Bronty

Well, I think of it as maybe the best comic book I ever read. I'm sure I'm not alone.

what did that mage cover (?) go for?

agreed. Even with only Swampy's feet being visible, that's THE issue to have a page from. I love that issue and would love a page but I don't care enough to pay 50k+ for the type of page I'd want. But I'm sure there's lots of schmucks like me that would stop it from ever getting too cheap.

I knew you would! I still have a couple copies myself, just not as fancy! My pre hero collection dreams about growing up to be yours

The discussion did in fact begin with how the character was drawn. I understand your perspective, its more personal to you and that's no surprise given what you've told me. For my part, I was born in Europe and I live in Canada. I don't carry the same kind of baggage about black and white that many Americans seem to.

Its all downhill from Goom.

wow, what a cover. too bad!

How's the view from your high horse? I took the time to explain my position. Your response is disappointing.

fixed

You're moving on the goalposts on me Greg. We were talking about the way the character was drawn, and now you're bringing the dialogue into it - those are two separate things. That being said if the character was a fat Italian with a giant bowl of pasta who lives at home with his mother, would it be any different? At the end of the day, you're probably right, but I draw a line between something that's a racial stereotype - and something that's racist. Stereotyping is basically racial profiling. There's some truth there - Italians do tend to like pasta, black people do tend to like watermelon (who doesn't?) and Irish people tend to not mind a pint (cheers!). In my view racism is more about prejudice - judging someone based on their ethnic profile and assuming that those generalizations apply before you've even gotten to know them. Its the difference between understanding that Irish people generally don't mind a pint and assuming that an Irish person you just met is a drunk. I.e. there is a difference between accepting that generalizations start from a seed of truth and pre judging someone just because of their race/skin color/country they were born in. Granted, its a very slippery slope. (Before you post any more panels, I'm not familiar with the character, you seem to be and maybe that's one of the reasons for your strong feelings on it. For my part, I've seen the two panels you've posted and that's it, but I have an opinion and my opinion is that a stereotype (and by extension the author or artist making use of a stereotype in a story) is not racist in and of itself no matter what character we are talking about. If that wasn't the case then an Asian character that is good at math is a racist character. I just don't buy that).

I dunno. I mean the character is certainly drawn in a racially stereotypical way. But are stereotypes racist per se? I’m not sure. I can drawn an Irish kid as a leprechaun to exaggerate the idea he’s Irish. Is that racist in and of itself? It’s a pretty fine line but it’s not as though it’s a slam dunk in either direction IMO.

#1 Stache though!

Overstock I presume. Like somebody printed 5,000 but only used 4,000 and stuffed 1,000 in their garage. Submitted a stack to cgc and said grade only the 9.8s and up. --100% conjecture mind you.

As a kid watching late night TV the paintings looked pretty good! I can't say that now as an adult looking at them with post art-collecting eyes. Neat artifacts. But yeah, five figures, six if someone is drunk. Not eight.

Back of the envelope math by the hardcore speculators, I agree. I’ve heard some of those discussions because they were everywhere during Covid . For my part I just can’t buy if I don’t believe in the material.

Yeah, so? it’s nothing a pair of pliers can’t fix

I suspect we all agree with you there, but that's the point. Trying to turn it into math is a flawed prospect.

somebody actually bought that? I hope that's on the up and up. I guess its possible.

In fairness, there's hardly any point. A collectible ROI calculation is mental masturbation. Collectibles don't appreciate in a straight line, don't give predictable returns, and every collectible appreciates - or depreciates - differently. Any calc would be so laden with assumptions as to be essentially worthless.

agreed. The only thing I have to add is the whole rookie card angle that is being discussed doesn't have much relevance. I don't think there's an enormous difference in value between the 1st painting he painted on TV and 2nd, 3rd, or the 100th. What I remember about that show more than anything is that every episode and every painting were basically interchangeable. 'Happy little tree' over here, 'happy little tree' over there, etc. While I do think there is SOME value bump there for it being from the first episode, at auction I think that's more 50k than 10m. The IDEA of paying big money for the first screen matched Ross painting might sound like a fun thing to do, but I don't think anyone will actually do it... not past 50-100k anyways. Of course, this is all conjecture..

ha, that's a fun article

what a glorious time

What do you mean by twice as good? You seem to be implying one went for twice as much as the other, but HA seems to indicate that the 'personal love' panel page and the 'came the dawn' panel went for almost the same price. It seems to me the panel is aesthetically the best single shot, but the personal love is complete and more substantial, and that's how we ended up at the same amount of 'hot girl tax.'

sure, but its a big check

that's certainly the first thing that ran through my mind also. I had a nirvana concert t shirt circa 1992 ( guess I shouldn't have thrown it out) and the thing disintegrated pretty quickly (to Robotman's point - thin and cheap). Can't imagine its that hard to counterfeit something that cost nothing to make in the first place??