drdroom

Wrightson has appreciated dramatically since his death. Post that one!

Thanks for providing this image, it saves me going to find one. It illustrates my only semi-fresh observation on all this, which is that Adams is not actually a realist any more than Kirby was. He just applied a finish that people associate with realism. Look at him inventing arm and back muscles here, in a much more improvisational manner than Kirby actually. It's not just in these late sketches either, but all through Neal's classic era.

Those are acceptable.

Aw man, they don't make years like '77 anymore, I'll tell you what.

That is how I remember it

I get great stuff under $500 all the time!

Avengers 100 DPS went for higher than the CAP 113 DPS, despite the total artistic superiority of the Steranko. Character inclusion trumps?

A couple points on this. As far as the huge pile of unsold art, its all the second rate stuff. In my areas of interest, like 70's Kirby, good pages are snatched up almost as soon as they appear. I assume that's true across the board. I'd like to cap my purchase price at $1000 for an A-page, but then I'd never buy anything. So my personal, considered "cap" is a function of where the market seems to be, and part of my argument to myself involves assurance that I can get my cost out of it pretty quickly if need be. One personal ramification is that I am looking at Heritage sales with a considerably more jaundiced eye–I know many here are way ahead of me on this.

That's true, the grading nonsense thankfully doesn't apply. But all the other market manipulation techniques described are available--hyping up record sales, CREATING record sales, shilling in general, buying your own piece (which represents the values of a category you literally hold stock in) from your own auction house at a record price (but with a special discount even?)...

I'll throw in my two bits, in celebration of one of Jack's signature characteristics: his unquenchable desire to keep going, to find out what else is out there.

Most of these key covers under discussion aren't remotely the greatest comic OA by aesthetic standards (SS 4 & WF 29 excepted). My thoughts went immediately to whole stories: Red Nails, The Pact, Master Race, The Crushed Gardenia, Jennifer... just off the top of my head.

A couple "Space Ghosts" animation pitch pieces sold pretty well in the June Heritage. They are signed by Sgroi and don't look like Toth (to me), so why were they sold as Toth/Sgroi? Did Alex do the cut-outs or the color or something?

Now that Glen has pointed it out, I'm thinking a re-valuation of Thor pages is in order. Add 10% for each characteristic no-face panel on the page? Plus bonus 20% for no Thor-face at all on a multi-Thor-figure page? I feel my Kirby collection is incomplete without one one...

Does anyone know why these pitch pieces signed by Tony Sgroi are also attributed to Alex Toth? https://comics.ha.com/itm/original-comic-art/illustrations/alex-toth-and-tony-sgroi-the-space-ghosts-pitch-piece-illustration-original-art-hanna-barbe/a/7244-95404.s

One of the greats. RIP

Agree.

I imagine they didn't want to tread on my intellectual property rights by using a phrase like "amateur restoration."

I feel sort of guilty or something.

Update: I wrote to HA about the Titan splash and Todd Hignite got right back to me & said they would investigate, update the listing & inform bidders. Might knock a few grand off the price, but I suspect it will still improve greatly on the Ebay sale. A very handsome splash, much nicer than if Ayers had inked it.

I'm always impressed when someone can read Stan's notes. What does the other one say?

Hey, that Lois 122 cover is coming up for sale somewhere--comicconnect, maybe?

If I get Alzheimers, amnesia, and senile dementia I fully expect those covers to be among the last 10-15 memories still in my head.

Yes, it sold on Ebay for 7K something I believe. The Ebay listing was more informative than the current HA listing, including a pic of the published splash. I was involved in a discussion on comicart-L about the apparent amateur restoration, which the seller saw and chimed in on. When Jeff Gorrell (who I otherwise didn't know) posted the page on CAF last year, I wrote this to him: "Hi Jeff, An absolutely terrific monster splash. Years ago we discussed the mystery of the published variant at some length on either Kirby-L or ComicArt-L. My theory is this: Kirby originally drew this version, with buildings getting crushed, and Heath inked it. Post inking it was decided the page was too violent (maybe CCA rejected it), and someone in the office, not Kirby or Heath, made the change, either with white-out or a paste up now lost. Subsequently, someone, perhaps an early collector, removed either the paste-up or the white out, but in so doing, damaged the original. This required the original linework to be recreated/ re-inked. This is the only way I can explain the odd smeared greys in the unpublished drawing --maybe some chemical solution was tried on the white-out? --and why the inks appear so amateurish in that section (well below the ability of Sol Brodsky or anyone else in-house), whereas the rest of the page is spotless Heath inks. Does the paper surface look different, rippled or abraded, in that section? It would be interesting to get the opinion of Robert Dennis or Gordon Christman on this, if you ever have a chance to show them the page. best, Aaron" Jeff wrote back very graciously considering I was pointing out a distinct problem with the page: "Aaron, Thank you for your thoughtful analysis of what probably happened with the Kirby page. I took a close look and think I see what you mean. It's in a frame, but I'll take it out when I get a chance and look even more closely. Then maybe I can answer the question bout whether that section looks abraidded or somewhat different from the rest. I'm impressed that you can tell so much from the image. Again, thanks. I'll let you know what I find out. Jeff" Then followed up with this: "Aaron, I took the Kirby splash page out of its frame and did a close inspection of the area that you wrote about. Everything I see there confirms your analysis of what happened. There is some abrasion of the paper in that area and clear evidence of some non-professional cleaning and attempted re-inking. I could feel differences in the smoothness of the paper around that area, too. If you are interested in seeing more, please send me your email address so I can attach a photo. Thanks again for your thoughtful analysis. Best wishes, Jeff" ...and then sent me a close up photo: "Aaron, Here's how it looks close up. The clean up and redrawing does look amateurish. I'll keep this photo and your explanation with the art in case I decide to sell it (not very likely). Jeff" All of which I'm quoting here partly in memoriam for a collector I didn't know who instantly proved himself to be the real deal. I regret that I never had any further dealings with him. He didn't sound like a guy who was expecting to die in a year. It sounds like if he were here to oversee the sale, maybe the Heritage listing would acknowledge the amateur resto?

I second Vodou's sentiment. Never heard even a whisper of any of this stuff hitting the market.