PhilipB2k17

Chinese art collectibles have gone way up because Chinese collectors are flush with cash and the market for them has exploded.

I had a chance to buy this page recently. This is by Arvell Jones, and the question I have is: what level art is this? Its obviously got a great image that hits a lot of collector sweet spots. But Arvell is not a highly collected artist and it’s from a Cap annual that is not necessarily in demand. Although a splash (which I consider to be inferior to this page) from this same Issue sold for 0ver $1100 recently at Heritage.

My wife’s biggest complaint about my art is that it’s all ”black and white.” But she does appreciate the quality of some of my pieces. Not her thing, but she kind of gets why I like it.

I think a more apt comparison to MTG art is D&D related art. What is the market like for original D&D art from things like the Fiend Folio, etc? Is it going up due to nostalgia? People still play D&D, right? Abd wit things like Lord of the Rings&Game ofTbrones being popular, that should carry over to D&D? Or not. I have no clue. Does anyone know?

Yep. I actually watch those particular episodes to test my appraisal eye to see whether I can predict long term value potential. I’m getting better at it. Notably, stuff that is small, portable, easily displayed, made of precious metals or gems, or is ~not~ tied to some obscure historical event or person tends to increase in value. Older styles of furniture, I noticed, have done a cliff dive.

Then there’s the art to Frank Miller’s Xerxes prequel.

Heh. Obviously an OA Newbie. The Dynatron pages are probably less than $50 a piece. How much less? It seems like a page has been sitting on eBay at $31. So.... The Scarlet Witch Page is probably under $100.

This is the more likely scenario, IMHO.

I feel like the Watchmen page one with the iconic smiley face button would still go for more than almost every other Watchmen Page.

Can you add a reserve with 12 hours to go?

It's been a while since I bought a piece from Cadence, but my experience at the time was positive. He shipped pretty quickly. Let me know how this works out, because I have been eyeing some pieces there.

That's odd, because usually the Rep has the art.

That sounds shady as hell. Like the two (or 3) bidders knew each other and 2 decided to back off. I think you should pull the item entirely (if allowed), and report the behavior.

Unless it's the panel page with Scott and Jean from X-Men 137 where Jean dies. I'd say that's probably an A page.

That depends on whether you really like the Zen of the rain droplets creating perfect circles in the puddle.

I've tried to train myself to be this way all the time. To varying degrees of success!

Wait 4-5 months until the urge to go get another page overwhelms you. Problem solved.

Where would you put Larry Marder on the scale?

I agree with this. I use the Citizen Kane example a lot to explain this phenomenon. Citizen Kane, when it came out, was revolutionary in the story telling technique and the way it was shot. And a ton of Directors were influenced by it, and incorporated a lot of its innovations into their own work. The DNA of Citizen Kane was imbued into a large number of popular and influential films that followed it. But, if you ask a moviegoer today about Citizen Kane, and they watch it, they will wonder what the big deal is. It's freshness, and innovativeness doesn't stand out to them because to them it isn't fresh or innovative. It's tropes and techniques are now film clichés that they've seen in a hundred other movies. The same is true for Comic Art. I think Will Eisner is the Orson Wells of the Comic medium. Hugely innovative in the way he told a story. But, every artist since then has swiped his techniques and tropes, so now Eisner's stuff looks clichéd. I think Jack Kirby still stands out on pure style grounds, even if a lot of his storytelling techniques have been swiped a gazillion times. That's one reason Kirby stuff will always be in demand. He's unique. I think Sean Murphy is a talented artist, and self-promoter. But he's not an innovative genius - like Frank Miller - who is re-inventing a character in a profound way, or the way to tell a story. Miller is, in my mind, the absolute master of negative space. His drawings are almost impressionistic as well. Tricking your brain into seeing lines where there are no lines. Or into filling in the perceptual blanks. He creates dramatic tension with relatively empty space like no other comic book artist. he also creates a terrific sense of movement, that fits the character. But, I digress....

I disagree with this analysis. I remember not like Kirby at all back in the 70's and 80's. I did like the old reprints of his early Marvel stuff, but I didn't "like" his art as much as I did people like Neal Adams, Sienkiewicz, or Frank Miller (who himself is a stylized acquired taste). I think younger collectors who stay in the hobby a while, will eventually come to appreciate this art for what it is. Kirby art is actually much better appreciated in twice up black and white, rather than the shrunk down color bleed newsprint of a comic, IMHO. You get the full flavor of his genius. I think Ditko is also a bit of an acquired taste, outside of Spider-Man and Doctor Strange, which both fit his style perfectly. I think each generation of collectors gravitates toward those artists they first "imprinted" on, if you will. This is why a guy like Sal Buscema is now more revered (whereas, at the time of his heyday, he was regarded as basically a competent, professional, house style artist). I think the early 90's Image style is generally (although not entirely) awful, but that's not my taste! There are collectors who LOVE that era, and art style, because that's the art that was "imprinted" on them when they first started collecting. So, do the young collectors like a certain kind of art style (such as Fabok, or Adam Hughes) because of "craft" and technical proficiency) or because that's the art that made an impression on them when they first started in the hobby? I also agree that price is a big factor. I have started gravitating toward NEW art much more as it is very expensive to collect purely on Nostalgia. For me, anyway. That is likely true for the younger collectors, who can't afford to blow that much on vintage art (unless it is C or D level stuff sitting by the tens of thousands in dealer inventor, or on eBay).

I would expect Nostalgia to keep on being the predominant driver of value, but what collectors are "nostalgic" about to change over time. I think, for example, the increasing (now, maybe coming back down to Earth - ) Preacher art is a classic example of a nostalgia bubble.

That's a terrific page, and I think it will be over $20,000 in 3-4 years. Easily.

Using my "A level" criteria. Is it by an iconic artist? Yes. Is it of an iconic character? Yes Is it by an iconic artist during an iconic run depicting his signature character? Yes. Is it from an important story line during an iconic run of an iconic character? Yes. Is it a quintessential example of an iconic artist's run depicting his or her signature character? No. It's probably in the mid to bottom 3rd of images from the Ditko Spidey run. I think it has to check every box to be an A-level piece. Therefore, given all of the above, this is, at best, a B to B+ piece. It ticks off almost all of the boxes. The only thing keeping it from being a true A level piece is the subpar (for Ditko) Spidey image. If this was one of the top 5 all-time Spidey story lines, and this was a big plot moment in that story, it might creep into A territory. I don't think it is (although some may disagree). But, that's just MY opinion. As always, YMMV.

I think it's hit and miss. Jim Starlin, for example, is becoming a superstar with younger collectors due to his influence on the MCU. Kirby is Kirby. Ditko is Ditko. I think all collectors get that. I think it is the DC artists who are going to suffer somewhat. I think Neal Adams is going to see his stuff wane over time, because he isn't putting out a lot of new, exciting product, and his influence in the hobby is not as well-appreciated with younger collectors. His art (especially his 60's and early 70's DC stuff and his X-Men stuff at Marvel), was terrific. But his (then) "revolutionary" art style isn't so revolutionary to modern collectors who don't realize how influential he was, and how so may artists who followed him are aping a lot of his technique. Frank Miller is going to continue to be important, I think. But, will Dave Stevens? He's aesthetically brilliant, and good girl art is always going to command somewhat of a premium (and he's an absolute master of it), but unless Rocketeer gets rebooted and becomes a huge pop culture thing, his art may sink into the morass of the Turners, Adam Hughes', J Scott Campbell "good girl" artists who he inspired and influenced. Younger collectors may not get how influential he was ( a la Neal Adams). Once the collector base who saw Stevens' stuff for the first time, and were wowed by it, are no longer driving the hobby, will he still be commanding the premiums he commands now? I kind of think the great EC covers by Wood, Feldstein, etc will always do well. They are so classic and iconic. But the interiors, not so much. Wrightson is a difficult question. I think his Frankenstein work, alone, will elevate him above guys like Wood, Jones, Kaluta, etc. It is recognized as the pinnacle of the art form, and just seeing it takes your breath away. There's nothing like it, really.