Terry Doyle

My tastes in OA are fairly eclectic. Been meaning to purchase a few examples of Movie Poster OA for some time and I happened upon this original - measuring a large 21" x 28" - earlier this week at what I considered to be a giveaway price.

The artist is Tom Chantrell, a British painter who enjoyed a long career as a prolific Movie Poster artist.

From a 1969 movie called 'The Christmas Tree' that I don't ever recall seeing (and probably don't want to see anytime soon), but I am a fan of the artist's works, so I'm happy to have landed a nice example of an original painting . . .

That Sensation cover is a pretty good fake. The "production marks" are a nice touch.

Measuring 10.6" x 8.1" . . .

Terry specific Sweet Toof fan or just Brits in general? Forgot to mention it's a workup sketch for this mural in ST's new studio:

Country of origin doesn't figure too highly in the equation, for me. I tend to like things that look interesting, as opposed to all the endless sketches or pin-ups of super-hero-types-in-long-underwear, or nudies-in-no-underwear that feature too heavily.

Your illo made me smile . . .

That's good.

Sorry chaps,

 

here is the proper link

 

Crime Does Not Pay 131

Nice cover, congrats.

There's a before & after image in Robert Dennis's CAF, if you're not already aware?

There is a thread within this OA forum, but you could always post something in the Marketplace or here.

Doc Joes Twice Up Art Day

 

Crime Does Not Pay 131 Cover

 

from the Comiclink Description

 

Original art from CDNP is quite rare on the market. Rumor has it (confirmed by relatives of editor Charles Biro) that when publisher Lev Gleason left the comic book industry in the middle 1950s, he deliberately destroyed and disposed of his archived art. This means that the small number of pieces from this landmark series that have surfaced over the years have primarily emerged from the collections of the artists who produced them, most notably George Tuska.

It would be nice to see it, but you have some sort of restricted setting

It sounds good!

all I have to say is if you bid 2000 bucks on a piece of art when the person have zero feedback. you are too trusting of a person. he,s going to be real sad when he finds out it a fake. ;[

There were about 8 different bidders on that item willing to take a chance.

Very romantic.

Oh, and as an afterthought, internet days (and soaring values) have been good to me when it came to selling-off chunks of my collection to make big lifestyle changes (latest one being that I retired 7 years early from work as a result of my art sales of last year).

So, pre-internet days as a collector . . . and internet days as a seller.

Both have worked well for me.

Another great episode and video. Thanks for bringing this to the hobby.

 

 

2 - for those collectors that started pre-internet and had to search for comic art the manner that Glenn discussed, which do you prefer - Today where it is easier to track down pieces, there is a community that is easily accessible to discuss art, and easier to get exposed to new art/artists OR do older/more seasoned collectors prefer the times when art was harder to track down, but cheaper and more challenging (with, presumably, a greater thrill of conquest once a page was found)?

Started collecting in 1982. For over ten years I was mostly buying EC art via the Russ Cochran Art Auctions. These were subscriber-based, so the audience would have been much smaller to what you see today with the internet auctions.

In addition to the EC stuff (at one time I owned several hundred pages of complete stories and some covers), I had to do the leg-work to track down original art over here in the UK (I was also collecting home-grown art, which could be very difficult to locate when it came to the prime works). Checking out possible leads as a result of research and building friendships along the way (I would travel round the country meeting-up with other collectors).

Lots of good memories and I built-up a wonderful collection (most of the good stuff now gone), without having to break the bank doing so..

Easier to locate art nowadays, in the age of the internet, but the good stuff is heavily competed for and the guys with the deep-pockets win the prizes.

 

G'nite xxx

Discussion of the MB shilling topic isn't my point. Of course it should be discussed, debated, and ultimately pushes made for answers. I'm simply dismayed that people feel the need to start another topic header to do so. It's dumb, frankly speaking.

 

Isn't that the point however, to divert attention from the original discussion?

Which one was the original discussion . . . I'm losing track?

Discussion of the MB shilling topic isn't my point. Of course it should be discussed, debated, and ultimately pushes made for answers. I'm simply dismayed that people feel the need to start another topic header to do so. It's dumb, frankly speaking.

Especially when boardies are now having to copy-and-paste their posts onto other threads just to cover all bases.

doc joes walking dead art day!

Just what the doctor ordered!

Pleasant screams . . .

.. any chance of scaling those pics down a bit?

+1

Yeah, Superman to boot, literally!

Will do, thanks.

Who knows what happened to his nose (or is that the point?). No accompanying description.

 

. . . To make matters worse a complete stranger on the train platform today asked me if I had any naked pictures of my wife. I told him he had me confused with someone else.

 

Maybe some of the silent posters are Mikes "friends" ?

 

 

Terry,

 

Is that really outside the realm of possibility ? Somebody shilled Mike's auctions. While it could have been merely an administrative "friend" of mike's, it more likely was a person or people intimately involved in the hobby. While ADMITTEDLY speculative on my part that people on this board that are silent are these "friends" of Mike, it is certainly not outside the realm of possibility by a long shot.

Anonymous posters have been around a long, long time and act with a false sense of bravado, often exhibiting trollish behaviour.

At this moment in time, Mike Burkey is probably more concerned with damage-limitation and trying to put matters right. I somehow doubt that he would actively want 'friends' to post here on his behalf and pour more petrol on the fire.

Just my opinion, Peter, you're entitled to yours.

Maybe some of the silent posters are Mikes "friends" ?

After going through 80-some pages, covering 3 threads this weekend, I'm in the camp of this being somewhat overblown. Was Mike wrong, yes. Are things going a little too far, with the torches & pitchforks ?? I certainly think so.

When we get to the point of FBI links, talks of federal investigations, I think things have gained a mob mentality, and a un-necessarily nasty twist.

Not trying to change anyone's opinion. I certainly wouldn't want anyone to try to change mine, but sheesh...

And if anyone doesn't think other dealers have done the same, you have your head buried in the sand.

 

I think people just don't like the double standard that those in 'The Club' get to play by, while collectors are considered peons or canon fodder.

 

That the regular posters who are usually quick to rush in with their moral judgments and legal opinions about almost every issue remain silent speaks volumes about their hypocrisy and lame character.

 

It has actually been quite funny as some of these long time posters usually love to espouse their moral superiority and deep legal knowledge.

 

Sometimes silence is an action.

Strong views, you're entitled to them, but why do you feel the need to post behind a shielded identity? At least a lot of those 'silent' posters you refer to are identifiable.

Since my CAF gallery has been shut down, I decided to create my own website. The name was a no brainer!

 

www.faceittiger.com

 

It is a work in progess, but feel free to give me any feedback on it.

Thanks,

Ankur

Have you not gone the route of asking Bill Cox to re-instate your gallery, Ankur?