PhilipB2k17

And it should. And, I think this illustrates the point. I think Mandel majorly overpaid for that TDKR splash. I think people should be asking "what's the next Ditko Spider-Man" not the next "TDKR."

I think the very fact that there is a debate about the long term value of TDKR art means that it is probably going to come down from it's lofty heights at some point. It will never be cheap. I think, long term, stuff like the Ditko Spidey pages, or Kirby/Sinnott FF pages (especially from issues 48-50) are the ones that will win out as the most desirable in the hobby. Even among younger collectors. Because, as important as TDKR was, what Kirby and Ditko did in the early Marvel days was far more important for the hobby, and even popular culture. I recall back in the 70's and early 80's when I would get my annual copy of the Overstreet price guide. I would be amazed that Marvel Comics #1 was more valuable than Action #1 or Detective 27. But, particularly Action #1. I thought "This is the most important comic book ever printed. And it's the second most valuable? This doesn't make any sense to me." I knew this was wrong even when I was a kid. And, history has born this judgment out. Marvel #1 had a halo effect because it was the first "Marvel" comic. But, history, and logic, won out. If I had to choose between a good TDKR page and a good Ditko Spidey page, I'd take the latter any day of the week.

I think people buy Preacher art because of the importance of the comic, not because Steve Dillon's art was particularly special (although I personally really like it). He clearly was perfectly suited to the material, but its not special. Like Gibbons, nobody is clamoring for Dillon art outside of Preacher (except maybe some Judge Dredd stuff). I think the next "TDKR" may never come, as far as comic books go. There is nothing today that gets the same kind of mass audience that book got. The only thing close would be The Waking Dead, but that's a long-running saga, with a ton of art available. TDKR art is valuable in large part because there is not very much art available. Supply and Demand. If you want TWD art, it's easy to come by. Now, "key" pages are more expensive, obviously. But, you will never get the average per page price for TDKR. If Saga art were available, it would also probably be in this category. I think what would have to happen is that a fairly popular (by today's standards) LIMITED RUN independent comic book becomes a pop culture phenomenon (a la the TMNJ), and gets turned into a big movie franchise, with TV spin offs, etc. I say "limited run" as opposed to ongoing (like TWD) because that original limited run's art would become the most valuable art of the property. It would, inevitably, be sequelized as a comic book, and create a larger universe. But, that initial run would be special. Hell Boy had a shot at that too. And, had the initial TMNT run been a 6 issue limited series, that may qualify.

So...is $2500 for a Saint of Killers Preacher Page where he’s in half the panels, including facing the reader and 3/4 profile a good price? ?

Joe Staton put a kick First E-Man cover up a while ago. Man was I tempted. I think it was the entire issue, in fact.

Burton cited Killing Joke, actually, as more of an influence. But the sales figures for TDKR and KJ did help convince the studio to keep it in development. It was only after Burton scored a hit with Beetlejuice that they greenlighted it.

1979, actually. And Uslan has stated publicly that he intended to bring Batman back to his original dark noir roots.

I think the success of the Batman movie moved the needle more thanWatchmen or TDKR. Yes, the latter got some notoriety, but not like the mania that 1989 film created

The number of copies sold of recent Batman (or any) comics pales in comparison to the sales figures of TDKR. The audience is much smaller today than it was then.

Of course, people bought comics in those days for a lot of reasons. Speculation being one of them.

I think a Batman series written by Frank Miller at the time would have garnered a LOT of attention - and sales -, even had TDKR not been published already. Especially with the Daredevil "Born Again" creative team being reunited.

The rebooted, post Crisis Jason Todd, I should have said.

The Batman title also published Batman Year 1 in 1987. Written by Miller, to probably take advantage of the TDKR popularity. That was also the year Batman meets Jason Todd, who becomes the new Robin. There was a LOT of stuff going on in the Batman title itself. It wasn't just a halo effect from TDKR.

Which is why I am interested in how well that Batman #232 Panel with Ras Al Guhl in it that is up at Heritage right now, does.

What were the sales like for all of DC's titles at the time? 1985-1986 saw the publication of Crisis on Infinite Earths, which consolidated the entire line's continuity, and was a big event. If Batman's sales went up disproportionately compared to, say, Superman or Flash, that would be evidence of Dark Knight's impact. But, if his titles increased about the same as the others, then it may be more of a DC-wide reinvigoration. For example, Superman went from averaging 98,000 circulation average per month in 1985 to almost 162,000 per month in 1987, per Comichron.

Not even very many Chaykin AF pages listed on Comic Art Tracker.

I'd say about half of my art was acquired that way. I buy the art first, then I hunt down the book its from. I like to have copies of all the published books my art is from.

I think collectors who have nostalgia for certain eras (principally when they were in late adolescence and teenagers), think the best stuff from their era is special. Personally, I think early 80's First Comics art is criminally undervalued in the market, relative to its quality and importance. I mean, American Flagg, to me, was just as important as TDKR or Watchmen. But it wasn't published by the Big Two.

Not to mention Frazetta.

Yeah, I don't agree with this either. I think it's a style thing.

You also had Michael Uslan already planning a Dark Knight version of Batman in the late 70's when he was trying to get a new Batman film made.

Well, sure. The very fact that he had 40 years plus of history to deconstruct is what made TDKR possible. Especially his relationship to Superman. Absent that long period, the impact of the story would have been very different. And, I wonder if it would have had nearly the impact if Superman were not involved at all, and it was just Batman vs Two-Face -- or Even the Joker. I don't think so.

On a side note, I remember my elementary school library had a hardcover reprint book of the old Batman comics going all the way back to Detective 27. I remember reading all those early stories as a kid, and being fascinated by them. They were so different from the Batman TV show and Superfriends, etc that I was more familiar with. (I wasn't a Batman comic reader yet). It was dark, full of abnormal psychology (which I did not understand at the time), and weird. The Joker wasn't the jovial prankster he was when I knew him, he was a weird, crazy, murderous psychopath. (Which is what he is now, after going back to his roots).

But, go back and read that first year of Batman stories (which were really pulpy), and you see he was pretty much a noir badass.

But Batman was "dark and gritty from day one." I mean, Batman originally killed his enemies. He became more kid friendly as time went on, eventually becoming silly in the 60's. And, this wasn't even the first time Batman had been made more "dark and gritty." This happened previously in the late 1960's.