. I know some reps/dealers who say one time and the art appears early or late.
You do plenty of things well, Felix, so don't take my comments as a wholesale attack on you.
I am simply raising a concern I see and am scared about for the hobby at large. And as you pointed out, it's exacerbated far more by the speculation/investment sites that cater directly to those topics.
20 minutes ago, Nexus said:The O’Malley sales were four years ago. 200+ pieces gone. The AKIRA sales were two years ago. 600+ pieces gone. How many were bought on impulse? Who knows for sure? But so far, just a tiny handful have been let go. You read that however you will...I tend to think people are just enjoying what they’ve bought.
And in fairness, that is exactly what I hope it is! I would love it if all of this art goes to permanent homes and is enjoyed and loved for a lifetime. I hate art that bounces around and gets flipped endlessly.
20 minutes ago, Nexus said:As for “childish...juvenile...condescending...”...weren’t you the one who said my parents must be so proud of me for using bold?
I can only take so much ribbing before I need to rib back:) But I try to contain myself to snark.
20 minutes ago, Nexus said:But OK...I’ll try to do better, even IF my natural inclination is to be childish and juvenile (and condescending as the situation warrants).
Thank you. I appreciate that. In person maybe these conversations would have a lighter air, but in a public forum they devolve quickly.
And I seriously don't want to keep talking about this. We've beaten the horse to a pulp at this point:)
-
38 minutes ago, Nexus said:
As well, for all the angst here...what ABOUT Sean Murphy? What about the OA column on a SPECULATING AND INVESTING wesbsite that is presenting this hobby to NEWBIES from the standpoint of SPECULATING AND INVESTING? Far from this righteous indignation, you appear to be quite a fan! Lol!
I think we all agree about Sean Murphy's view - he is clearly about speculation and investing and has said so himself on multiple occasions. And there is a whole thread of people outraged by it, so it's not like it's been slipping under the rug.
What started the discussion in this thread, and why the conversation has centered around you, was your comment:
"You'll be amused to know that the buyer of the EXTREMITY cover that dropped yesterday told me afterward that not only hadn't he read the issue that the cover was from...he hasn't read any of EXTREMITY at all. I still have a hard time wrapping my head around that...but have to admit it's way more common that I would have thought."
Anyone objectively reading that statement has to wonder at the buyer's intent. Including you, who said you had a hard time wrapping your head around it.
You later followed that up with:
Despite not having read the book yet (he's a trade-waiter), he understood Daniel's art well enough that he recognized immediately why this was an "important" cover."
So to be clear - a person who has never read an issue of Extremity bought a cover in part because he recognized it as "important".
Not to say that this buyer didn't love the art as well, but in this example it feels a bit strange to dismiss the idea of speculation so quickly.
-
43 minutes ago, Nexus said:
Kyle picked out four parts of four newsletters with you believe are calls to speculate. Let’s say they were (you and The Shoveler are going to your graves with that, so be it). But that would be out of 261 total newsletters (yes, I just counted!). How many of the rest contain similarly “offensive” language?
Going through only 2017, here are a few examples that drew my attention. Comments that play up the 'event nature' - the scarcity, the rarity, the fast selling nature. It's not speculating on the future value per se, but the "buy it quick before it's gone" type of speculation. The idea that you don't want to miss out or be left behind.
A set of tactics almost identical to Marvel and Image in the 1990s. They never once advertised any of those covers as investments. They did the exact same thing you're doing - hyped up the rarity and made comparisons to successful books. And then claimed "hey, we're just offering up a product, it's on the consumer to decide if they want to buy it". How did that work out?
2017 Newsletters:
"Beautiful stuff, get 'em before they blow up!"
"All the art from #1 sold out, so don't miss your chance to grab a page!"
"Available pages going forward are looking to be VERY limited, so don’t miss out tomorrow!"
"As you can see from our previous EXTREMITY drops, the art is VERY popular...so set your alarms!"
"Our latest Paul Pope original art sale was yesterday. 34 of 36 pieces sold in the first day!"
"Incredibly, EVERY SINGLE PAGE from the ENTIRE series has now sold"
"This will be your last chance to get any EXTREMITY art for a while as issue #6 will only be offered complete. As all pages from previous issues are also nearly sold out, so don't miss out tomorrow!"
Those comments are not suggesting "buy for the love of art". They are suggesting "buy before it's gone".
QuoteI don’t get this. Believe it or not, some people buy art SIMPLY BECAUSE THEY LIKE IT. Because they like the artist. Because they like the book. Because it’s something cool to hang on the wall.
That idea is apparently so counter to your and The Shoveler’s belief system that is just can’t be comprehended. But you are projecting your own issues over everyone else.
I'm not clear why you're making so many false assumptions here? None of what you're suggesting is true.
And to be honest, it's a bit childish and offensive.
Of course some people buy art because they like it, just like some people buy art to invest and flip, while others buy art to seem cool to their peers. There are many reasons people buy art.
I'm not sure why you continue to push the narrative that nobody buying from you can possibly be investing? Of course some are.
And my 'belief system'(that for some absurd reason you claim to know) is buying for life, which is why very little ever leaves my collection.
QuoteTHANK YOU! Lol!
I'm trying to have a rationale discussion about the hobby, not fight in the schoolyard.
QuoteClearly you and the Shoveler do. Around here, I’m sure there are others. $$$ has always been a favorite topic here, and that won’t likely change anytime soon. But that’s not necessarily true for everyone else outside this echo chamber.
Given that I've never bought a page from you, I would hope it was clear that my interest in this topic is from a distance as an objective viewer.
35 minutes ago, Nexus said:We just don’t look at or approach the hobby the same way. I like what I like. What something may be worth later, if I’ll be “rewarded” for what I like...I stopped caring a long ago. Check out my Lowry for what I’ve been buying lately. If there are any “hot” things in my collection, it’s only because I *actually* like them.
Again, I'm not sure why you're making so many false assumptions here? Or being so condescending?
You are attempting to paint a picture of me that is not remotely accurate.
I buy for life and for love and always have. I was buying Liefeld art I loved 15 years ago when the rest of the world did nothing but mock the man. This past year I bought a piece that had sat unsold on someone's site for 20 years and will never be worth what I paid for it.
So please, stop these juvenile responses and have an adult conversation with the rest of us.
35 minutes ago, Nexus said:So by projecting your beliefs across all buyers, you assume that they’re primarily obsessed with $$$.
Again, please stop making assumptions and putting words in other peoples mouths.
I have never once said anything like that. Or close to that. Ever.
The belief that I'm "projecting" is that your tactics are pushing the same speculative bubble as comics in the 1990s did.
Does that mean everyone who bought comics in the 90s bought for investment purposes? Of course not.
But like a moth to a flame those tactics drew in people who did not care about the hobby and wanted to fleece it for personal gain.
35 minutes ago, Nexus said:No one is buying commissions(!) hoping they’ll get rich later. No one is buying UNPUBLISHED art(!!) hoping they’ll get rich later. No one is buying COLOR GUIDES(!!!) hoping they’ll get rich later. And yet...I’ve had a lot of buyers for all of those.
And nobody in this discussion has said anything about any of those things.
35 minutes ago, Nexus said:So could it be that there are those out there who simply appreciate original art for what it is? An original piece by a favorite artist? A unique, one-of-a-kind artifact/memento of a favorite work? Who aren’t obsessed by $$$?
I don’t expect this to be answered by you or The Shoveler, as it neither fits your view of the hobby, collector motives, or most of all, your narrative in this thread. But there it is for everyone else.
Again, what a condescending, inaccurate, and unprofessional response to criticism.
Please stop acting like you have any idea of my "view of the hobby". You have made it very clear you do not.
-
3 hours ago, Nexus said:
Right? It's like a board psychology test: What first comes to mind when you see BORN AGAIN and YEAR ONE?
The Shoveler: "Miller's most lucrative high-water marks."
Rabid Ferret: "Financially successful item from 30 years in the past."
Me: Respectively, the greatest DD story ever, and the greatest Batman origin story ever.
Your copy-pasting skillz are extreme!! And you can use the bold font too! Your parents must be so proud
But you still seem to be missing the point - you are comparing the artists you're selling to "the greatest DD story ever and the greatest Batman origin story ever".
You can claim all you want that you're talking only artistic talent, but as Michael Douglas mentioned earlier, "how many examples are there where the collector base/marketplace has somehow overlooked supremely talented artists/works".
To his exact point, if a comic book does become "the greatest XXX story ever", the marketplace will respond. By suggesting new works fresh off the shelves are comparable to "the greatest of all time", you are suggesting that they will be rewarded in the long term for being of such high quality.
-
4 hours ago, vodou said:
Correct. The very definition of 'overlooked artist' s that his work is incredible but his market value (really more 'price' than value) doesn't reflect that. So, RabidFerret and *Spoon* Shoveler (
) are you two ready to acknowledge that there is no such thing as overlooked artists or art? I'm waiting...
You love using that bold font don't you?
Hope you weren't waiting long.
Please see my previous post.
-
6 hours ago, delekkerste said:
As for the question of why make comparisons to well-known (re: expensive) works from the past as opposed to "wonderful but worthless books from the past"...well, how many examples of the latter are there where the collector base/marketplace has somehow overlooked supremely talented artists/works for 30-40 years? Somehow I don't think saying that Tradd Moore's Venom #150 could be "this generation's Strikeforce: Morituri #20" quite does his work justice. I think many/most would agree that Tradd is an exceptional talent, so, of course any comparison has to be with a high-profile, very well-regarded artist & book (whose value it is only normal the market will have realized).
It's not about overlooking them, just that there are plenty of examples of great artists who have produced wonderful work that has not moved to 5 figure valuations. Terry Moore? Rick Leonardi? Michael Lark? Paul Chadwick? The list could go on for a long ways of talented artists who are respected and appreciated and whose work has not gone up dramatically in value.
6 hours ago, PhilipB2k17 said:I don't get what the problem is. Felix is an art rep. He believes in his stable of artists and promotes them. Some of that includes hype, which is part of doing his job to promote them. Each person who buys art from his site should do so based upon their own judgment of the art, not what Felix says about it.
I take the promotional stuff with a grain of salt. Not that I think Felix doesn't believe every word of it, of course. But I recognize that he's just doing his job as a salesman, to generate interest in his guys and to help make them money. It's just part of the hobby.
I also find it to be easy to ignore hyperbole.
But that's doesn't mean others don't, especially new people entering the hobby. And that's the concern - the unintentional effects of such language.
Comics were destroyed by speculation in the 1990s and comic art runs that same risk if the hobby is not careful. In fact, it risks an even bigger bubble since the prices are far higher.
My comments have simply been questioning whether Felix's salesmanship and hyping of books and limited windows and drop times may be having a speculative effect.
It's not about what Felix's intent is, as much as how it's received.
I think it's a valid question to ask, and even moreso when Felix makes comments like "This is a different crowd than who we interact with on the boards. They don't follow the hobby at large. Many don't bother with CAF. Most have no clue about the overall market...nor do they care.".
That is a very strange set of comments to hear about who is buying his art and does not paint a clear picture of what their intent is. If anything, it clouds it.
6 hours ago, comix4fun said:When he says Venom #150 can have the same impact as Dr. Strange #55, my mind goes to how distinct and special the artwork in that issue is, how much that art influenced other artists working then and in the future and how much that book is pointed to, artistically, as a landmark in the medium. There's nothing there about dollars and cents and portfolio appreciation.
I don't disagree with this statement, but speculation is not always about money. You can be speculating about the desirability of a certain artist, the longterm importance of a character, the likelihood of winning awards, etc.
As has many times been discussed on these boards there are certain marquis books and artists that add a gravitas to someone's collection. Plenty of people in this hobby want attention for what they own that others crave.
4 hours ago, vodou said:Heh. This is pretty funny, I'm no Felix/Nexus (Fexis/Nelux?) apologist
Coulda fooled me;)
4 hours ago, vodou said:the onus to communicate effectively is on the 'transmitter' but that doesn't absolve the 'receiver' from all responsibility either.
This is the major point I've been trying to make and which makes Felix defensive. The responsibility is on both sides. His words and actions have an impact, even if it's not what he intends.
4 hours ago, vodou said:Anyway, there is either a communication problem here or...you are calling Felix a liar (that his later stated intention here is seemingly at odds with his 'message', that his 'intention' is a 'whoops ya got me' cover-up.) So which is it?
You are reading too deeply into something that isn't there.
I never called Felix a liar or even suggested that. In fact, I've gone out of my way to repeatedly suggest the opposite - that he has been very good about avoiding the suggestion of buying to speculate.
What I have stated, repeatedly, is that "it's still possible that your actions paint a different picture you are not seeing or understanding".
These two things can exist at the same time. This is exactly what you yourself wrote "the onus to communicate effectively is on the 'transmitter' but that doesn't absolve the 'receiver' from all responsibility either."
Felix's intent may simply be to hype up artwork and artists he represents, but that doesn't mean people aren't seeing dollar signs.
-
12 hours ago, Nexus said:
Please show me the BOOK that sold for $10K. Because that's what you said, "books".
This entire thread is about comic art. "Books" was clearly referencing the specific books you were mentioning such as Dark Knight, Born Again, Dr Strange 55, Year One, etc.
Please stop intentionally misreading intent.
-
1 minute ago, Nexus said:
I'm not an art dealer. I'm a rep. *My* whole purpose isn't financial. If it was, I wouldn't be doing this. More assumptions...
How valuable is DOCTOR STRANGE #55?
You sell artwork as a business. Your goal is to sell artwork for your clients. Stop defensively splitting hairs on insignificant things.
As for DS55, I don't follow Golden, but given the lone example on Heritage selling for $10k in 2008, I'd imagine it would be worth quite a bit more today.
So I'm still curious what 30 year old art you've been comparing your artists to on artistic merits only?
) are you two ready to acknowledge that there is no such thing as overlooked artists or art? I'm waiting...
Big Drew Struzan art drop
in Original Comic Art
Posted
Drew used photo reference for all of his work. I'm not sure there's an Indy or SW piece that wasn't based on a photo:) Interesting about the scar though...I hadn't noticed that before!!
The descriptions could be clearer, but some of this is just terminology in a different industry. Read through Drew's website, books, or interviews and he uniformly calls them comprehensives. Does someone selling comic art need to explain to everyone what a panel page is?
In this case the Escape piece can be googled in 2 seconds to explain it was done for the box cover of the 2003 DVD release: http://www.drewstruzan.com/illustrated/portfolio/?fa=medium&gid=782&com&gallerystart=1&pagestart=1&type=com
That said, I agree more information in the listing would not hurt.