PhilipB2k17

I’d really love a Larry Marder Bean World Page.

Someone smells a crash coming.

I watch art to get an idea of pricing. I want to see what sells, and for how much. I also learn from what doesn't sell. And, I like to keep tabs on how many people are watching a piece, to gage interest. And, yes, I may try to buy it too.

Very likely. It looked too quick. They probably condensed weeks of haggling into a 5 minute rehearsed segment. I wonder if Rick is going to put them up at HA or some other auction house? We'll know if they pop up! Also, Rick is savvy enough to know that "art featured on Pawn Stars!" might give it a bit of a boost when they re-sell them.

Yes. Like I said, I think $250K was too much for those. That's around $20K per drawing.

First thing that stands out is that Stan Lee signature is of a more recent vintage. There are old, silver age era signatures of Stan that are different, and are not that stylized one we see everywhere now. So, dating it by the Lee signature isn't much help. Also, that is definitely not a Ditko drawing, or even by a professional artist. It is a crude attempt at recreating that Splash. I agree that it is likely just a fan drawing that someone later had Stan sign to pump up its value. Probably within the last 5-10 years. The original signature is whited out, as someone else noticed. If it was by a name artist, there would be no need to do that.

Yes, there's that. They have to come up with interesting content on a weekly basis, and stuff like that doesn't always walk in the door.

My question is: Are these original drawings that were used in the book? Or are they separate commission type drawings that Sendak did later on? If the latter, I'm not sure I'd pay $250K for them. If they were used in the book, then $250K is definitely a good deal.

The best deal is when you get 24 months, no interest, on PayPal credit when you buy something on eBay

Seems to me that art commissions are where CGC could, make a buck, so to speak. One of the biggest reasons s there isn’t as much of a secondary market is fear of scams.

It’s definitely 70’s Kirby for me.

So YOU’RE the 13-year-old kid Jim Shooter was talking about in that interview excerpt I just posted.

Jim Shooter interview in that topic last year: “And we’d experiment–Bill Sienkiewicz is a genius artist. Chris [Claremont] wanted to do the New Mutants together. Bill said, ‘I really want to go experimental, I know you want everything clear, but I want to try some stuff.’ I thought Sienkiewicz was a genius, Claremont–he’ll pull it together. I said go for it, swing for the fences, you’ll never hear from me that it’s not clear enough, and boy did they swing for the fences. AiPT!: And now there’s a New Mutants movie coming out. Shooter: Yeah and the stuff was fantastic. On the newstands where the readers tended to be younger–they didn’t get it at all. But this market, they loved it, sales shot up.” http://www.adventuresinpoortaste.com/2017/11/19/interview-legendary-marvel-comics-editor-in-chief-jim-shooter-on-the-current-state-of-marvel-creator-incentives-and-more/

To each his own.

Yeah, I’ve seen those. Several on eBay too. Not my cup of tea.

Ahhhh...the money shot. The first time you open the comic and lay the OA for a page next to the published version is magic. That’s one of the endorphine pumps of this hobby. Congrats.

I'm not sure he wouldn't have sold that cover for $70K.

I am definitely more of a Cockrum fan when it comes to the way he drew ladies.

This is very probably true. But you might be able to develop a mean ratio, and then establish deviations off of it to explain why some OA may have more, or less, value. It would be interesting to see if this could be done, as while I think people assume there is no way to quantify it, something can be mathematically represented if most everyone agree on the criteria that needs to be evaluated. And while we all have our different preferences, I think we can all agree (for the most part) on what criteria we each rate when evaluating a piece of OA.

I thought about doing a comprehensive published OA study that used the more objective values of the comic it was published in as the anchor to determine the value ratio. To explain. Is the value of an OA published page roughly equivalent to the 9.8+ CGC value of that same comic? If not, why not? If there are 22 OA pages in that comic, do we then compare how many are CGC 9.8+ in the CGC census to get a ratio? Or, is there no relationship at all to the comic's value? I think there is some degree of influence on value, but how much is hard to quantify. I'd like to sample 10,000 OA sales and comparisons to their comic values, and come up with some kind of general ratio that you can add or subtract to based upon factors such as character and artists, etc.

Indeed. Romita was mostly aping Ditko when he first started on ASM. He himself says he was copying Ditko for the 1st year. http://www.syfy.com/syfywire/watch-john-romita-sr-on-replacing-steve-ditko-and-how-stan-lee-saved-comics

A good example of this is Bolland Judge Dredd vs Carlos Ezquerra Judge Dredd.

I personally do not value Byrne X-Men art higher than Cockrum 1st run X-Men art. I suspect a big reason that people do, is because of the storylines Byrne drew. Cockrum was a hell of an artist, and designed most of those new characters.

I thought pre-Hero Marvel silver age monster stuff was quite sought after? Especially Kirby or Ditko stories?