Bronty

Force of will - sold, $350,000 all-in.

I would have liked it better in black, but I love having Arnie's sig on that.

good lord

You may be right; we just don't know what happened. I guess the reason I do give the houses the benefit of the doubt is precisely because of my own experience in having won some lots for much much less than I proxy bid on them.

I have a similar reaction when people say they were bid up. The real test is - what was this winning bid in relation to FMV? If one bids 100, 110, 120% of FMV and wins right at max bid, big deal, it doesn't evidence a thing (let alone prove a thing). Now, if that same person bids 500% of FMV on something they absolutely had to have and they win for their max, that's more suspicious. I have won certain auctions where I proxy bid and won for like 10% of my max bid. That suggests to me that I was certainly not bid up by the house.

I agree completely that its a psychological thing, and the trade dress is part of that for sure. As for whether its a print or a recreation, I'd argue that's psychological too; anyone with experience collecting that kind of material doesn't have those concerns because you know what to look for. But for someone used to B&W work, sure, its a concern, they aren't as comfortable with authenticity and that can be a psychological hurdle to get over.

I'm not sure the 3 minute extension gets higher bids. For example, I'm not going to spend my time/money/energy with an auction house that requires to be effectively be on hold indefinitely like that for a single item.... not to mention the fact that juggling several items you're interested in with different extension periods happening in real time is a chore. For those reasons, CC and Goldin are not for me. I'm sure I'm not the only one. My guess is whatever they might gain from having a long extension period they probably lose more in potential buyer frustration not to mention in potential buyers choosing to not use the site.

Sure, there's a familiarity there. That's part of the psychological effect; its easy comfortable/familiar to collect the pieces that you know/understand and that are similar to what you already have. It IS a b&w medium for the most part. That's okay, but it doesn't make a really good painted illustration any less compelling in person vs an ink piece, so comic OA ends up being this little island of b&w line art appreciation in the middle of a mostly color work world. A b&w Gil Elvgren is going to trade for a steep discount compared to his paintings for example. At the end of the day, it is what it is, and the niches and artists known for color work are going to have color work that's prized, and the niches like comic OA known for b&w are going to have b&w be prized. I don't see any of that changing any time soon, nor does it need to.

On the face of it, its such a paradox. The same collectors that demand color in their printed comics and won't consider B&W printed comics (short of TMNT 1) demand the opposite (b&w only) in their OA collecting. I've wrestled with understanding this effect as well, but over time I've come to see there are really several good reasons. Off the top of my head: 1. Comic artists (pencillers/inkers anyways) spend their lives drawing, not painting. They often really aren't very good painters. They can get by with adding a little watercolor to an ink drawing, but fully painted pieces? Its just not what they spend their career doing. They are rarely great at it. 2. OA collectors understand stats, white-out, authenticity, etc on b&W pieces. They don't really understand painted pieces the same way - a little weird/intimidating/scary to them. They know to what to look for on published b&W OA. They may not be comfortable assessing authenticity on a painting (as you know a drawing is easier to forge than a painting, but that if they don't know what to look for, they don't know what to look for). 3. Paintings take so much time. Its difficult to have a broad body of comic book work if you're a painter (only). People like Sienkiwiecz (sp?) that both painted and drew and did both have managed to have a big collectable body of comic art, but only by doing both. 4. Most critically of all, I think there is an overwhelming psychological reason. People tend to bid on, support the value of, pieces similar to some way to something they already have. Placing a premium on painted work would be really uncomfortable psychologically because it would require the collector to mentally accept that the b&w pieces in their collection - that they love and maybe paid through the nose for - are 'lesser' somehow. Simply put, everyone is far too invested in b&w work (probably emotionally but *certainly* financially) to not have b&w trade at a premium.

For ASM 1? 3m? I’d take that bet. I was actually wondering if that 9.6 went so strong because it was an upgrade candidate. Note there is a 2nd 9.8 on the census now after many years of there being a single 9.8.

I like fastner &larson artwork but how many people even know who they are? The portfolios and whatnot they worked on just aren’t as well known as the books themselves. If their images had been used as covers it’s a different story I suspect. There’s going to be a pretty hard cap on the value of most comic art from artists that did very little comic art . Portfolio plates aren’t going to cut it except in rare cases.

Maybe someone who knows thr Byrne market better than I do can comment, but it strikes me more as 10k than 20k - maybe the auction result is a touch low but it seems more in line than the initial ask?

Will it… wait for it… bomb?

I don't know the answer, but if we're speculating I would be more worried that the original materials degrade faster than the restoration materials, as opposed to vice versa.

The bids don't mean anything til the auction's over.

For me he really brought the characters to life in a way most artists couldn't do (speaking to the covers here in particular). As I say, I don't quite see it the same way I did now as back then, but I respect his talent and fondly appreciate his place in the evolution of comics.

I love his stuff too. It was so dynamic at the time. Holds up pretty well, but kinda mind blowing when I was 12.

Boy, reading the thread title and seeing this image without any other context.... yeesh

ugh, not sure what's up with that stupid thunderbolts logo

131k now

Limiting oneself arbitrarily to a really low number is one way to end up buying a buncha krap you'll just resell later.

$105,000 now, so my 100k+ guess looks like a winner

I have started doing a video game original art podcast with a few other people and this episode was all about Boris & Julie. We talk about their game art but also their comic related art from the Marvel mags (like Savage Sword of Conan), Warren, and even the Marvel Masterpiece cards along with recent developments in the market for their art. If it interests you please enjoy: