PhilipB2k17

What's the first appearance of Galactus? FF #48? or FF #49? Everyone agrees it's FF #48, even though he only makes an appearance in the last panel. Just...like...Wolverine in Hulk #180. It is absolutely comical to claim Hulk #181 is his first App. It's not. It's just really collectible because it has that iconic cover, and his first full length story. If people want to pay a premium for that, that's great. But stop pretending it's Wolvie's 1st appearance.

This whole thread is comical, because Hulk #180 is the true first appearance of Wolverine in a published comic book anyway.

Wow is this gorgeous. The literal second appearance of Starlord (including the cover!) and a Berni Wrightson classic. http://m.ebay.com/itm/352096244270?_mwBanner=1

I think the Romita Spider-Man run is kind of like the Curt Swan Superman run. He became the definitive artists of the character for a long time. So, if you want a representative example of Spider-Man comic art from that period. Romita Sr. is the preferable page to own. There have been other memorable artists runs on Spider-Man, obviously. I'd rather own a Ditko page, personally. (Who wouldn't?). Some prefer McFarlane. Others may like Bagley. Ryan Stegman is currently putting his own stamp on the Wall Crawler. It all depends on your preference.

I like his stuff! And I would certainly not mind owning a nice page from that run. But, a run-of-the mill Spidey page from the Romita run (not one of the historic pages or covers) is wildly overpriced, IMHO. If others are willing to pay that price, then good for them. I'm not. We are also starting to see this on the Trimpe Hulk pages. Really? I like Hulk, and his run was cool and all, but I think that he's wildly overvalued due mainly to him being the co-creator of Wolverine and that two comic-arc of his introduction. There really was nothing all that special about Trimpe's Hulk run, frankly. But, it lasted a long time! And some big character were introduced during it!

Yes. I'd much rather have that Hulk cover. But, I am not a McFarlane fanboy, so I wouldn't be willing to pay anywhere near what it would sell for. The only McFarlane stuff I would even consider are Spidey pages. He's just not my cup of tea. But, that's just my opinion! Obviously, many, many others think differently, or his stuff wouldn't sell for so much.

I wouldn't $650 for that cover, much less $65K. As I said in another thread, I buy what is aethetically pleasing to me. And that cover, no matter if it's by McFarlane, is not.

Yes. Love those 70's Godzilla pages. Have been looking for some for a while. People hold onto them, and they are very hard to find. Great piece!

The problem with this hobby, IMHO, is that a few well-financed collectors can distort a market and create bubbles. I think Romita Spider-Man art is one of those situations. I actually like his stuff, maybe more than you do, but I do think it's wildly overpriced due to the efforts of a small cadre of collectors who are obsessed with it. When you have collectors that just pay whatever a piece if priced at, just because they can and its a unique piece, than all rationality goes out the window. There are probably thousands of Romita Sr. Spidey pages out there. I can't believe that those pages are in such high demand at the current price point, except for a few collectors.

Here's my 2 cents, for what it's worth. I buy art that I find aesthetically pleasing. To me. It may not be pleasing to someone else, but they are not the ones buying it. I am. If I like it, that's all that matters. I do show my pieces to my wife, who sometimes likes it, and sometimes doesn't. But, in the end I have to like what I have. For example, I have been looking at some pages by James Stokoe lately, that are really terrific. I bought a nice page of his from Godzilla in Hell #1. I loved the intricate line work of it and the cool Godzilla image. I could care less if he's a big name popular artist, or not. I really like his stuff. It's a published comic book art page of a character that I like, by an artist who has a very cool, unique style that I enjoy. I realize that his work may not be the cup of tea for other collectors. But, I like it, so that's all that matters. There are some big name, expensive artists who I do not like, and probably wouldn't buy a page of. John Byrne is one. Maybe I'd spring for a cool X-Men page, if I could get it for a decent price. But, I an not a huge fan of his art, and never have been. Even back in the 70's and 80's when he was regarded as a superstar artist, I never got it. Todd McFarlane is another one. Sure, he re-invented how Spider-Man is drawn, basically. And some of those images are cool. But, for the money it would take to own one of those pages, it's it's really worth it to me. A Brian Bolland or Dave Stevens page? Yep. Absolutely worth every penny. To me. As for Kirby, I have a newfound appreciation for his style, especially, the early to late 60's stuff when he was at the top of his artistic game. Was he technically proficient as an artist, or line drawer? No. Neal Adams called him a "primitive," (not meant as an insult, because he loves Kirby, obvious). But, his storytelling sense, and dynamic action was perfectly suited to the medium, and reinvented it, frankly. His imagination was second-to-none, and is creativity was off the charts. He's legitimately a genius. Are there some pages that are clunky and a bit schlocky by Jack? Yep. I wouldn't just buy any old page by him. I would want one that had his classic magic. And, yes, it would be pricey, but it would be worth it. Again, worth it...to me. And let me add that there is a difference when you are considering the quality of an artists, between someone who is very highly technically skilled, who then ventures off into provactive, or experimental territory (see Bill Sienkiewicz, for example) and someone who really was never that skilled. Some people really don't like Bill's impressionistic stuff. Others think its brilliant. I'm in the latter category, but some others may not be. But, in that case, you know an artists is trying something new, and is not just a hack. The same applies to a lot of Frank Miller's later work. So, to sum up. I am not going to buy a piece of art that I do not enjoy, and find pleasing to look at. No matter who it is by, whether it be Frank Frazetta, Jack Kirby, or Joe Schmo. But, again, each person can do what they want. That's just me.

There once was a point in time when Sunday color comic sections were of huge cultural importance. Now, people under 30 don't even read a physical newspaper anymore, let alone the comic strips from them. But, original comic strip art is still marketable. And Hipster culture is really into "vintage" stuff. An OA is as "vintage" as it gets. Its authentic, and unique.

There's an economy of scale that benefits the seller of a full comic. One commission on the sale. One shipping cost, and only one shipment, etc. Therefore, they can take a "discount" from the per-page sales value. The problem is knowing what the "per page" sales value is on a whole book sale because there are no sales comps from that book to compare it to. You have to get a little but more speculative. I think any bidder on a full book would probably try and estimate a per page value, and then extrapolate that to determine a potential bidding price, but then discounting it a certain percentage accordingly.

I have a theory. I am seeing OA prices across the board, kind of going up just in the last year. My theory is that a lot of older comic book collectors who are in their prime earning years are discovering Original Art and moving into collecting that. Why? The rise of the convention scene. The pop culture convention scene has exploded over the past several years, and comic book creators, particularly artists, have become minor pop stars at these things. Every convention has an artists alley. And if you are there with your kids to look for comics to fill holes in your collection, and you find out that Lee Weeks, or Howard Chaykin, or someone else you like is there and they are selling art, maybe you pick up a piece or two. Also, the rise of the internet makes buying and selling OA easier than ever. Before, one of the ONLY ways to get it was to go to a convention and buy it from the artists. Or, if your local comic shop had a few pages, you could buy it there. Hell, I bet some folks got into OA just from doing searches for comic books on eBay and saw a few OA pages pop up.

Exactly what I was thinking. When Cable is actually on screen as a character, that page will go up in price. Not sure by how much, but there will be more interest in it.

Also, OA value is somewhat influenced by the desirability of the book its for. If the comic it's from goes up in value, the OA probably will to. Not sure if it's a 1:1 ratio, but there is definitely going to be a relationship between the value of the book, and the value of the original art from that book.

If you have any 80's Micronauts (Golden or Guice) pages you are interested in parting with, let me know.

Baretto is an underrated artists from an era (80's) that is getting more scrutiny and interest for OA. It's the tale end of the Bronze age, and interim period before the 90's collapse when art was still ink on pencils, and word balloons were not added digitally. I have a nice New Teen Titans title spalsh by him. Plus, he's deceased, so there is not as much output.

I disagree with that, somewhat. See, Walking Dead as a classic example. The prices paid for WD art are nowhere near what they would be if there was no hit TV show. The same is true for Preacher. I also think Perez (in particular) Wonder Woman pieces saw a decent uptick.

To modify my story idea even further, Harley doesn't actually KILL Joker. She imprisons him, a la Kathy Bates in Misery, and THEN takes on his persona, making people believe she killed him. The hook on the story is that Batman finds out that Joker is still alive, and has to wrestle with whether to rescue him. Eventually, he does, and he and Joker team-up to take down Harley, who has become an epic menace as bad, if not worse, than Joker. While Joker appreciates and respects what she's done, he is also pissed off that she imprisoned him, and is angry that she's getting all the credit for mayhem he usually gets.

Case in point, Warners is promoting a brand new Batman Cartoon (via Bruce Timm) where Batman and Nightwing team up with Harley Quinn. They just released the trailer. http://heroichollywood.com/batman-harley-quinn-trailer-1/

Number 3 and number 6 look more legit than the others. But, I'm not an expert.

This misses the point of this discussion. The question was, what would BA12 bring NOW at auction? Not would it bring 10 years from now...or 20. I think the owner of that cover should probably sell it now, as it is likely at or near its peak value.

An epic storyline would be Harley killing the Joker, and taking over his persona and becoming the new Joker.

More than the Drax title splash from the same issue. Not sure how much more. 25%?

I think Deadpool is more popular in the comic book community than Harley, but Harley has more break out appeal outside of that. Case in point: "Harley" is rocketing up the baby naming charts. https://www.babycenter.com/baby-names-harley-6795.htm And it coincides with her introduction as a character, and then explodes with the publicity for Suicide Squad. Even the name "Harley-Quinn" is exploding. Granted, nobody is going to name their kid "Deadpool," but still. Comic books are still a male dominated hobby, so it makes sense that people think Deadpool is more popular. But, from my point of view, I think the NM 98 cover is awful from an artistic standpoint anyway, and I think the BA12 cover is more aesthetically pleasing. But that's me. I am not a Leifeld fan. So, of the two, I'd rather have BA12.