• 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.

Terry Doyle

Member
  • Posts

    3,893
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Terry Doyle

  1. Received this one earlier in the week (approx. 13" x 20"). For a long time I'd been highly-dismissive of re-creations (which I'd always considered a pointless exercise), then I came upon this guy's work. I think it's highly unlikely that Kirby's FF # 6 cover art still exists (as I also believe is the case with a lot of early silver age Marvel covers . . . I don't subscribe to the theory of a hidden stash waiting to re-surface). No real substitute for the real thing, of course (and I'm not kidding myself on that score), but still impressive in its own right:

     

    Three more re-dos in my CAF Covers Gallery # 4, if anyone's interested in seeing what else I've opted for.

     

    ff6cgc.jpg

  2.  

    I hope the debate continues because it's fun. And all you guys that complain that this forum only focuses on the financial side of OA should speak up and opine. Your day has come!

     

    Peace out

    Scott

     

     

    Speak up about one cover or the other cover? It is a bit limiting. I don't like either one.

     

    Both have artistic merit but, as Lucky B says, speaking up about one cover over another, is a bit limiting (especially if they fall outside your sphere of interest). (shrug)

     

    Great debate if you're passionate about either (or both) covers. I'm not.

  3. I think my favourite write-up, for a piece of art, was Mike Burkey's "first appearance of Devil Dinosaur, lol" for the cover art to the unpublished X-Men # 10 by Kirby and Stone. lol

     

    Wheras Mike's having a joke with us, I imagine that Steve Donnelly (if he was offering the art) would claim it to be featuring, "a Devil Dinosaur protopye", and he'd mean it . . . hm

  4. @Terry

     

    . . . But those pieces wouldn't look the way they look if they were for a different product or even if not for product at all.

     

     

    I understand were you're coming from, Dan.

     

    The bulk of my small MTG collection (with the exception of a single painting by Steve Belledin) are the works of Kev Walker and Volkan Baga.

     

    Kev has produced a lot of comic-book work over the years (some of it painted, which is comparable to his MTG stuff). Volkan is a trained/educated painter whose roots and influences lie in the classic works you see hanging in art galleries.

     

    Neither guys are one-trick-ponies.

     

    MTG has certainly helped promote their work, and provided a regular paying gig, but their respective talents were not shaped by the company.

     

    Right, fair enough (thumbs u

     

    But that volkan baga gargoyle... I don't even have to look at the card to know that she's likely a creature card, and likely has some kind of special ability (hence her tallying her victims on the stone wall).

     

    The piece says "I'm a MTG original" on its own

     

    It's a gorgon, not a gargoyle!

     

    The piece speaks to me in a different way.

     

    She's saying, "I need to add Bronty to my tally!"

     

    :jokealert:

     

     

  5. @Terry

     

    . . . But those pieces wouldn't look the way they look if they were for a different product or even if not for product at all.

     

     

    I understand were you're coming from, Dan.

     

    The bulk of my small MTG collection (with the exception of a single painting by Steve Belledin) are the works of Kev Walker and Volkan Baga.

     

    Kev has produced a lot of comic-book work over the years (some of it painted, which is comparable to his MTG stuff). Volkan is a trained/educated painter whose roots and influences lie in the classic works you see hanging in art galleries.

     

    Neither guys are one-trick-ponies.

     

    MTG has certainly helped promote their work, and provided a regular paying gig, but their respective talents were not shaped by the company.

  6. .

     

    . . . In a way, even to the works that you collect 'only for the art'.. because if they lack a content association of significance they will be priced without that additional premium.

     

     

    For myself (as you know) I have zero interest in the game, so couldn't care less about all those factors you mention. Important to those collectors who have time in the game and also collect the art . . . yes, without doubt.

     

    If a great painting . . . i.e. one that spurs my imagination and speaks to me on an emotional level (but fronting a weak card in the game), I'm delighted not to be having to pay a premium. As I say, my interests are totally divorced from the game.

     

    Works for me, even if you might struggle to understand why?

     

    Different strokes.

     

    My collection is fairly ecclectic and the MTG stuff I have is only a small smattering of examples bought for the great artworks (not their standing in the game).

     

    I do collect other stuff.