Day Stripper

You have what appears to be a partially colored production page (photocopy of the black and white pen and ink art) for the March 18, 1951 Steve Canyon Sunday comic strip by Milt Caniff. Typically, for Steve Canyon Sundays, Caniff rendered the original art in pen and ink, in a horizontal, rather than vertical, format. Once Caniff sent it to the syndicate, the original art would be photocopied, usually arranged in different formats (some papers ran it as a full page strip horizontally, some ran it as a full page strip vertically, some ran it in a half-page [or smaller] format which deleted some of the full-page panels) for layout and coloring purposes. What you have looks to be a vertical format photocopy/production page of the Sunday with partial hand-coloring (mounted on board). It is unclear whether the mounting and coloring was done by a syndicate (or printer) colorist or by someone who later obtained the black and white photocopy. The partial coloring of your page is similar to what colors were in the published Sunday as per the IDW Steve Canyon reprint volume 3, which reprinted strips from 1951-1952 (Sundays were reprinted in color). Hope this helps. P.S. You can tell it is a photocopy, and not an original Caniff Sunday, by the copyright indicia (sometimes called a "bug") at the bottom of the final panel. Yours looks to be printed on the paper; on the original art, Caniff (or an assistant) would have pasted/glued a strip with this information directly onto the bottom of the final panel.

And now for something completely different... Brother Hugo (topper to Gasoline Alley) by Frank King from 10-30-1949.

It has a Mort Meskin feel to it, from the days (early to mid 1950s) he worked at or with the Simon & Kirby studio.

It appears to have been late October or early November, 2021 (11/1/2021?). I picked up some items in the 10/6 weekly OA auction, and the minimum BF was still $19. My next purchase was in the 11/3 weekly OA auction and the minimum BF had increased to $29.

How about the Frank Frazetta cover to Weird Science-Fantasy #29 which was sold privately by the Frazetta family to Jim Halperin for $380K in 2010? As per the HA press release (dated 6-8-2010; available on their website), the WSF29 sale price set a "then" new record price for original comic art. The press release also noted that the former record price for OA was the April 2008 private treaty sale (via HA) of Wallace Wood's cover to Weird Science #16 for $200K. The press release also mentions the record auction result for Norman Mingo's painted MAD #30 front and rear covers, sold by HA in November 2008 for $203,150. How quickly times have changed...

As noted above, it seems a bit pricey for a Thor page with the hand of Thor plus a (very) small image of Thor (and Sif) in the upper left. Lots of Rock Trolls though. Good advice from GotSuperPowers?. Take the time to study the market, check out auction house results and decide what you like and where your money is best spent. And, as an aside, how is Ulik worthy to lift/wield Mjolnir?

There is also a smaller (16" x 5") Al Williamson Flash Gordon print which is titled "At the City in Ruins". This was apparently issued in the late 1970s by Rosebud Productions, based upon Williamson's line art from the 1950s. There are signed and numbered versions in black and white (in an edition of 100) and color (hand-colored by Williamson; in an edition of 50). Here is the colored version (#4/50).

I believe that Romitaman lists all of his DDOCA offerings on CAF the following day under the art for sale tab, including the pieces that were sold on DDOCA the night before. These include a "sold on DDOCA" in the title/description. If Comic Art Tracker picks up all of the new listings from CAF, it probably includes these "sold" items.

Yes, Ed Dodd drew the comic panel "Back Home Again" from 1930-1946 and subsequently created the "Mark Trail" comic strip. Much of the "Mark Trail" art was ghosted by Tom Hill (Sundays) and Jack Elrod (dailies).

One man's (who has not read this story) opinion on the PS pages. I agree that the 2nd page would probably sell for more than the first, and I would agree with Will's margin. Why? See below 2nd page positives comments. First page positives: excellent layout with irregular panels; more varied angles of presentation; heavier inks (which present a more striking contrast than page 2); well-written dialogue; more tension as we build to what looks to be a heroic sacrifice by Oliver/GA (not sure whose body he is now in as I am unfamiliar with the story; looks like Eclipso?); 5/6 panels with the Phantom Stranger being typically mysterious/cryptic. First page negatives: Black Canary's lips/mouth look a bit too large (as do the other female character in the 1st panel); team shot in 2nd panel lacks detail. Second page positives: 4/6 panels with Phantom Stranger (plus 'smoke' panel after he vanishes); nice team shot (more detail than the first page) in the first panel; nicely rendered close-up of Supes, Flash and The Atom in final panel; well-written dialogue for PS, especially with his "explanation" for his action/inaction, and Martian Manhunter dialogue (it sounds like he should sound...calm and rational). . Finally, and this is the main reason I believe this page would sell for more than the first page: the 4th panel. That Phantom Stranger fade-out panel is just killer. Very Steve Ditko-esque (ala Dr. Strange moving between dimensions). The Stranger, although partially visible, clearly has already "moved on" to face the next threat (he even seems to be looking towards the horizon) and he does not even acknowledge WW's question. And I love WW's hand reaching through his chest. Great panel concept and terrific execution. Second page negatives: more traditional panels/layout (though well conceived and nicely rendered); markedly less tension than the first page (though some conflict still present) as the sacrifice has apparently been made, the multiverse saved and the story winds down; Wonder Woman's mouth/lips look too large in the 4th panel; I'm not a big fan of the "rear view" of the team in the 5th panel (a front view of the team with smoke in the foreground would have made a better presentation); Wonder Woman looks and sounds way too angry in the 4th and 5th panels (Does she have history with PS? I understand Dinah's anger in the first page, given her long-term relationship with Oliver, but what's up with WW here? Something in their history or in this story to justify Diana's anger? She is, in many ways a magical being, and so should understand (or at least cut some slack for) the "unexplained" actions and comings/goings of another "magical" being. Doesn't she know that PS operates on a higher plane? Either way, good luck with whichever you are chasing. Both pages are excellent, and the positives outweigh the negatives whichever way you go. Or maybe you will end up with both.

Gentlemen, thanks for the input. I chalked it up to a 'live and learn' experience.

How does the community feel about "original art" that is, in effect, a print (or proof) of digitally created art which may (or may not) be touched up, colored or otherwise revised by the artist? Phrased another way, is there any widely accepted definition of "original art" which applies to digitally created artwork? If there's another thread for this topic, sorry for the detour. I've read all of the NFT/digital art threads (as well as numerous other articles about NFTs), and, call me old school, but I'm not particularly interested in purchasing a digital file on a blockchain and thereby claiming to own a piece of "original art". The piece discussed above does not appear to include an NFT, but only the physical "art". Is a print (or, as described above, a "xerox copy") of digital art truly "original art"? Even if made by the artist? It doesn't feel like it. It feels more like a piece by those painters who will, for an additional fee, add a remarque, or add additional "brush strokes" to the image of their limited edition prints. The result may be "unique", but does it elevate a retouched print to original art (conceding that a hand-drawn remarque is indeed original art)? How does one know that the artist won't, somewhere down the road, print additional copies/images from their digital file (apparently not a primary concern if the art is sold in NFT format)? I ask since I recently purchased the "original art" for a published comic strip (from the artist) on eBay. I received what looked to be a b&w print of the art with some marker revisions/corrections. I contacted the artist and expressed my concerns with the piece. He replied that the art was created digitally, and that this was the original print which he had made from the digital file. He touched up the art with marker/pen, and submitted this print to the syndicate for publication. He created a second print of the art which he hand-colored, and submitted that to the syndicate as a color guide. None of this information was in the original listing. Expecting to have received a hand-rendered pen and ink drawing, and receiving a retouched print was, needless to say, somewhat disappointing. Since the cost was rather modest however, I ended up keeping the "art" and securing the hand-colored version (in for a penny...and since this felt it had more "original art" than the b&w version). What do I call this piece? It may be the original art for the published strip, but it doesn't feel like "original art" to me (except for the hand coloring).

Greetings all. I purchased a piece of original art from Joe, and I could not be more pleased. Prompt and secure packaging and shipping. Pleasant and courteous communications. A credit to the comic and original art community. Bob

Classic strip art took a big jump in prices, almost across the board... Al Capp Li'l Abner 1938 daily for $1040 (others from this "Dogpatch in foreclosure and Abner has to raise $1M" sequence have sold for small fractions of this price over the last few years). Chester Gould Tracy Sundays at $7.8K and $5.4K (this continues the recent upward trend of Gould DT art, particularly from the 1940s). Frank Frazetta Johnny Comet Sunday for $57K. Jack Kamen Inspector Dayton daily for $1040 (from 2017-2020, these have sold on HA for $100-$200) Warren Tufts Casey Ruggles Sunday for $3.3K (a new record for Tufts art on HA and nearly double the previous high price for a CR Sunday). Milt Caniff Terry and the Pirates dailies also sold for strong prices. Even the Messick Brenda Starr dailies sold for substantially more than other 2019-2020 sales. Given small sampling...outlier or indicator of trend for GA strip art?

The move makes sense in light of the volume of comic books (and related materials) on offer. HA has already segregated video games and trading cards into their own auction (Tuesday nights). Will the move matter? Not, from my perspective, for OA. Assuming that HA is offering items which I am interested in, I will "attend" the OA auction on Wednesday night instead of Monday. For other items, it may matter. I have occasionally bid on "memorabilia" which formerly sold with OA on Monday nights (after OA and animation), making it more likely that I'd stick around to bid. Memorabilia, however, remains on Monday nights, which makes it less likely that I'd be a bidder (having to remember both to check the Monday night comic book auction listing and then attend the auction on Monday night). Unlikely that I'd plan my Monday evening around an auction offering one item of interest (unless it was a must-have piece). I noticed the Wednesday night OA sale when it first appeared on the HA website auction schedule maybe 1-2 weeks ago. I thought it odd that there had been no formal announcement until I received the HA weekly comic email which discussed the move. CAF also reported the new date as a "Comic Art News" item fairly recently.

Illustration by John Richard Flanagan for "Treasure of Vanished Men", published in Blue Book Magazine Vol. 64, No. 5 (March 1937). Story by James Francis Dwyer. I always thought it had a very "Indiana Jones" feel to it.

Based upon the photos from the auction website, the strip title looks to be "Pinky and his Playmates" and the artist/creator looks to be A.W. Adams with a rural address in Norval, Ontario, Canada. Neither the strip nor the artist is listed in Allan Holtz's "American Newspaper Comics" so it appears unlikely that the strip was published or syndicated in the USA. It may have been syndicated only in Canada, or was possibly a local strip published by a Toronto newspaper or periodical (Norval is 55 km west of Toronto)? Both the art and the gentle kid-focused humor is definitely in the style of Gene Byrnes "Reg'lar Fellers" and Tack Knight's "Little Folks". Good luck with the hunt.

Rick, I appreciate your thoughtful responses. I agree that it is necessary to discuss not only the positive side of this hobby, but also the "seamy side". Frankly, if shill bidding remains as currently rampant as some posters clearly believe, whether or not it is permitted by law or the auction houses/platforms, then it remains a valid subject for discussion and analysis. More information is always better. My intention in posting was not to "get personal" with anyone (and you will note that I did NOT mention or refer to any member of this community by name); my intent was to pose, in effect, a philosophical question: If the community considers shill bidding to be a wrong (an ethical wrong if not a legal wrong or a crime), then how can one separate or divorce that wrong from the actor? I do not believe that one can do so. I perceived your comments to be an attempt to do so, in effect to 'blame the act, not the (nice guy) actor'. If I misconstrued the intent of your comments, please accept my apology. The Bill Cosby analogy was offered, not in reference to any specific person, but as an extreme example (as stated) offered to challenge the basis of (what I perceived to be) an attempt to separate an actor from his or her (intentional) act. The analogy was not intended to compare or equate any particular persons or specific actions, but simply to demonstrate the futility of seeking to divorce an actor from his or her actions. If this point was insufficiently well expressed, or if anyone perceived the analogy as a direct comparison of specific persons or specific actions, that was not my intent; please accept my apology. If your comments were instead intended to suggest that we adopt a "forgive and forget" attitude regarding a prior "wrong", especially in light of subsequent good acts, that is an entirely different discussion, and one that would be welcome this time of year. Merry Christmas!

How are you separating/distinguishing the person from the act here? The "market practice" (i.e., "shill bidding") is performed by, or directed by (if more than one person was involved), a person; it is not an accident, a naturally occurring event or an "act of God" in which the consignor/shill bidder just happened to be "in the wrong place at the wrong time" or was only peripherally involved. If the collecting community considers the "market practice" of shilling to be wrong (ethically if not criminally), then how did the person who performed/directed the shill bidding not commit a wrong (whether in general or against the community), regardless of whether (or not) they are a "nice guy"? I cannot draw, or agree with, the distinction which is apparently being drawn here...criticize/demonize the act, but not the actor. Sorry, but "hate the game, not the player" sounds like a cool phrase, but in any society, the individual must take responsibility for (and suffer the consequences of) his or her actions. Frankly, when someone commits a "misrepresentation" (which some may consider a form of fraud), it is not unreasonable to question/challenge all subsequent actions/statements of that person. Check out the legal concept of "falsus in uno". Let me offer an admittedly extreme analogy...should we not criticize/demonize Bill Cosby simply because he's an otherwise "nice guy", even if we think his former "dating practices" were wrong (not to say, criminal and/or horrific)?

Steve is a wonderfully talented artist and a great guy. This is the last page of Steve's OA in my collection (the overwhelming majority of the collection is comic strip art). Page 13 from the 1999 Marvel/DC crossover, "Incredible Hulk vs. Superman". Inks by Al Milgrom. Purchased from Steve on eBay several years ago, he termed the top panel his "Tribute to Paul Gulacy". I just love the Silver Age villains created by Lee and Kirby, and the Ringmaster/Circus of Crime has always been a (guilty pleasure) favorite. Bob

Kryptic1, Thanks very much for the assist on the ID. Happy Thanksgiving. Bob

Greetings all. My eldest son is a huge Venom fan, and I picked him up a convention jam page of Venom original art as a Christmas gift. There are 5 illustrations on the page, and I have identified 4 of the artists (all of whom have more legible signatures than this one). Here is the 5th drawing with close-ups of the signature. Any help identifying the artist is greatly appreciated. Thanks for looking. Bob

Sort of like paying an additional entrance fee for the dealer room at a comic book/art show or convention. A fee for the privilege of looking, and maybe, if there's something you like, spending your money. I'm a fan of capitalism, but this feels like a bridge too far. The concept has the feel of the PSL (Personal Seat License) fee charged by some sports teams (NFL, NBA, MLB, auto racing) for the 'privilege' of purchasing season tickets. Not sure how successful that was as I recall a great deal of outrage, especially among long-term season ticket holders who did not have the deep pockets to plunk down big buck ($10K+) in order to continue supporting their team in person. Isn't the (already high) auction house transaction cost already (and appropriately) spread between buyer and seller between the seller's commission and the buyer's fee? What is the justification (other than because they can) to compel a non-winning bidder, or a mere 'watcher' (no offense Uatu) to pay for the privilege of bidding or merely watching? I'd opine that such a fee would not reduce the buyer fee or seller commission; simply more money vanishing into auction house pockets. It feels like the cost (in lost potential bidders) would outweigh the benefit of such a fee.