comicinkking.com

I don't post much here.  And I don't come here to read much either, so pardon me if this has been discussed at length before (did not see any recent threads about it).  I've been collecting OA for close to 20 years now.  Prices have always climbed, and there have always been folks along the way who have said "this is it" - "prices are too high" - "this can't continue".  I've always disagreed with that thinking.  One of the factors in the past that had pushed prices up was "trading up" - you could make a nice profit on something you bought long ago, and then use that money to buy something "bigger and better."  I've done that countless times myself as I'm sure many others here have done.  But recently, the market has me scratching my head. In all my years (and I know some have been at it even longer), I've never seen anything like today's market.  Prices aren't just high - they're insane (just saw the first round of Heritage close today!).  I did see this comment in my search here earlier, and it mirrored what I was thinking after looking at the HA results today:

"There is no doubt we are now competing with wealthy individuals who are not traditional OA fans, but have been professionally advised to buy OA; this is skewing higher end prices accordingly while also causing a trickle-down boost to lower tier art prices. You're not just competing with other Carillo fans now -- you're competing with folks who would normally spend $5K on a John Buscema Avengers or DC Kirby page, but are finding prices moving too high so they are snapping up decent art "bargains" (like that $2,800 page)."  (comment by Race)

Is this the general consensus?  Do we have deep pocket investors and speculators who have now moved in and are just bidding until they win (regardless of past sales)?  It seem like that's the strategy, and they are relying on the underbidder to "steer" them to a reasonable price.  In other words, "I don't need to know the market - I'll trust the other bidders".  And what is the implication of all this?  Are these prices here to stay?  Does it make the market more susceptible to a "crash" down the road when these guys decide to find another investment vehicle? (assuming this is really what's going on).

Would love to hear any and all thoughts on this.

Tony

17 hours ago, Rick2you2 said:

When future generations look back at comics, it will probably be with the same reaction which we give Horatio Alger stories: we know of them (maybe even character names like "Ragged D*ck" or "Mark the Match Boy"), but books? Uh-uh. Or how about "Tom Brown's School Days"? A well read series from the late nineteen hundreds, and completely forgotten? And first appearances...yea sure. If anything, future generations will marvel at how we didn't value things like war comics or romance--things that deal with real people. Most of the stuff we value will likely be viewed in much the same way we view jewelry made with human hair--historic curiosities to be valued as such.

Time will tell, but I think of comics as an art form like jazz, film, or great novels.  Instead of pointing to things that fell out of favor (like Alger), why not focus on the things that have had lasting cultural significance?  Shakespeare, Mozart, Van Gogh....   

18 hours ago, Bronty said:

Tth2 said it all.   Snikt.   
 

I think you’re starting with the idea that you don’t like first appearance art being highly valued , and trying to fit into some way to support that, including commingling several valuation factors into one, but this discussion boils down to : you’re not a fan of high prices in first appearance art.    Well, okay, there’s nothing wrong with having that reaction but it doesn’t need to have logical support, art doesn’t lend itself well to logic in the first place. 

"I think you’re starting with the idea that you don’t like first appearance art being highly valued"

How about I say what I think, and you say what you think.  Instead of you saying what you think I think.

18 hours ago, Rick2you2 said:

I can't agree with you on that. Take a look at John Byrne's artwork. His X-Men and some other appearances are expensive as hell, but then compare it to later work like Next Men, which is cheap. He didn't lose skill; he lost audience.

Someone earlier had commented that they consider full splashes the best (along with covers). I disagree. They are the showiest, and tend to command the highest prices, but in terms of moving the story along, they are like a pregnant pause. And, they may take a lot of illustrative skill, but in many cases, you better see their comic artistry in panel pages--making dull dialog or lulls in the action interesting. That's got to be harder.

Finally, let me add that "quality" is sometimes confused with style--is the artist's particular flair attracting attention or not. That's often a matter of personal taste, and market influence, not quality. Most people would agree that Bruce Timm is an excellent artist, but part of what makes him a hot commodity is the style in which he draws (like sexy cartoon women). 

"He didn't lose skill; he lost audience."  Again, I am not talking about the artwork itself.  I'm talking about significance.  Pick a decade and you can find the most "important" books from that decade.  The works of Miller and Moore in the 80's for example.  And since you mentioned him, Byrne's X-men and FF work.  Byrne has done a TON of books - but those are considered his best works - they were huge at the time.  They were significant for that generation.  Lee/Kirby FF, Lee/Ditko Spidey, etc.  When future generations look back at comics, this is where they will be pointed because these were the high points - the "best of the best".  I'm just saying that, I HOPE, these things will be valued over "first appearances".  And I'm also ok with both being valued.  But I think one is more important than the other.

1 hour ago, Bronty said:

Okay, but it’s still the same discussion.

The OA for a mindless and poorly drawn 90s book that was super popular is going to outsell Maus art, to use your example, every time.   
 

Quality, whether it’s if image or of artwork or of story or of (fill in the blank), is only one driver, and really not the most important driver .    Buyers and sellers don’t buy and sell based on quality - they buy and sell based on supply and demand and neither of those things relate directly to quality of any type.  (Sure qiluality of any of thise metrics can affect demand but only indirectly and demand can be high for items that don’t meet whatever quality test you choose). 
 

To put it simply the ‘quality’ related to a piece of OA is only one reason to consider buying it.   There are many many others.   The first appearance of a character is one of those other drivers.   

"The OA for a mindless and poorly drawn 90s book that was super popular is going to outsell Maus art, to use your example, every time."

a) I don't think that's true.  b) Have you ever seen Maus art for sale?  If not, what are you basing this on?

"...they buy and sell based on supply and demand and neither of those things relate directly to quality of any type."

Why do you think certain items are "scarce"?  It is exactly because of quality.  What most people consider to be the "best of the best" is usually hard to find because everyone wants it.  If Herb Trimpe drew one issue of Doctor Bong, that would make it scarce.  It wouldn't make it valuable. 

15 hours ago, Bronty said:

1) Quality of image/technique is subjective

2) If we were interested in quality of image above all else, we wouldn't be collecting comic art in the first place (or at the very least it would only be a tiny part of what we collect).

3) First appearances are not (or at least are rarely) - subjective.    Its either a first appearance or it isn't.

4) I get your logic if we are talking about the appreciation of a medium - first songs/ paintings etc are irrelevant, yes.    However, there's a false equivalency in your logic.    'Best' comic artwork (if we can even define what that is) and the most valuable comic artwork are not the same thing.   Exhibit 1 - Hulk 181, Herb Trimpe.     I.e. appreciating where something fits in the medium, and placing a value on it, are very different exercises.   (Otherwise you wouldn't have all sorts of 'silly' valuation metrics such as whether the character is in or out of costume, and whether wolverine's claws are out or not, etc etc ad infinitum).

5) In summary, this is comic art, and illustration.    Its is categorically never going to be about best image.    The subject matter is going to weigh heavily every time.   First appearances are one aspect of subject matter that is becoming more important as certain collectors pay up for first appearance material.  

See my comment above - I was never referring to the image itself.

On 2/14/2021 at 9:49 PM, Shin-Kaiser said:

I feel the answer to both questions are clearly a yes, as can be seen from the previous records of high priced art. Though I do agree with you, the actual art should be formost. 'First appearance art' does sell for a premium though (even from the artists themselves). I wonder how much this cover would have went for if the artwork was a lot better?

You're right @Peter G, Spider- Gwen is also a derivative character. An icon gaining more and more popularity and cultural significance and she's...Oh wait!

There's other black characters in the Marvel Universe that came long before Miles. Why haven't they garnered the same success 'because they're black'?

I feel you're wrong here. As aforementioned, the reason Miles Morales is so popular is the same reason Peter Parker is. It's because they're both Spider-Man.

I think you may have misunderstood me again.  I wasn't talking about the quality of the artwork itself - I was talking about how significant a work is in within the medium.  That's why I mentioned Maus (Pulitzer) and Watchmen (one of Time Magazine's 100 greatest novels).

On 2/14/2021 at 8:27 PM, stinkininkin said:

You're preaching to the choir regarding the merits of the GL 87 cover! Thanks. The cover is posted in my CAF which is linked in every post I make near the bottom. But since you asked so nicely...

 

 

Floors me every time Scott!!

37 minutes ago, Peter G said:

I can’t help myself. But is this type of analysis not a tad absurd ? I get it. I really do. But this is everything I hated about comic book collecting. Now it’s migrating to OA. Next we are going to start slabbing our art 😔

This entire discussion is about how high the prices are on "first appearances" - in this case, an alternative Spider-Man.  But somehow discussing the alternative GL is "absurd"? 

8 hours ago, Shin-Kaiser said:

Did you read the article? The previous two records for the highest selling comic art were both first appearances of both Wolverine and X-23. Both iconic books.

Yes, this high selling art is from an iconic book. Obviously not iconic to you mind. You seem to be from a generation that can easily disregard Mile Morales, which is absolutely fine. Comics and comic culture is moving on from your golden age though, this sale is a sure sign of that. Miles Morales has his own video game. I'm guessing you haven't played it, but I wonder how many younger than you have?

 I bought a sticker book for my son a few months ago, it reminded me of my first exposure to Marvel which was a Secret Wars Sticker book back in the day. I noticed though that Spider-Man (Peter Parker), Miles Morales and Spider-Gwen had equal prominence throughout the book. As far as my son knows, these 3 characters have existed together since day one. As we age and the comic art market matures, it will change. I wonder what comic issues and art my sons generation will consider key. I'm guessing it will be wildly different from your 2 cents 

I think you missed my point.  My comment was not about the validity of a new character, nor whether Miles will have lasting appeal.  What I am saying is that quality should have more weight than the novelty of a "first appearance".  I've been collecting OA for close to two decades.  I've never had a single conversation with another collector who said, "you know what I want?  The first appearance of (fill in the blank)."  This is the mentality of the comic BOOK collector who is taught to value “keys”.  First appearances are the least interesting thing about the comic book medium as an art form.  If the comic book medium is to have any lasting appreciation by the culture at large, it will be because of the quality of the important works.  This is true in all the arts; film, literature, fine art, music.  Nobody cares about an artist’s first film, book, song, or painting; each is judged on its merits.  So, in 100 years, people will (hopefully) be reading Maus, and Watchmen, and I can’t imagine anyone being very interested in the first appearance of any character - outside the novelty of it.  My experience as a collector, and in talking to other collectors over the years, is that people want art from the “important” books.  That’s been the norm.  So, the question is, will first appearance originals always be valued at a premium?  Maybe.  Or will the “significant” works fetch the highest prices?  I hope so.  Of course there's the possibility that both will be true.  Time will tell.

I posted this comment on the Facebook discussion about this and reposting here.  Mark Morales has been around for a decade. So while he’s “hot” now (I guess) he’s not exactly Peter Parker. I’ve been collecting comic art for over 15 years and I don’t recall so much significance being placed on a “first appearance”. The best selling comic art has typically been what many consider to be iconic books of the genre. Is this book one of them? I don’t know - never read it (but I doubt it). There’s been a trend in OA collecting which is that a lot of comic book collectors transition into the original art market, and they bring with them some of the book collector mentality (e.g., first appearances). And while it’s entirely possible that the market is heading in that direction, I doubt that too. My .02.

Hello!

I hope everyone is staying safe and healthy!  I am currently running a sale on my website as follows:

ALL comic BOOK art is 10% OFF

ALL comic STRIP art is 15% OFF

Prices already marked on sale are eligible for the ADDITIONAL discount!

Time payments and trade always considered.  Thanks!

Art Adams

John Byrne

Frank Cho

Darwyn Cooke

Alan Davis

Dave Gibbons

Joseph Michael Linsner

Bill Sienkiewicz

and more!

Regards, 

Tony

www.comicinkking.com

Hello!

For a limited time www.comicinkking.com is having a 10% OFF Sale on EVERYTHING on the website.  If something is already marked down - you can take an ADDITIONAL 10% off!  Act now while supplies last!

Regards,

Tony

Is it against the rules to reply to a two month old thread?  This is a fun discussion and I've definitely had some phases:

Phase 1: Buying pretty inexpensive art.  I think the first piece I ever bought was a Mike Vossburg She-Hulk page that was pretty terrible.  But I just wanted to hold an original in my hands.  It's pretty amazing however how quickly you can go up in what you're willing to spend....

Phase 2: Buying art that is considerably more expensive and also buying almost anything that caught my eye.  I'm a big 80's guy but... EC art?  Sure.  Comic strip art?  Why not?  Nothing was off limits.

Phase 3: Pruning the collection.  I decided to stop putting any more cash into comic art - and I forced myself to only buy new pieces by selling off old ones.  This turned out to be the best move I ever made.  I might sell three pieces to buy one other one - but I LOVED the new piece and realized I didn't care much about losing the other three.  So I went from having a big variety and more pieces, to fewer, more valuable (both in dollars and sentiment) pieces.  This also helped me realize what my "sweet spot" was - the 80's.

Phase 4:  I assumed I was retired and that my big buying days were over.  I'd scratched all the itches I really wanted to and had examples of just about everything I wanted.  But to my surprise I sold off pieces I never thought I'd sell and found amazing pieces that I never thought I'd find!  I'm still buying and selling stuff pretty frequently and having fun with it.  I never get tired of getting a new piece of art.  There's so much good art out there - it's hard to NOT be able to find something that sparks your interest.

I've used Robert Dennis - he does great work!

Hello.  I'm looking to buy some Alan Davis art.  I'll consider almost anything.  Message or email me if you have any for sale.  Thanks!

Tony

Hello All,

Just updated my website with over 20 new originals!  Stop by and check it out:

www.comicinkking.com

Regards,

Tony

On 4/19/2018 at 5:01 AM, Solar said:

Woah...do you realize that the post you replied to is going on 12 years old? Impressive.

Some topics are timeless. ;)

21 hours ago, stinkininkin said:

What do you mean "normal"?  It takes as long as it takes, depending on complexity.  A page like the one in the video would probably be around 8-10 hours.  A page a day is a rough benchmark most artist's (not named Kirby) shoot for.

Wow!  Makes you really appreciate the amount of work it takes to put out a monthly book. 

On 4/2/2018 at 12:12 PM, stinkininkin said:

Well, we're taking this off topic (which is fine), but no, I've been doing this for so long that the level of detail doesn't even register.  And as for the video itself, it IS exhausting to watch.  It was produced on a lark for a San Diego panel I did with Jim and Scott Snyder, and is so kinetic and frantic as to induce nausea.  Overuse of the zoom function, film speed, and the fact that I spin the page as I work makes for something of a mess.  But I thought it was only going to be seen once (at the panel), and it wasn't until later that I casually posted it on YouTube, and 1.3 million views later, I don't have the heart to take it down, amateurish and EXHAUSTING though it might be!

Scott

So... 45 min for one panel?  Is that normal?  How long would a page like this take?

On 3/31/2018 at 11:40 AM, stinkininkin said:

Another signal that there may be a sea change coming is that I have a video up on YouTube demonstrating how I ink (compressed from about 45 minutes to 4 minutes) with well over a million views and it's not unusual to get comments from people questioning my methodology of inking directly over the original pencils.  The belief that there should be two originals (one pencils, one inks) is becoming more common I think.  Of course, a lot of younger fans and artist's don't understand why we don't just work digitally in the first place, but that's a different conversation.

 

Confession: I am one of the million+ who watched this!

That's very interesting that people think the pencils and inks should be separate.  Maybe it's a generational thing, or maybe they don't realize that original comic art is just a by-product of a production process.  We have all heard the stories of art being given away, thrown away, chopped up and discarded.  It was not considered valuable and was just a means to an end.  I suppose there is something unfortunate about the pencils being obliterated, but I've always viewed a pencil and ink team like two singers who harmonize.  You can't have one without the other - and only those two guys working together could make that finished piece.  Even though you can no longer see the pencils, technically, you have them on an inked page.  That's why, even if something is inked via blueline - I'd want the inks.  I can't imagine the finished piece would look any different if it's inked using bluelines or straight from pencils, so you're still getting that team effort or "harmony".

On 3/27/2018 at 3:50 PM, vodou said:

Your loss. I understand David completely. And completely agree with him. You only collect "published"? Go buy a comic book. Anything else is otherwise "less than published" by definition. No color, maybe no word balloons or digitally added effects even. "Less than published". That's why the "published only" guideline is unfortunate, even flawed.

I never said I only collect published - I said I'd prefer the published inks over the unpublished pencils when given the choice.  This thread is under the heading "Original Comic Art" - buying a comic book doesn't get you any original art.  And if someone only collected published artwork, it's not unfortunate or flawed - it's just what they like.  Nothing wrong with that.

22 hours ago, aokartman said:

Part of me loves the early phases of the process.  Comicinkking.com mentions he wants the "published" art.

Actually, the published art is a comic book with no limitations (versus a limited print).

The limitation is based on the publisher's expectation of sales.

Everything with handwork that comes before the actual book falls into the category of pre-production or production art.

If there is no handwork, it's not even art in the context of how some collectors approach collecting.

This strict guideline may be unfortunate, even flawed.

Nonetheless, each collector will decide what moves them to acquire certain pieces.

My opinion, David

I don't understand one thing in this entire post. 

5 hours ago, JadeGiant said:

I am also not a fan of the sentiment that the inks are better because they are the ‘printed original artwork’ as it feels like that is taking more credit than should be from the pencilers.

Don't know if this was directed at my prior comment but I wasn't implying inkers are better or more important than pencilers.  I admitted that the penciler does most of the heavy lifting.  But in the context of the question and of the hobby, it's about owning *original comic art*.  Original, to me, means the art used to print the comic.  The pencils were a BIG step in the process, but they are not published.  For that reason, I want the inks.  All you guys who choose pencils would be the proud owners of a bunch of unpublished art!  That would take a little of the excitement out of it for me.

6 hours ago, stinkininkin said:

You might think that since I am primarily an inker (and part time penciler)  I might have a really strong opinion about this (inks vs pencils), but in reality I'm rather agnostic about it.  I suppose that's because as a collector, I really only collect vintage art (generally my nostalgic zone).  I guess I've never had to declare and make a choice on what I'd prefer since vintage art is both pencils and inks on one board, which is all I've known and therefore prefer.  I honestly don't know what I'd lean towards if I started collecting modern art with the new paradigm, as I am infatuated with beautiful pencil work (think Neal Adams) and inspiring ink work (think, well, anybody good).  Not a choice I can easily make. 

In both a humorous vein, but with serious overtones, Jim Lee has said on numerous occasions (and very recently on his streaming video's) that all the people who buy the art that he and I produce are really buying Scott Williams originals, since all his pencil work is either hidden or erased.  He has said this for decades.  And make no mistake, there's a wink wink, nudge nudge aspect to this statement, but it does highlight the complexity and personal perspective on where one would come down on this issue.

Scott

Well I'll force you into a tough question!  What if Sinnott had inked the Kirby FF stuff via lightbox or bluelines.  If you had to choose, would you want the pencils or inks?  You can have only one!