• 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.

The Shoveler

  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by The Shoveler

  1. Just getting caught up here, Rabid Ferret. I'm sorry for missing out on this discussion earlier. In lieu of writing several responses, here's one macro-post. So far what I see since last night are several continuations of the mis-directions, projections, 'shoot the messenger' type responses, and attempts to turn this into a distributed denial-of-service attack where they demand a reply to each little diversionary claim. As you've precisely noted above, you know and I know that this is not about a nominally-valued individual comic, independent of its original art pages that already reached $10K ten years ago. It's not about being excited "as a fan" for a particular artist or group of artists, or using hyperbole among informed, experienced & sophisticated original art fans. And this discussion is not about Sean Murphy (a topic that was already addressed extensively on a separate thread). It's not about me being somehow obsessed with the potential financial rewards of the hobby, a topic I avoid and seldom-if-ever comment on. It's not about Felix attempting to claim me as his own private personal troll because it's all about him and if you don't believe me, just ask him. And it's not even about Felix taking one of my comments and selectively misquoting it, and then tortuously layering on his own convoluted subtext to make it mean whatever Felix wants it to mean. Those are just some of the deflections and defensive reactions that have been employed repeatedly here. Maybe there's more that I missed. They appear to desperately want to make it about those things. But it's not. This is about Felix leaping across a chasm in his sales messages to link his products directly to one of the most successful and influential comic creators of the past 35+ years, the closest thing the industry has to a household name after Stan Lee, and promoting that connection to the broader, and impressionable, public as a sales practice. A public that includes not just savvy, experienced and well-informed veterans of the hobby. It also includes people who are new, inexperienced collectors as he's keenly aware of and mentioned before. Maybe somewhere there's comparative sales data, movie deals, a Frank Miller quote, etc. to justify any of the Miller speculations. But that certainly wasn't presented to the customers. It's a giant leap to anoint someone, anyone as the next Miller in a sales-related (not a fan-based) message. As difficult as it may be for some to understand, there are many people who are vulnerable and susceptible to this exact type of unsubstantiated association and the allure of the tacit potential for big payoffs. You may deny their existence and you may deny their value and utility as a person, you may even laugh at 'em and call them a bunch of suckers. But they are there even though you may not see them or care about them. Their vulnerability to a highly-refined and selective marketing ploy isn't necessarily a character failure solely on their part. And when a sophisticated marketing pitch is based on connecting products to some of the most highly-valued comic art (Valued at Thousands of Dollars! Tens of Thousands! Six Figures!! Wish I bought it 10-20-30 years ago!) from one of the most well-known and impactful comic creators of a generation (and one of the very few to achieve any sort of enduring multi-media successes), then those vulnerable people are not being treated responsibly and respectfully as customers or as human beings. It gives all the appearance that they are being taken advantage of by an insider who's acting from a position of power who appears to be willing to deliberately drive them towards speculative, unrealistic, and potentially financially harmful decisions. When that practice is dismissed with: ...and followed by diversions, evasiveness, misquoting, etc while avoid addressing the specific concerns regarding the sales tactic, then that behavior comes across across as disingenuous at best. The sales tactic was concerning, his reaction was disappointing in the extreme and seems to confirm the worst possible impressions that were originated by the sales tactic. I do not know Felix. I've never met him, I've never talked with him, and I've never sought to purchase from him. Seeing his conduct here tells me all I need or want to know about him.
  2. A fan who's a dealer that is sending a marketing newsletter hyping the goods as the next Frank Miller product. Anyway, have a great evening. It was lovely chatting with you.
  3. I'm multi-tasking. You're deflecting. There you go again, putting your words and your inferences into my mouth. I'm not assuming anything. All I have to do is read your words.
  4. If I take a nap, I could miss out on the next Frank Miller!
  5. Negative. That's what you inferred. My statement was clear. You're simply hearing what you want to hear.
  6. Marks, not mark. Plural not singular. Got it? Do not quote me and then change my words. Do you understand that?
  7. In that extract posted earlier, I'm not catching that distinction. I do see a lot of "may be"s, "should be"s, "destined to"s and "will be"s: Sometimes they'll hear exactly what you say and believe exactly what you say, exactly as you present it to them. And when you promote somebody as the next Frank Miller and hype their latest project as being analogous to Miller's most lucrative high-water marks, then you build the cliff and announce how fabulous it would be to take a leap.
  8. That's the kind of message that's easy to get lost when you send marketing mails that speculatively connect your products directly to Frank Miller, Year One, Born Again and Mike Golden.
  9. Can you share a link to that FB page? I rarely go to FaceBorg, but I'd enjoy seeing the different perspectives on this one. x1000. It probably says a lot more about us than it does about the page!
  10. The last HA auction had a very cool Starlin "Mighty World of Marvel" UK Hulk cover with inks attributed to Sinnott. At the top of the page, it even had a notation where somebody wrote "Maybe Sinnott." But the inks look like Milgrom too me.
  11. That all makes sense. I can understand if this piece was penciled by Sal, the Spidey figure was redone by Wilson, the main figures/foreground were inked by Giacoia, and backgrounds/other blacks were inked by Esposito. Pure speculation dept: Maybe Spidey was originally too vertical and interfered with the trade dress and/or the many dialogue balloons. That's a lot of speaking roles for a cover!
  12. Audience Score drops to 49%. https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/star_wars_the_last_jedi/
  13. I put most of my art pages in mylar with acid-free boards and then into Itoya portfolios from Anthony's. The thickness of the boards can be too much for the portfolio if you try to use every sleeve in the port. So my ports are about half-full to prevent warping the pages. More info is in the thread linked below:
  14. Bags Unlimited also has large Mylars & acid-free backing boards. Mylar sized 24" x 18"product code is s1824r : https://www.bagsunlimited.com/product/4329/polyester-mylar-sleeve-4mil-no-flap The backings (acid free) for this size are product code kaf401824: https://www.bagsunlimited.com/product/5486/backings-for-artwork-photos-unfolded-mapsnbsp18-x-24-14 This is what I use for my oversized pieces. I get my 12 x 18 sleeves & backing from BU as well. Product links and more storage discussion, including for oversized pieces, are in the post linked below:
  15. I'm not getting any strong stylistic connections between the JR JR pages and the Super Spidey #193 cover. 1) In the UK cover, the bottom of his feet aren't solid black like in the 1977 page #45, panel 5. it's a small thing, but that little touch of color on the bottom of the foot gives it a much more well-developed shape vs on page 45 where it's just flat. 2) In that same panel 5, Spidey's cranium is actually better-positioned than the cover, where the skull seems to be too far down towards his left shoulder. 3) On the #193 cover, his fingers & thumbs look more realistic. In contrast, most of the fingers in the 1977 pages look clunky to me. Peter's left hand in that last panel on page 47 looks very awkward, like a potato with a couple of weird roots growing out of it. 4) On the cover, Spidey's knees are shaped differently, and the calves are shaped and positioned (under/behind the leg) a little differently as well. 5) On page #46's bottom panel, Spidey's back has a wonky shape. On page 47's first panel, the back's shape is simplified with straight & narrow torso/obliques which balloon out into two flat & simple curves on each side for the lats and the shoulder blades. In the cover, it appears to me that the artist is trying to depict a more complex-shaped back, which includes more definition and development in the traps/upper back than what we see in the 1977 panel pages. These variations could mean a different penciler. Or it could just as easily be due to the different inkers (big difference between the draftsmanship of Giacoia vs Al Milgrom on the panel pages), a young artist experimenting with different techniques, or a busy journeyman trying to complete multiple projects by deadline. Is Romita Jr one of those guys who is accessible on social media and takes questions? I didn't mention it before, but that Cyclone figure on the cover bugs me. It doesn't seem to match the style of Spidey. If Sal would have said that he didn't draw the Spidey, but that he did draw Cyclone, that would make sense to me (except for the fact that Sal normally worked out of Virginia and rarely visited the Marvel offices). Cyclone looks more like a Sal Buscema + George Klein Sam Grainger character from the Squadron Supreme in Avengers #70. He doesn't seem like a Ron Wilson or even a JR JR figure. I just read Jim Amash's book on Carmine Infantino (Penciler, Publisher, Provocatuer). In the interview, Infantino mentions that Frank Giacoia possibly had Mike Esposito and Frank Giella ink some of Giacoia's projects. Giacoia's inks always seemed pretty distinctive to me and I can't think of a single case where I would confuse Espo's inks for Giacoia's. But, those background figures on #193 bugged me when I looked at this before. I wonder if they were handled by someone else doing backgrounds. Lastly, did Mike Zeck do any Marvel UK work? his first work for Marvel was drawn in '76.
  16. The Spidey figure on that #193 doesn't look like Sal's work to me. Spidey's broad, bulky back suggests that Wilson is possibly the penciler, as mentioned by Flambit. The inks look like Giacoia. You've ruled out Hunt, so I'm leaning towards Giacoia on inks. I'm always impressed by the detective work to properly attribute these pieces. Keep up the amazing work!
  17. There's definitely some goodness in the Criterion Collection's remasters of the Kurosawa films. Here's a couple of trailer mash-ups for anyone who may be unfamiliar with The Hidden Fortress:
  18. My favorite part is when Rose rescued the abused, brutalized horses from captivity...and left behind the children in slavery.