techtre2003

24 to 18?!?! Rude. Looks like you're on The List

No idea. Just going by the sellers wording of "no". Is your Walking Dead #1 CGC 9.8 still available for $600 here? http://boards.collectors-society.com/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=4535681&fpart=1 That thread is open, with no notification that it's closed... if so That's what I mean by "a LOT of open threads". xxx ooo Rupp Damn, you just beat me! Just missed it! He didn't post the in the sales thread. You can still grab it!

That's good to hear! I have the same concerns you did about the movie. ASM 1 was just kind of ho-hum for me; not bad but nothing to write home about either. I figured this would be more of the same but sounds like maybe not

There are a lot of people around here who shill their auctions. Really? That's unfortunate to hear. I know some people might not see it this way but to me shiller = scammer.

Is this a binding vote?

Fair enough, I don't understand 90% of what must go through people's minds in general so I guess I shouldn't expect to understand it when it comes to art And I can agree with what you say on the real vs. reproduction when you really start to look at the work. I meant it as a more of a "would this catch your eye" type of thing.

Someone said you need to see Pollocks at scale...viewing the original is always a vastly superior experience to mag or web reproductions...and if this was ever true of anyone, it is true of Rothko. His work is not accessible at first glance, they reveal themselves over time and evoke emotional states and a very significant factor is being enveloped by them at scale. these are very large paintings, meant to take up your entire field of vision. That's fine, you guys have your own opinions on this stuff, obviously there are many people who are impressed by it. I still question how many people actually think these types of paintings are great masterpieces because that's how they truly feel or if they are great masterpieces because someone else said so. It's in a museum so it must be important right? In other words, if you didn't know who this artist was and you saw a full size reproduction of it at a local market, would you stop and marvel at it or would you pass right by it? I'm not saying it's impossible that someone likes this painting; I believe ucleben when he says he likes it. I think that second Pollock piece that was posted looks pretty cool myself. But when people start saying they feel great emotion and tear up over 4 lines of color painted on a canvas (I don't care how big it is) that's when I start having a hard time believing the sincerity of it all. If you would have told me this painting sold for $1,000 I would have said that person got ripped off; but I've spent that much money on things other people never would so I could understand it a little better. When I see the 72.8 mil price tag, that's when I start making comments about it

I recently started putting cayenne pepper on anything you'd normally put salt on. I tried it on popcorn once it it gave me a terrible sneezing fit.

Nah, Gordon Gekko is NOT someone I'd look up to

Stick around, noob, I've still got a lot to teach you. No thanks.

Even if he was, I'm sure once he sees where OA prices are nowadays, he'll run in no matter how much money he has. There are already celebrities (excluding Ross, who is hardcore) who dabble in collecting OA, including ones that I suspect are wealthier than Eminem. It still hasn't stopped all these big OA pieces from going to the same usual suspect collections. Until I see celebrity outsiders coming in and winning these big OA auctions, I'm going to stick with my position, which has been the correct one. I actually don't doubt someone who is actually in the OA world will probably end up buying the piece. I'm only going back and forth on this because I think it's comical how you state your opinions (even if they are well informed) as fact.

Exactly. People think that when celebrities get involved, they're all going to want the best of the best, money is no object and trophy items are preferred. While there is always the exception(s) that prove the rule, generally speaking, it takes a really deep clinical psychosis to be obsessed with the difference between a 9.2 and a 9.4 or with CGC labels at all. The overwhelming majority of comic fans out there just want a copy that looks nice, doesn't cost too much and that they can read. I thought we were talking about OA and that comic rules didn't apply to OA... My company has some popular musical artists as clients and from what I've seen they have no trouble at all away tons of money on trivial things. Just like we were talking about with fine art; it's a status symbol to have the expensive pieces. So I really don't see the stretch here that a celebrity with a ton of money and who is into comics puts down on this piece.

Didn't Kirk Hammett have the complete interior pages to X-Men 1 at one point? That's quite a splash in the OA world in my mind Yes, he bought it and sold it a few years later and that was about the extent of his involvement other than his involvement on the periphery with Famous Monsters covers and Frazetta paintings. Like I said, not really a big splash. So if he did that, why is there zero chance Eminem wouldn't do the same with this piece? Did you read that second article? The guy needed a mid grade avengers 3 . All that money , big marvel fan. , and he still needs a comic that certain regular joes wouldn't bother with The one that was 5 years old?

Sorry, "virtually zero" chance. It's already been shown here Eminem is into comics too and he was just recently on a variant cover (forget which one) so maybe he is thinking about getting into OA now?

Didn't Kirk Hammett have the complete interior pages to X-Men 1 at one point? That's quite a splash in the OA world in my mind Yes, he bought it and sold it a few years later and that was about the extent of his involvement other than his involvement on the periphery with Famous Monsters covers and Frazetta paintings. Like I said, not really a big splash. So if he did that, why is there zero chance Eminem wouldn't do the same with this piece?

Where did I go wrong? The nostalgia part?

I wasn't being smug. Posts that say things like "my five year old can do that" are examples of excessive pride (being smug). I do apologize for that. The smug comment was just a general reference to what I've seen and heard over the years. From what I've gathered from your posts in the WC, smug is definitely not a word I would use to describe you sir. A few of things: I like the painting Fair enough. If I were looking at you right now I'd be raising an eyebrow with a funny look on my face but I've seen people into much stranger things so I'll just leave it alone. I don't know exactly why; I don't really "understand" it. It appears to be done by one of those 20th century abstract painters- I could probably use google and pretend I know who it is, but I won't. It doesn't matter. This I respect 100%. You aren't saying you like it because you heard some other jerk yaking on about how it represents some b.s. or because a big name painted it so you are supposed to think it's great. You like it just because you like it. If someone believes they or their child could do this, then they should try. If successful, they could make some money, or show that the art world is fake and pretentious. If they fail, they might walk away with a different perspective on this type of art. Since this whole conversation started I've done a little Googling and this has absolutely been done many times. It has been proven as far as I'm concerned. The above statement was made from my own experience. In art class, I had been copying paintings fairly successfully, - I mean they looked okay - like this N.C.Wyeth: After my constant criticism of Picasso ("he can't draw, he can't paint"), my art teacher had me pick one of his paintings and copy it. He gave me a week. It was a painting similar to this one: I could not do it. Nothing you would recognize as an attempted copy of Picasso, like you could my attempts at Wyeth, or Bellows, or Homer. Not even close. I quit criticizing Picasso after that. I learned my lesson. Talk is cheap. Experience taught me that. I actually like some of Picasso's stuff and I know I could never replicate it. There is actually quite a bit of art that I like. But, like you, I like it because I like it. Not because I'm supposed to like it. And I still think the prices these pieces fetch are simply preposterous no matter how outstanding they are.

Sorry, I know the game was pretty terrible but that is just awesome!

Ok, 6 years old is probably a little young. Change that to any adult and I'd still stand behind that statement. I LOVE comics. But I'd still say it's crazy to pay 50k or 100k for a Kirby! I have a hard time paying over a few hundred dollars on a single book. I'm working on a ASM run myself and I always struggle with the fact that to complete the run I'll have to drop a few thousand on a #1. The only way I can even justify that is knowing it's an investment that I'll be able to resell if I ever need to. Plus, for a lot of people, comics are a big part of their youth. Nostalgia plays a HUGE roll in the money we spend on these books. I don't think many people are dropping $$$ on these paintings because it reminds them of their childhood

I figure it's easier to diminish and make fun of something I don't understand, than to educate myself in an attempt to understand it. And this is where I really take issue with the whole subject. The "you don't understand it", "you don't get art", "people with money can appreciate it" - my personal favorite. If this is the kind of thing you enjoy, fine, I can accept that. I'll still snicker at you for claiming it's some great masterpiece but if that's what you want to drop millions of dollars on, it's your money. I'm a grown man collecting comicbooks, I know many people will laugh at me for that. I understand it does seem silly and that's fine with me. I just hate the smugness of it all. Guess what, it's not that I don't get it, it's that I think it's . No, a 6 year old could not reproduce this painting. That would take real talent to recreate any painting stroke for stroke. However, a 6 year old could most certainly create something very similar. I get it, there is thought and emotion behind these paintings. You know what, that doesn't make them good. And believe it or not I'm not some unwashed heathen who can't enjoy art. I love seeing and hearing what talented people can produce with their hands. But some of this contemporary "art" is just laughable.

It's difficult to enter into this work because of how the aura of the sexy fish threatens to penetrate the exploration of montage elements. Yes, I concur. Personally, I wouldn't have paid a penny over 71 Million for it. , I may have bumped it up to 73. It would look ok in my spare Summer yacht.

It's difficult to enter into this work because of how the aura of the sexy fish threatens to penetrate the exploration of montage elements. Yes, I concur.

No way! I wonder if any of the carts will be preserved well enough to still play. That would be awesome if someone brought along a generator and old TV and Atari and was able to fire one up

That's right, which is why it's so important to know which elements the market values and how much. Trying to ascertain valuation just by looking at the covers without any market context is not a very useful endeavor. For the record, I'm not particularly fond of the #137 cover myself, but the market is what the market is. And I do know the market. True, but you have the creation of the Phoenix in 101 which to me is just as important (if not more so) than the death in 137. And using the same logic as the Wolvie 180-181 situation; the market has decided 101 is the more important book correct?

Well, there's that gross mischaracterization and what I actually said on the matter: No, it's pretty much spot on with what you said here: And, in one fell swoop, you not only completely discounted my argument for no other reason than "you weren't there", but you also confused what someone else said with me. Are you seriously going to deny that's what your quoted statement here is....? We have all been over this before. I am perfectly capable of refuting your misstatements, false claims, misrepresentations, and erroneous "facts", but it serves no purpose. "Circulation data" does not prove who was the most popular X-Man, because the circulation data is for the X-MEN...NOT Wolverine, because he had no title of his own. And this is one of many of the mistakes you made in that discussion. And no one "stealthily moved the goalposts", as you misrepresent here. I established the parameters of my argument as up to issue #200 from the outset. You may disagree with those parameters, but I certainly did not "stealthily change them" after the fact. Why do you keep doing this? You are....again and again and again...trying to present your opinion as established fact. "Argue the point into oblivion"...? Who tried to start up the argument AGAIN today...? Hint: not me. I will simply quote you one more time: "The plural of anecdote is not evidence." Nothing was "proven" as you claim, because, at the heart, we were talking about OPINION, and the fact that you think the memories of the 10-15 or so board members who chimed in to agree with you somehow constitutes a "comprehensive refutation" is beyond all sanity. In any event, as usual, this accomplishes nothing good, so I will go back to ignoring you. I'm truly sorry it has come to this, really, but nothing good can come of trying to defend myself against you: you won't quit, no matter the truth. So...I quit, as far as you are concerned. I thought it was proven beyond reasonable doubt that Wolverine was not only the most popular X-Men, but clearly one of the most popular Characters starting in 1978 to 1986. You did read the polling correct? Eagle 1978: Favourite Character 5th Wolverine Eagle 1978: Favourite Supporting Character 5th Wolverine Eagle 1979: Favourite Character 2nd Wolverine Eagle 1979: Favourite Supporting Character 1st Wolverine Eagle 1980: Favourite Character 1st Wolverine Eagle 1980: Favourite Supporting Character 1st Wolverine No awards 81 CBG starts in 82 CBG 1982: Favourite Character 1st Wolverine CBG 1982: Favourite Cover 1st Wolverine 1 Eagle 1983: Favourite Character: Wolverine Eagle 1983: Favourite Single or Continued Story: Wolverine #1-4 (miniseries) CBG 1984: Favourite Character 1st Wolverine No Eagle in 85, and slimmed down in 84 CBG 1986: Favourite Character 2nd Wolverine http://www.hahnlibrary.net/comics/awards/cbg86.php Eagle 1986: Favourite Character 2nd Wolverine Eagle 1986: Character Most Worthy of Own Title 1st Wolverine http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eagle_Award_%28comics%29 http://www.hahnlibrary.net/comics/awards/cbg86.php http://www.cbgxtra.com/knowledge-base/for-your-reference/cbg-fan-award-winners-1982-present That's just in the UK though right? They don't count..