PhilipB2k17

Just now, SquareChaos said:

As someone that hasn't followed his work, is it going up across the board, or just for his Batman work? What about, say, his Spawn work? Didn't he also work on at least a year of Haunt?

I think his Spawn stuff is also seeing a halo effect from his Batman work.

Just now, comix4fun said:

We'd have to eliminate the person who offered the $30k as not also being the person who eventually paid the $50k. 

His market is more robust in terms of number of pieces sold than one would expect, at least in initial sales direct from the artist, but without know the breadth of the sales pool and how many different buyers we're talking about we don't know who's going to be there to meet that when those buyers decide to sell. I think the artwork is great, very dynamic. I am just very skeptical of valuations made in a vacuum. 

So I agree that it's possible that Capullo's pieces will only go up from here, but I don't have enough information to feel that it's likely or probable. 

That's fair! And you are very reasonable in this assessment. I am merely throwing this out there is a data pint that suggests - but does not prove! - that maybe the OA hobby's longer term prospects might not be as dire as some very thoughtful and knowledgeable collectors believe. Then again, I saw a nice Finch Batman page on eBay plummet from the initial asking price to a point I thought suggested that maybe the market for his Batman panel pages was inflated, or coming down from a high.

So, the Capullo bubble may not be having a carry over effect to other well-regarded modern Batman artists. Then again, it was only one page.

1 minute ago, rocket1312 said:

In this case I think there was literally only one person who was willing and able to pay even close to the asking price for this cover.  Capullo seemingly priced it as high as he did because he DID NOT want to sell it.  The buyer more or less called his bluff and even then (if it's who we think it is), was turned away multiple times before apparently breaking through.

Why won't people just name the buyer? Is there some sort of taboo in doing that around here? Not everyone is as plugged into these things as some of the other board regulars.

4 minutes ago, comix4fun said:

It's not the first sale, from the artist and at these higher than expected price points, that we should be looking to if we want to see how the "market" values and absorbs these pieces into a stream of commerce like other pieces with multiple sales and data points through public and private sales and auctions. It's the subsequent movement of these pieces which will tell you if the market as it may be perceived due to a few eye opening sale numbers today is real or illusory. 

Anything is possible, sure, but looking to any of a handful of one to one sales, perhaps to a small pool, is far less helpful in determining broader market value and acceptance of those values the way that public secondary or tertiary movement in a sale or auction setting will. 

It's the difference between the price that ONE person is willing to pay and the price that MANY people are willing to pay, or at least come close to. The first and second under-bidder theory is what I call it. Sure there's one buyer at $50k. Does that mean there's another buyer at $49k, or three or four buyers at $40-45k? We don't know that yet because Capullo was firm and only one buyer met his number. 

Well, in this very thread there was one other buyer who offered 30K for that same cover last year. But he was rebuffed. So, we know of at least two collectors willing to pay at least $30k for it. Then again...maybe it was the same dude! no one is naming names (It's an open secret who bought it, and apparently it is Voldemort, or He Who Must Not Be Named. Not that I even know who this person is). Now that it's sold for 50K (or thereabouts, maybe it was more because we don't now the final sales number!), you are starting to see a bit of a market developing for the top end Capullo pieces.

I get what you're saying about the secondary market. But, clearly there were enough buyers of the panel and splash pages out there to indicate that even at those price points, the good stuff would sell.

40 minutes ago, delekkerste said:

I've won the majority of my auction wins by putting my max bid in ahead of time (usually a couple/few hours ahead) and letting it ride.  Most of the time, I can't be arsed to have my schedule revolve around lot closing times.   

90% of the time, it works every time, because most of the people who don't have a good handle on what to bid will have already tried to accelerate price discovery prior to the final few hours before the auction ends.  As such, the risk of someone bidding you up, walking away, having second thoughts and then coming back to bid more is minimized, because most people by that point are looking to snipe.  And, frankly, the bidders most likely to do so are probably not going to be in a great financial position to run something up on me anyway - it again comes down to someone being prepared to pay or not. 

I know people who are extremely paranoid that the auction houses will run up your max bid if you leave it in their system early.  These people, including some very close friends of mine, will literally not bid on an item if they can't be there to snipe (CLink) or bid live (Heritage) on a lot.  Yes, they would rather do without!  Personally, I trust the auction houses not to do so, and have won numerous lots well below my max bid.  Sure, I've been pushed to my max a number of times as well, but, I've often later learned who the underbidder was or otherwise have not discerned any pattern that would lead me to believe shenanigans are going on.  I have to believe that, at least for the Big 3 auction players in the hobby, they are not stupid enough to risk their franchises (plus civil suits, jail time or even physical harm) to do something like that.

That is my take, anyway.  

I have only participated in one online auction, via Heritage. I wound up winning the page at below what I was willing to pay for it (in my own mind). I did not put in a max bid ahead of time for a singular reason: While I knew what I would ~probably~ pay for the item, I wasn't 100% certain. I was concerned that if I put in my Max bid, I might actually wind up paying it, and I did not decide until the live bids were going on how much I was wiling to pay for it. As it turns out, I paid under (even after adding the buyer's premium), what my Max bid would have been.

I also wanted to get a feel for the mechanics of a HA, as I had never done one before. That was another concern. Not knowing exactly what I was doing.  

44 minutes ago, comix4fun said:

 

Isn't this the definition of a "short run" data point? It's hard to extrapolate a one-off transaction where one buyer met one seller's admittedly extreme demands and slot that into a market stream or prediction of future performance.

Basically, what I am saying is, is that this single sale is not the same as an organically escalated or matured market that started, for example, at $1,000 per piece and through trading  and selling eventually reached $50,000. 

The hypothesis that modern art may reach the same market healthy and heights of other eras of comic art may turn out to be true. However, I don't know if this single sale is an indicator of that or something that turns the hypothesis to proven theory. 

At this point all this sale tells us is that this buyer met this seller's demands for this piece. There's nothing in this transaction that helps us to predict where the next piece will sell at auction or in an open market setting because the sample size is so small and so specific. 

I'm not basing it on the singular sale of the Batman #1 cover. I'm talking about the higher price point being realized for Capullo's art generally. The beginning of this thread last year was highly skeptical of his pricing. It seems that he's been able to sell some at the higher price point, and even the cover....he got his asking price.

This suggests to me that the whole theory that as the Boomers and Gen X collectors fade from the scene, OA values will start levelling off or crater, may not be accurate. What we may see is a shift away from the nostalgic high points in OA for Boomers and Gen X to more modern "classics," as the Millennials age into financial maturity.

This is a very small hobby. It doesn't take a whole lot of collectors with deep pockets to drive the market. Just enough to create a feeding frenzy, or to set the market.

What may be happening is the Dark Knight effect, in that people saw how the DKR pages went into the stratosphere in the hobby, and may be buying Capullo Batman pages now, with the expectation they will hit DKR levels in 20 years. Who knows? Maybe they're right?

I tend to think the B and below Silber and bronze age stuff will start seeing absolute value declines as those collections get dumped onto the market, and the younger collectors are unwilling to absorb that inventory at such high price points. The A stuff will likely always retain value. But, what constitutes "A" material will also change over time!

Not knowing who bought that cover (The hints being dropped mean nothing to me), doesn't the market for Capullo's art suggest that the theory modern art won't get to the heights of the classic stuff - in the longer run - might be wrong? 

Food for thought. 

1 minute ago, rocket1312 said:

Here's the cover in question.

 

That's a terrific cover. 

All it takes is for a few collectors to pay the asking price for a few of these pieces to get the dam to break. 

Its highly desirable material, in relatively short supply. 

Once the market is set, its set. 

4 minutes ago, Bronty said:

I like the rendering.   Yeah the content could be better but it is a lot better than the Bolland I don't have

Yep. I wish I had a Bolland.

That's kind of a sister-kisser piece, isn't it?

3 hours ago, vodou said:

I'm interested in hearing more too. But I'm also interested in hearing from somebody that's been with them a few years (at least) and how they feel the overall value is: coverage:cost:claim payment. "Cost" would include the time/expense of any appraisal hoops one has to jump through.

Eric's article at the beginning gets to the crux of the matter: insurers are happy to do the easy math upfront (writing policy), because it favors them. That math is x% of value covered. It favors them because by and large everybody over-insures and under-claims (if at all). Big money gap there between profit and loss. The insurer just sweeps that (profit) money up from all the insureds. But when the occasional claim (loss) comes in, all of a sudden it's a national emergency at the insurer...because it's not easy and it's not profitable, they are no longer favored. The big money gap has narrowed...slightly Easy claim math (for all parties) would be payout exactly what you're covered for, quickly too, and no bs unless fraud can be proven. I'm waiting for an insurer that offers that. Ha!

The industry's first pushback to that is that the customer-provided value (or even appraised value) is not tethered to reality. That's a tough nut on unique objects, like art (not like CGC 9.8 New Mutants 98!) Comps? Cost basis? What reality? It's a grey area that insurers exploit to push the value down, but only at claim time. Otherwise your value is great for pricing purposes Why not let "your value" prevail beginning (premium) to end (claim payout)? Easy: You might mark your Jemm, Son of Saturn cover by Colan at $25m, instead of $2500 (and that's being generous too).  But...you'd be paying the premiums also, right? And if you claimed, you'd be under that rather intense fraud scrutiny, especially if you had ever made a similar nature claim at any time. So insurers...man up and either take the risk (that's business!) or don't and fold. Babies.

Back to us collectors and over-insuring...there is such a thing, at very low premium, for catastrophic total loss coverage. But it's cheap because your entire collection doesn't typically disappear in a finger snap (for whatever reason). Right? So instead of doing that and hoping it all works out at payout time (right!), take reasonable precautions/care for your collection and insure an honest % of value. Best day at Heritage your collection would hammer for $1m? Cool. Insure for $50k (5%) or even $150k (15%) with the thinking that you'd never let more than 5% to 15% of anything happen to the whole thing. Premiums lower and avoid all those silly red flags that big numbers throw up everywhere anyway. Another advantage is you're not constantly jiggering the whole value up and down at each new (sorta) comp point or as things are added or taken away from your collection. You don't really need to move the policy around with those changes, it's your % insured that's moving around, giving you time to re-assess on something more like a renewal basis.

All that...and I'm still looking for my own solution anyway! Maybe it's Chubb. Maybe not. Hoping to find.

If you have an OA collection that could reasonably be expected to hammer out at auction for $1M, I suspect you can likely afford a CHUBB policy. Most homeowbers policy riders max out. My collection reasonably exceeds the max out (which isn't that much, really), so I need more coverage.

Question is one of cost. How much are you willing to shell out in premiums, to insure against the risk? That's why you get quotes. I high value collection will be pretty costly to insure unless you are also well-off. A more modest one might be not valuable enough for the premiums to be worth it. It's probably a Goldilocks collection that hits the sweet spot for most people.

1 hour ago, delekkerste said:

Sure, but market value is not the point.  A lot of comic art is going for big money too - every Heritage sale seems to have at least one or more pieces which outprice probably 95-98% of pieces being shown in Manhattan art galleries.  

The question is what kind of illustration art (including OA) makes it past the gatekeepers in the fine art world.  So far, not most comic art, and not Dr. Seuss. 

I disagree on Geisel (Seuss). He's sold and exhibited fine art galleries, and has crossed that threshold.

2 hours ago, delekkerste said:

I think the subject matter (commercialized spandex vs. tales of the human condition) is definitely part of the issue.  But, I think an even bigger issue is what you highlighted with your film analogy - Kubrick, Kurosawa, Fellini, etc. are renowned as artists/auteurs.  They worked collaboratively, but are their films are viewed as the end products of their singular vision.  A similar case can be made for Crumb, Ware, Clowes, Herriman, etc. where they didn't even work much collaboratively (or at all in some cases), and where their end product is 100% viewed as the products of their singular vision.  Can the same be said of Jack Kirby (who my friend Arlen Schumer argues in his "Auteur Theory of Comics" should be considered as such) given Lee's vision/input (clearly not as much as Lee claims, but far from zero either), the embellishment of his various inkers, letterers, colorists, etc.?  Definitely debatable, and that's talking about the pre-eminent artist of spandex-clad characters that ever lived, so the arguments get weaker for almost everyone else.

As for the likes of, say, McFarlane...he is best known for his work on Spider-Man, of course.  But, he didn't create Spider-Man, and he wasn't even the writer on many of the issues/stories for which his art is most associated with.  And, in any case, he merely added to decades of storytelling associated with the character.  Sure, he went on to create Spawn...but no one is seriously arguing that Spawn should be in the Museum of Modern Art.  Similar arguments can be applied to Miller, given his collaborations with other artists (Janson, Mazzucchelli, Sienkiewicz) working on long-established characters (e.g., Daredevil, Batman), though, his later body of work would give him more of an argument for inclusion as a true artist in the sense that museum curators can appreciate.  Not easy to explain to them the "Marvel Method" and how Kirby and Ditko were actually the driving forces behind their respective '60s output despite not having writing credit and often/usually collaborating with other artists and hands.  Not to mention, the association with a monthly commercial newsstand publication directed towards children...easier for them to swallow the auteur working on his direct sales "graphic novel" argument that more recent indie artists and critics can claim.  

As a follow up, I don't really think the "commercial art directed at children" aspect is really that dispositive. What are Theodore Geisel original drawings and illustrations from his Dr. Seuss books going for? Not cheap, I suspect. Schultz strips are still in demand as well. And so on. Comic Art is Pop Art.

2 hours ago, delekkerste said:

I think the subject matter (commercialized spandex vs. tales of the human condition) is definitely part of the issue.  But, I think an even bigger issue is what you highlighted with your film analogy - Kubrick, Kurosawa, Fellini, etc. are renowned as artists/auteurs.  They worked collaboratively, but are their films are viewed as the end products of their singular vision.  A similar case can be made for Crumb, Ware, Clowes, Herriman, etc. where they didn't even work much collaboratively (or at all in some cases), and where their end product is 100% viewed as the products of their singular vision.  Can the same be said of Jack Kirby (who my friend Arlen Schumer argues in his "Auteur Theory of Comics" should be considered as such) given Lee's vision/input (clearly not as much as Lee claims, but far from zero either), the embellishment of his various inkers, letterers, colorists, etc.?  Definitely debatable, and that's talking about the pre-eminent artist of spandex-clad characters that ever lived, so the arguments get weaker for almost everyone else.

As for the likes of, say, McFarlane...he is best known for his work on Spider-Man, of course.  But, he didn't create Spider-Man, and he wasn't even the writer on many of the issues/stories for which his art is most associated with.  And, in any case, he merely added to decades of storytelling associated with the character.  Sure, he went on to create Spawn...but no one is seriously arguing that Spawn should be in the Museum of Modern Art.  Similar arguments can be applied to Miller, given his collaborations with other artists (Janson, Mazzucchelli, Sienkiewicz) working on long-established characters (e.g., Daredevil, Batman), though, his later body of work would give him more of an argument for inclusion as a true artist in the sense that museum curators can appreciate.  Not easy to explain to them the "Marvel Method" and how Kirby and Ditko were actually the driving forces behind their respective '60s output despite not having writing credit and often/usually collaborating with other artists and hands.  Not to mention, the association with a monthly commercial newsstand publication directed towards children...easier for them to swallow the auteur working on his direct sales "graphic novel" argument that more recent indie artists and critics can claim.  

I think OA and Comic Books in general have more in common with Film than with Fine Art. Film is a collaborative medium, no matter who the director is, and how much control he or she has. You have actors, production designers, cinematographers, editors, etc. all adding something to the finished product. Imagine The Godfather without Gordon Willis' immortal cinematography, or the acting of Pacino, Brando, etc. No matter how great a job as director Coppala did on that film, it's the collaborative effort that makes it such a great film.

Comics are mostly the same way. There are some "auteurs" that do everything, such as a Stan Sakai (who pencils, inks and letters all of his books - but even he has someone else do the coloring).

But, in most cases, you have the collaboration of a writer, a penciller, an inker, a letterer, and a colorist (not to mention an editor) all making individual decisions on a collaborative product.

And even modern novel writing, which is generally thought to be a singular vision of a writer, often benefits from the hand of a talented editor. The best modern example of that is the profound effect the Editor's suggestion that Harper Lee change the focus of To Kill a Mockingbird from Atticus' perspective to Scout's.

I do agree, however, that people like Crumb are given more weight because they "do it all," as opposed to most comic book artists, who have collaborators. How do you differentiate what Kirby did vs what someone else added to it? If you're a gallery owner, how do you explain the difference between Kirby/Sinnott and Kirby/Colletta to a person who isn't versed in comic books,. or the medium? How do you sell that as a singular art piece? You'd probably de-emphasize the artists a bit, and focus more on it being a singular example of the artform. And comic book art pages have more value because of their historical contest, whereas a Crumb piece really isn't so much. Take away that contest, and you are left with the intrinsic artistic value of the page, which may mot hold up to scrutiny for future generations unfamiliar with or ignorant of the material and the context of its creation.

I find myself focusing more and more of my collecting on pages that can stand on their own as art pieces. Something a lay person, with little to no knowledge of who the characters are, or what the story is, can look at and appreciate for its own sake.

I'm looking into a CHUBB collectibles policy. They let you list an itemized schedule of agreed upon value for each piece in your collection, and they will pay you that amount if there is  loss. They also have coverage that allows 150% of agreed upon value, to take appreciation of the collection into consideration. You also have the option of doing a blanket appraised value coverage for your collection as a whole.

I suspect its pricey, but this is top notch coverage.

7 hours ago, Claudio said:

 It has a reserve though

Yeah. And it's now $100 short of the reserve. Maybe I gave it too much publicity!

This Asrar Supergirl cover seems like a steal.

Still on track for my ~$200K prediction.

This stuff is starting to scare me away from eBay.

1 minute ago, The Voord said:

Seems clear enough to me why some guy just copied it . . . I can think of 250,000 reasons why he did that! 

What price someone puts on something is irrelevant. It's what someone is willing to pay for it.

Well, obviously I concede to anyone with superior knowledge on printing practices re: the 1970's. But could it be a modern reprint production transparency?  I'm not suggesting it's worth much. Just that it may actually be legitimate as opposed to just some guy copying it for some reason that it unclear to me. Again, I'd have to see the provenance of it.

Is it possible that it could be the work of a restorer who was reproducing a missing cover for that issue?

Here's the tweet link, and the cover. UPDATE: link fixed.

Which dealer has that Colan Amethyst page?

I'm going to go a bit against the grain on this and suggest this may not be totally worthless. It's very possible that this is a production art piece made in order to reprint that Flash GA issue for a modern re-issue,. or graphic novel, etc. So, it depends on the provenance. It may even go back to the 70's.

12 minutes ago, ESeffinga said:

I do hope that was intended as hyperbole...

Hmmmm....