John E.

Ha! Of course! Like Michael wrote, I used it to build my collection. Every once in a while I run into something under priced at a show that I can flip, usually from a comic dealer who doesn't know the OA market, but that's the only way to make the flip worthwhile, buying low and selling high(er). If there is an absurdly low BIN on eBay and you're the first to see it, then you can probably make some profit from it later. Generally, flipping is quite hard because you're likely to sell on an auction site and the fees will kill your margin. If you started now, you'd be paying a lot in "tuition" figuring out what sells and what doesn't. When you get it right you'll see that the returns are okay, but not life changing, and that you were better off just saving the money for the piece you really want. That's why I left that game. It's break-even. Maybe in the end, as I got better, I was 10-15% in the black? You might be better off digging through comic long boxes at a show looking for overlooked gems if you're thinking of flipping. A comic already has a market--an ASM 300 already has a line of buyers with cash in their hands. An original page from the Green Team, not so much.

You're speaking of Jae's work as a group and not really focusing on this one, unique, impossible to replace page such as most of the rest of the people here are. Sure, there are a lot of pages out there unclaimed (their list price may have something to do with that, just saying, but that's another conversation), but it doesn't change the fact that this page, that someone did buy, has been modified beyond repair. Yes, it's impossible to replace that page, but it's not the only "Batman vs. Catwoman" Lee piece created, and if a collector is looking for an example, he or she can find another. I think Gene's point is that if you're looking for an example by Jae Lee, there's plenty out there with more than 60 pages available on Albert's site (albeit no A+ examples). Realistically, altering one Jae Lee page isn't going to cause ripples in the supply. Similarly, if I can add to my previous point, objections are raised because collectors entered the hobby on the premise that each page is unique and one-of-a-kind. In this respect, yes, what the OP did was sacrilege. But to Gene's point, this is one altered one-of-a-kind piece among a million one-of-a-kind pieces in the hobby. Is it really that special?

Yeah, I'm reading two different conversations (like most threads). One is the ethics of altering original art; the second is how must is the value affected by the alteration. Like eeewnuk pointed out, the market for Jae Lee's work is strong and this is a strong piece. If the owner decided to auction the page off tomorrow and I had to place a bet as to whether is would make money or lose money, I'd play it conservatively and bet that it'll lose a little bit of money because that's what modern art (art created in the last month to three years) does. But fifteen years from now...or fifteen years after death...I don't think the alteration will matter and the piece would end on a hammer price higher than the original "investment." I feel that the reason so many objections are raised is because the OP had so many options to go with than to alter the original. I agree with this and thus why I would err on this side. But like Vodou pointed out, I'm not sure if I care so much to embellish something I already own. If I bought that pencil page, it's because I liked the pencil work on it. And I would certainly put the brakes on anyone trying to ink an original Kirby pencil piece; but this isn't Kirby we're talking about.

Great discussion. I choose not to be a hater and agree with Gene below. For the record, I, for one, care about resell value, so I would rather err on the side of not touching the "original." I think 99% of collectors--the "Purists"-- fall in this camp. In his recent Felix Comic Art podcast, David Mandel stated that he hates it when original art is messed with. On the other hand, Andy Robbins, another respected collector in the hobby, retouched this page from Five Ghosts and I think it's an improvement. FIVE GHOSTS has its followers, but I hardly doubt this title, much less this page, is worth the tizzy over altering the original. I'm a fan of Jae Lee and I'm waiting for the right Jae Lee piece to come along. I read his run on Batman/Superman. I saw when Albert Moy debuted those pages. When he did, the asking price of the choice pieces were $700-$800 (excluding splashes). That's a lot of money for a pencil-only piece. I can imagine what the price would be if they were published as inked pieces. $1200-$1500? If you read that run then you know that book was done in mostly silhouette or shadow and pure pencils just doesn't do justice for the collector. So I don't blame the OP for wanting it inked, especially if it only cost him $200 on top of the original price (would be curious to know what Jae charged to ink it). Again, if you're a Jae Lee fan, you know how masterful his brush strokes are...I really don't see how this page would lose value; and if it did, it wouldn't lose anymore value than any modern art sold at auction. If I were bidding on this piece, I'd be thanking the seller for doing something I couldn't bear to do myself. Most of us here are familiar with the "penciled page/inks only" debate. The more liberal collectors argue that the "inks-only page" has value because that's the published image. The Purists will retort that it's not that valuable because the penciler never touched the page. Then the liberal collector will counter that you can't see the pencils on a vintage page anyway. For which the Purist will rebut, "But the original pencils are underneath the inks!" In the case of this Jae Lee piece, are the original pencils not underneath the inks?

These ads always make me want to cry. Especially when I see my personal Grail for sale for $125 Thank you for posting though. It's a great resource.

$10k is a pie in the sky price, I think it's closer to $2-3k probably, in part due to the general valuation of trading card art coupled by the major damages (the missing COA isn't a factor). I was a little stumped as to why you wrote $10K, but I see now the seller bumped the price from $7K or $8K that he originally had. I'd like to learn more about the GPK OS market but $10K seems really high just as $7K seemed high as well (for something that's been shredded to pieces And are those missing pieces?). I get that when you sell on eBay you already have to pony up 15%, but $10K seems like a nonstarter. If he really wants to get rid of it, then maybe $1K starting bid. EDIT: I see now that those aren't pieces missing, but rather the reflection on the glass.

I agree; it's probably one of the top three in the series. It's a nice cover reinterpretation with a nice twist to it. If I had the money for it I would've done cartwheels knowing that it's on Pedigree and no one wants to bid on principle. For anyone who has the money, it's there for the taking. But alas, I don't have that kind of cash to spend

Plus one! I think Eduardo Barreto uses it to great effect for the grip on a pistol's handle on this Batman page John Severin use adds to the comedic effect on this Punisher satire

Thanks for the response. That makes sense. Can I add that value of modern art isn't going skyrocket like vintage stuff not just because of the heavy supply, but it's relative ease to find and acquire the page you want? I feel like in 10 years if you wanted a page published in 2017, and you were aggressive about it, you can probably find it and at a comfortable price; whereas, the old stuff, you don't know if it still exists, so you're willing to pay a premium for it. Ha! You make a good point about it being three shots of various perspectives, and yes, that moment is best consumed as a 3-page sequence (and it wouldn't surprise me if all three went to one owner), but I don't think you have to know what's going on in the story to tease out that two friends are going to lose their lives together. I felt even without the overall context of issue/story/arc, that it was a touching moment. But maybe I'm wrong.

Eric, you nicely sum up my view of art. Thanks for the post.

You make a strong and convincing point here. And if I may double-up and respond to Gene's point/response to me about "aggregate buying power" here's something I didn't consider: I assume that kids and young adults who are reading comics for "free" are doing because they don't have the cash, because, well, they are kids or students. But what if when they do make an income, and even if there's a little discretionary income there, who's to say that their habits of "you don't have to buy something to enjoy" won't follow them to adulthood? And if they aren't splurging on little things, then yeah, buying a $250 piece of art is probably out of the question.

That's a beautiful Aparo page. Yeah, in an ideal world all the lettering would be done directly on the board. Of course, I was just pointing out the downside of lettering through paste-ups, which can detract from the art if they show signs of aging. I own a page from Archie vs. Predator and I was surprised and pleased that the page was hand-lettered with the exception of one balloon. If Archie comics can do it, why can't everyone else?! But overall, wordless art doesn't bother me.

Yeah, honestly, I enjoy reading ALL perspectives and I think this thread is making me a better collector (although I do trust my taste).

Gene, I think your demographics argument about Baby Boomers & Gen Xers propping up this hobby is very convincing and you've won me over with that. I'm either a young Gen-X or an old Millenial (I'm in a liminal space) and perhaps we are the last of the "Spinner Rack People" necessary to keep this hobby healthy. (Or perhaps not; se below). Maybe the hobby doesn't die with us, maybe it'll continue with a needed market correction, we'll see. I think that your habit of reading lots and lots of modern stuff lends to your credibility. But I do wonder, sincerely, because you do read digitally, how often do you frequent comic shops? There are more comic shops in a short radius from my house than there are grocery stores. Even more shops if I cared to drive and extra 10 minutes. It's typical of me to visit 2-3 different shops a week; I visited as many this weekend. Yes, more likely than not you will find white males ages 20-50 in there. Next, non-white males of that same age group. But this weekend alone I've seen: college-age women buying comics, a 12-year old boy buying comics, those identifying as LGBTQ buying comics, dads bringing their first graders to buy comics. I bought my 2-year old daughter a Harley Quinn comic because she wanted something with the Joker (I don't think my wife was pleased about that. In a classic Mom move, she threw away the comic--twice). The reason I bring this up is because I don't think we're in a CHILDREN OF MEN situation where the last (potential) OA collector was born in 1985. I won't deny the numbers that say comic book orders are down. But as a dad who has to haul his kids to places where there are other kids (and as a dad who loves comics and goes to where the comics are), I can testify that these "comic sales are down" numbers don't account for kids or young adults who read trades for free at the library (the graphic novel section has really grown in my library in the last two years as someone else here attested to the same trend) and teens and young adults who pull trades from the shelves at Barnes and Noble and read them without paying for them. It's these observations that keep me optimistic. I just believe that the "numbers" don't tell the entire story. Now, will these "shadow" readers become art collectors. Don't know. That's why I advocate sharing the joys of the hobby. They won't know that the hobby exists if someone won't show them that it exists. But I am wondering--sincerely-- if you do frequent shops and cons and if you account what you see there into your analysis?

This beautiful page . And the one before it and after. I've never read the issue so I don't know if there's dialogue on the page and I think most would agree that is speaks for itself without the need for speech bubbles. If there is dialogue, it better be on par with Pablo Neruda. If this was scripted by Stan Lee I'd barf on my Addidas. Paste-ups would ruin this page. Editorial notes on the margins would ruin this page. 1996, 1986, 1976 would ruin this page.

24-year old collector receives his "vintage" art purchased off eBay in the mail: "Cool, word balloons. Wait. Why are are half of them peeling off? This one just fell off. Oh man, why are the panels all yellow? I wish the seller had written in the description that these paste-ups were falling off. So do I glue them back on? Is that allowed? Do I use Elmer's glue? Where do I buy rice paste? Do I hire a professional? How much would that cost? Where do I find a professional? Is this conservation or alternation? If I leave it as is, does it affect the value of my art? If I paste the balloons back on, does it affect the value of my art? Do I have to come clean about it or will the Boards tar and feather me if I don't? Oh. I knew I should have bought that wordless Manhattan Projects page."

I just think people have to get there on their own. targeted recruitment if you want to call it that does little or nothing. if interesting things are shared and an excitement builds within that person organically, that's what you want. One cannot overestimate how resistant most people are to getting into something new (and some of the reasons for that are totally understandable). I mean... everyone here has done it to some extent going from comics to art, but those are close cousins and for most of us it took many years of appreciating the one before we even considered the other And you're right. Of course, I didn't mean literal recruitment, I guess I meant more like expressing the our joy of the hobby to other collectible enthusiasts or comic book fans. For example, I frequent many cons and have made friends with people while waiting in line for artists. Those friends are often just comic readers. At some point it becomes clear that I'm an OA collector, and I talk about the hobby, etc. Then next thing I know these comic readers are paying for sketches and buying OA, although not at the rate that we do. So "recruiter" is not the best word choice, but rather a "booster."

Really fun pieces that I missed on CAF! Thanks for sharing!

I agree with everything that is said here. But when it comes to the future of the hobby, I think prices and the health of the hobby are two different things. Like Gene says, and has argued many times before, no one can predict the future as where prices are going, plus, today's generations are not as wealthy as yesterday's. Although I'm more educated than my parents, I do not have the wealth that they do (and they don't have the wealth of more established Americans either ) But what the hobby has going for it is the "bug." We all talk about "getting bit by the bug," this influenza that has us spending more than we should on a non-essential item. This bug isn't an isolated occurrence. That bug, I believe, is going to keep the hobby healthy. If we want this hobby to survive, if we want the next generations to buy what we own, to appreciate what we own, we have to pass that bug on to them. I think we are a little hesitant because the more people that enter in the hobby (or, "the market") means more competition and higher prices. But why does this have to exclusively be a bad thing? I think one of the unintentional consequence to Felix's podcast experiment is spreading that bug. Not that I time it or anything, but usually the week before a podcast is released, I feel deflated about the hobby, its costs, and how I can't find the art I really want. Then Felix releases the podcast and that gets me going again. We need to spread that enthusiasm to keep the hobby going. Like most of you, I collected comics as a kids. My only "investment" comics were those foil-hologram-3D-embossed-die-cut covers of the 90s (leave me alone! I was a kid then!). That crash left me pessimistic about collectibles. But then happened? CGC came along and -- love it or hate it-- revitalized the comic collecting hobby. Who would thunk we would've seen the kind of prices on comics that we do today? Sure, the skyrocketing prices of OA makes it vulnerable to a crash, possibly leading to its sudden death, but there might be something that doesn't exist now that might give the hobby a push and keep interest and prices healthy. As an aside, when we go to a comic shop, we see different tiers of books for sale -- the new releases, the back issues, and the wall books -- to be broad. A lot of it doesn't sale, and not all of it has to to keep the shop's doors open. Now imagine a comic book shop, only it's stocked with only OA. Maybe Anthony Snyder's warehouse is a prototype. At this OA shop you have the "wall" art and the "dollar bin" art. Just because no one is buying from the dollar bin, doesn't mean the shop folds. To be clear, its not the fragmentation of interests that worry me, it's the reluctance to recruit new members to the OA hobby/market. (or am I wrong? Are we rushing and getting pledges?)

This is what I would do, too -- just start again. Although I'd be so tapped, that I may not do so for years. Heck, on second thought, maybe I would just retire from the hobby. I almost "sold it all" this summer for an Alex Ross pencil piece of the major DC characters that Anthony Synder posted this past summer. Apparently this was a finished pencil piece that Alex Ross used to paint the final image over a light box. Anthony sold it as from a calendar, but I knew it as a poster that was taped on my bedroom wall for years when I was a teenager during the height of my comics mania. That piece has so many check marks that I would have sold what I had to get it. Unfortunately, when that piece popped up I had just blown $1K on art so I didn't have anything left for a down payment. He posted the piece a day before his road trip to San Diego and I knew it wasn't going to last. He was selling it for a "mere" $2.5K. If it did survive San Diego Comic Con I was going to gun it. But sure enough, it was no longer available halfway through the week. One other thing, it makes sense how veteran collectors decades into the hobby wouldn't trade it all for one piece. I never thought about it but at this point, these are carefully curated collections. For someone like me, only 4 years into the hobby in three month, with a "small" collection of about 50 published and carefully selected non-published pieces, it would be easier for me to let it all go because I can easily find examples of what I already have. P.S. +1 on the Batman 497 cover!

Another wonderful podcast! Y'know, the Lee-Williams team is such a "household" name in the comic reading world that I was surprised to hear how much of a normal guy Scott Williams is! Scott, I really appreciate your take on collecting; I hung on every word!

Seconded. Only drawback to the show. Aside from a serious lack of Liefeld discussion;) Don't worry, we go back to crapping on '90 art in a couple of episodes:P Next two are in the can, I already let slip January's guest in this latest episode. Very happy to get that one done, I think you'll all enjoy the video, too. Ironically, isn't Scott Williams part of "90s art" or does he get a pass???

It's "DMIII" in Dark Knight fashion +1 I demand a DMIII next year! I'm sure he has a lot more to say; especially if '17 brings up something interesting...or catastrophic!

Felix, thank you for addressing my question and thanks for the compliment, too. After I emailed you the question, I thought that I had just sent the dumbest question out there, but you made it sound legit "on air." I was very satisfied with David Mandel's answer. I was curious to know what motivates a collector who has an end-all collection and the means to acquire high-end pieces to come out of "retirement"? You know, I thought he was going to say something that pointed to an AF15 page, or the like, but to say that it was --- (I won't spoil it for those who haven't listened, but it's a Gil Kane cover), a cover he values at a "mere" $10K-$15K was a refreshing surprise. He did insinuate that he wouldn't spend "crazy stupid money" though. But what would that be? $30K? I did take away that he'd probably do something like $20K in trade (my insinuation). So in wondering what pieces a collector like David goes after, he sort of answered my question two other times: that Mazzachelli cover (which he traded heavily) and prime examples of Ditko Spidey villains. What more, I truly admire about David is that he won't give in to extortion or pay a king's weight in ransom for a piece. Because of this, he's unfettered to give real talk about his Holy Grails and with that I think he takes back some power in negotiations if it ever came to that. Applying some armchair psychology to him, I wonder if he won't pay today's inflated prices because of the market prices he paid 20 years ago. Or to make a layperson analogy: it's like when I refuse to pay $50 for sketches from an artist to whom I used to pay $20 last year. Just a final thought. David says he's taken a backseat in buying in the last 5 years (with the exception of that Skottie piece--yay!). What would the market be like today if he didn't slow down and he was making aggressive bids? I guess it might not be fair to put too weight on one person, but one must wonder. All in all, great podcast. I could've listened to you guys all day.