Kevn

That's complete insanity. Still available on CAF: http://www.comicartfans.com/gallerypiece.asp?piece=1058355 Those comments. Normally fans are discreet in their commentary on artist pricing. You've really got to be an outlier to get that kind of reaction. The comments are unsurprising, though I think some of the fears expressed ("Awesome cover! But if you don't want to sell it, don't sell it. $50k is a seriously dangerous number. If every artist out there sees that and starts asking those kinds of prices, it's really going to hurt availability for the fans. Even in the past decade the prices have skyrocketed, but this type of pricing has the ability to really, really hurt the market.") are silly. Pricing doesn't determine the market -- buyers determine the market. No buyer, no effect on the market. I agree that this is probably just a smart way to avoid endless pricing/sales inquires from eager fans. He obviously wants to keep the piece, but he also knows what level of silly offer would change his mind. So how silly is a 50k price? I'm asking because I really don't know. Not a lot of comps to compare it to. But I don't think it's unreasonable to suggest that this run on Batman is the best received in maybe 10 years or more? I'm not saying this fact alone warrents a 50k price tag necessarily, but I really doubt Capullo would have much problem selling the cover to this first issue for at least 20k, maybe 25. Still a very, very long way from 50k, but since someone here asked how crazy this price was in today's market, this is my 2 cents. Scott Scott, I use the term 'silly' as a playful way to say "unrealistic and unlikely, so he's not expecting he'd get that, but honest about how much the piece is worth to him." I agree that it's probably not an insane number. I see dealers listing prices that seem, well, silly. Some of that is probably a business strategy, waiting for someone to come along for whom that piece is a grail piece, or to give them plenty of room to bargain and still get a high price, but sometimes it seems to be a price arrived at through the emotion of not really wanting to part with the piece, but also knowing what financial price point would change their mind. In other words, maybe Capullo is trying to signal where he wants the market for his work to land, but I think more likely he just doesn't really want to part with the piece, but would if someone were willing to pay 2-3x the going rate for such a page. I have pages in my collection that I feel that way about.

That's complete insanity. Still available on CAF: http://www.comicartfans.com/gallerypiece.asp?piece=1058355 Those comments. Normally fans are discreet in their commentary on artist pricing. You've really got to be an outlier to get that kind of reaction. The comments are unsurprising, though I think some of the fears expressed ("Awesome cover! But if you don't want to sell it, don't sell it. $50k is a seriously dangerous number. If every artist out there sees that and starts asking those kinds of prices, it's really going to hurt availability for the fans. Even in the past decade the prices have skyrocketed, but this type of pricing has the ability to really, really hurt the market.") are silly. Pricing doesn't determine the market -- buyers determine the market. No buyer, no effect on the market. I agree that this is probably just a smart way to avoid endless pricing/sales inquires from eager fans. He obviously wants to keep the piece, but he also knows what level of silly offer would change his mind.

Oh, I very much doubt they advertised themselves as 'conservation framers.' My point is that you can have your art professionally matted and framed and have bad things done that you won't know about till later, when it might be impossible to fix.

Thanks, there's a lot of good information there. The quote "only 40% of artwork fading is caused by UV radiation" is C/W my experience, and I think it's something most comic collectors and art collectors misunderstand. They put something behind UV-blocking glass and feel a completely false sense of security. Years ago my sister took one of the best drawings I'd ever done and had it framed for me, without my knowledge. It was a graphite drawing on acid-free rag sketchbook paper. The professional framers put on a heavy coat of spray fix (totally unnecessary), and dry mounted it to a non-archival backing board. Then they put an inexpensive 'acid-free' mat over it, and put it behind UV-blocking glass. Within a few years it was a medium brown, with a nasty mat burn, and the spray fix made it look like there was a thin layer of ground glass sprinkled over the surface. Since it's graphite, I could send it for conservation, and a conservator could soak it in solvents, then lightly bleach it, and make it acid-free again,. But that wouldn't be cheap. The drawing would have been better off simply thumb tacked to the wall. OA collectors are lucky (compared to print and poster and watercolor collectors, for example) in that most professional artists used decent-quality bristol board and india ink, and unless there was lots of tape and rubber cement used, these pages hold up well with reasonable care. But, sadly, even most frame stores don't understand real archival framing, and it's on us as collectors to figure out how to do this cost effectively.

The whole issue of UV blocking glass strikes me as one of those things we all believe in without having any real proof. In trying to find real-world tests, I found this test with Japanese prints. Summary: the UV-blocking glass didn't make a meaningful difference in this particular case. Of course doing these tests for real with OA isn't easy, but my conclusion after many years of framing artwork is that the type of glass doesn't make that big a difference. Certainly not as big a difference as true acid-free rag mats and backing, and avoiding direct, and even significant indirect, sunlight. What I think we forget is that a lot of fading is also caused by visible light, not just UV, and indirect sunlight is vastly more intense than most artificial lighting.

I would LOVE to see any of his work that you have (and I'm sure most others here would say the same). You might consider creating an account (it's free) at comicartfans in his name and posting some of it there.

Awesome story! Cruising around the web, Mr. Luster created some amazing art. And it's really inspiring to read how he took something that many people would have treated as a terrible burden, and used it to find his joy. Thank you for sharing this.

most artists do indeed sell pages to the general public. But expect to pay a premium if you are dealing with an artist directly. If you want the best pieces that is what you have to do, but if you want just under best it is my experience that waiting and buying the same piece later on resale is worth the wait. But you take a risk that way. Many artists bring pages to sell at conventions as well. I agree that artists tend to overvalue their art, and sometimes insist their official reps price their art a certain way. But, as Bird says, you need to pay that price if you want first crack at something, and if it's a newer artist, that price may not be too terribly high. In my experience, most artists have no problem being contacted about the possibility that they have art for sale (though my sample size is pretty low). As long as you're respectful, and you haven't used any devious ways to get in contact with them, then most will probably be flattered. Probably the worst that will happen is you don't get a response, or they'll point you to their rep.

I used to feel that way too, but I've seen enough of Colan's pencils to come to the conclusion that the good inkers made his great work even greater. Sometimes he cheated a bit on anatomy and proportions, and when those drawings were handled in a half-assed way they would look like hell. But pair him with a good inker and it was another story. Plus his work just jumps off the page with those right india ink blacks, while all the shiny graphite never has the same impact. That said, I LOVED that Colan pencil page that I think was for a FOOM issue that sold at the recent CLink auction. I was sorely tempted to toss in a bid for that.

Wow, that Yuko Shimizu cover is beautiful! No new acquisitions for me, but I'm keeping busy scanning and posting: CAF additions. A few favorites: Just another day at the office for Matt Murdock. Who needs a phone booth, right? Moebius animation drawing. I know this is for comic art, but it's Moebius. OK, pure unadulterated animation art, but the most important character designer of our era, Nico Marlet. And another 2-up beauty by Gentleman Gene the Dean Colan.

Not sure I have anything he'd be interested in, unless he was doing a Colan Daredevil book (which would be awesome!). I was mostly curious about how much effort goes into finding the OA, or if books/artists are chosen on the precondition that Scott Dunbier already knows where most of the art is or can easily find it. It seems like for many artists, whose work has been sold for years and was once not terribly valuable, it would be hard to locate a majority of the pages of a run of issues. When I search CAF for pages from a particular issue, I often don't find much.

They used to, but last year they started a line called "Artifact Editions," which include whatever pages they could get their hands on from a particular run instead of complete issues. The Watchmen and the upcoming John Romita Spider-Man twice-up and Frank Miller Daredevil books are all Artifact Editions. So do they advertise here and at CAF and elsewhere to see if they can connect with OA collectors who would be willing to scan or photograph their originals? If I had a key page or pages to a pending book, I'd hate to see such a book published without having the chance to contribute, and I imagine a lot of collectors would feel the same way.

Excuse the ignorance of this question, but does IDW only make artist's editions when they can locate most of the original art?

Starting to hang things in my gallery, starting with some of the framed pieces: CAF Link Hopefully will get to scanning in the next few days.