PhilipB2k17

Do the HA employees (of the House) bidding on a piece know who the consigners are? Are they high rollers who give HA a lot of business, and who they want to maintain a good relationship with? It may behoove HA to "take one for the team" on some pieces in order to maintain that relationship with that big consigner. While, they are indeed paying full price and the buyer's premium for that piece (although, when the House bids on it they pay the buyer's premium to themselves, so they do get an effective discount), they are also making that specific consigner happy, and they may give HA their business in the future with other higher end consignments. So, the incentive for HA is to sell the pieces at the highest possible price, which is in favor of the consignor, not the buyer. If that means HA bids on some pieces in order to get more on the road that they can make their money back on, so be it. This is why in-house bidding is not always legal. It distorts the market. Especially since, if they win the piece, they know where the underbid was, and may assume they can re-sell for at least that amount, and make up the difference on future commissions from the consigner they made happy. In the case of comic art, I'm not sure "insider information" is all that useful, except to the extent they know who the consigner is, and may know what the reserve price is. It is probably far more problematic for ungraded comics than for OA. Although, I can think of one instance where having inside info may be a bog deal: 60's Kirby art. They have knowledge about any negotiations or agreements with the Kirby estate on these pieces, and could factor that into their bidding. Disclosure of the fact that HA employees are bidding on a piece should help alleviate some concern, as anyone bidding in that auction may decide to withhold a maximum bid, or may lower their bid ceiling because they think the piece may come back on the market in the near future. Shill bidding is a concern in every auction of this type. The only real way to combat it is to submit sealed bids, and award the item to the highest sealed bid. That creates its own problems, as what if the high sealed bid is far higher than the second highest bid? Should it be downward adjusted? If not, it may not get the highest price for the item that the market is willing to pay, because people will be reluctant to bid.

Great idea. And so obvious! One of the pieces, especially, should have the pencils displayed, because the artist used a slightly different character design (the character had an additional, very interesting feature) that was not used in the final version. As the series this page is from goes on, that little change in character design becomes more important from a story standpoint. It's pretty damn cool.

Yeah. I have a sweet Will Meugniot DNA Agents DPS where he drew sexy pinups on the backs of each page. I think he was re-using the backs to practice character studies, but man they are nice. I DO display those. The only problem I have is that the ink washed pages are not the thicker bristol board, so they are a bit flimsier.

It shouldn't really matter if they are paying what you are asking for the the OA.

You can execute a sales contract that stipulates if the piece is put up for resale within 12 months of purchase, you get 10% of the proceeds, etc. That way, if the guy really wants to flip it, at least you get a piece of the action on it. Otherwise, it creates an incentive to hold the piece.

I have an interesting twist on this subject. I have two pieces from an artist who ink washed the final version, but penciled them on the backside in reverse, then light boxed from the pencils. the pencils were not finished, but were more than just breakdowns or roughs. Now, in my portfolio, I display the ink washed final version, but I have an acid free backing board behind it so that I can put another piece of art in that slot opposite the ink washed piece. Should I get rid of the backing board, and display both sides?

That's just the public aspect of this compromise. We don't know if the Seller also has a side deal with the Kirby estate for a percentage. Whoever the next owner of the pieces is, though, will have clear title on it.

Yep. The flippers are making it harder for the rest of us in this hobby to buy pieces for a fair price (for both sides).

You'd be surprised. People dis eBay, but it's still probably the largest secondary OA marketplace.

I was following that Starhawk page auction, and was shocked at the low final price tag. I wanted to bid on it, but the timing was bad. I just assumed it would go for way more than that.

I think Land gets a bad rap, particularly for his more recent stuff. Although, I know Scott W. is not a fan of his. At least not of his stuff from the early to mid 2000s. I think his more recent stuff is much more original. I really like that cover, though.

This one. Although, looking at it, I can see why. And the Drax Origin page from IM 55 with Thanos in it sold for like 12k last year. http://www.comiclink.com/itemdetail.asp?id=1043256&showprice=1 So, my 30K prediction is probably quite high. But, I'll stick with it. Can't renig now!

Could be. I predicted $50k for the splash. So I overestimated it by about 10%.

I'd also peg the end of the Golden age in 1949-50, with the first publication of the classic EC titles. As for ending the Copper with the foundation of Image, I disagree with that. The full on speculation boom, gimmicks, and the recognizable art style for the post copper period started before Image was formed.

I agree, 1984 is too late for Copper. That's the year Spidey's black suit was introduced in ASM 252. By that point, the Cooper age was in full swing. I think Copper ends with the publication of X-Men #1 in 1991. You can also make an argument it ends with the introduction of Cable in NM 87, which is 1990. Leifeld took over NM on issue 86, and it ended with issue 100. X-Force #1 also came out in 1991. So, I think 1990/1991 has to be considered the end of the Copper age.

Yeah, I'm not a fan of this image. But, that's my own taste. It's not a comment on its objective quality.

Just for fun, I thought I'd start a thread for people to predict the final hammer price for this Iron Man 55 Drax/Iron Man battle panel page by Jim Starlin. http://www.comicartfans.com/GalleryPiece.asp?Piece=1412439&GSub=183268 The Drax splash from this book just sold for $44,777. And a Starlin Warlock page recently sold for $22,750 I'm guessing $30K for this one. Maybe a tad higher.

My argument for why Dazzler #1 should be considered the beginning of the Copper Age of comics. https://books.google.com/books?id=_G6qDgAAQBAJ&pg=PA25&lpg=PA25&dq=Dazzler+direct+market&source=bl&ots=EMNj_M5gzs&sig=tbi4RpogU8lCHa_ZzL8MtClISNM&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwixvLCi0LjVAhWI8YMKHYNpCHwQ6AEITzAH#v=onepage&q=Dazzler direct market&f=false

Which is why I questioned the point of criticizing a nartist's work at all. Critiquing is different. We all make subjective value judgments about things all the time. But just panning someone's effort unless there is some legitimate relationship involved where that criticism is not inappropriate, if warranted, seems to me a waste of time and pointless.

My point is, why criticize them to their face - even politely - at all? What's the point, unless you have some kind of professional or transactional reason to do so? What purpose is served by it? Unless, of course, they specifically ASK you for your opinion, in which case by all means give it, albeit in a respectful manner. Do we critique and criticize art and artists between ourselves? Sure. I bought a page from one artist at a convention, and when I was talking to another about buying one of their pages, they asked to see my other piece. At which point, they proceeded to critique it. Now, the second artist is well known for being pretty outspoken and opinionated on many things. So, this wasn't out of character. Most of the time an artist would just say: "That's nice," or praise it. You know, professional courtesy in front of the fans.

I suggest we call the period from 1991 to 2000 (or, 2002) the Overprinting age. But, Armor age might work too, seeing as that was the mostly awful artistic trend at the time.

What would be the point of criticizing a professional - or any - artist's work to their face unless you had some kind of professional obligation to do so, such as you are an editor, etc? Now, a gray area may be where you have paid them good money for a commission, and laid out certain expectations for the piece. At that point, they have entered into a contract with you to perform a service and produce a product. You, as the buyer, should expect a certain minimum professional standard in that product, within the parameters of a creative medium. Other than that scenario, why would I go out of my way at a convention, or a restaurant, or in the men's room to tell an artist whose work I do not like that his work is crappy, and why can't he draw like he used to? Other than a complete a-hole, who does that?

I think DC stopped putting Comics Code bug on their books in 2011. And it pretty much ceased functioning in 2009. I'd say the end of the Comics Code would mark the beginning of the true modern era. Frankly, the Silver Age began as a direct result of the self-regulating of comics content because of the backlash against EC and other horror, and crime books in the 1950's. The Bronze Age (IMHO) started when the Comics Code relaxed their standards on content. Then the Direct Market circumvented the comics code. I'd use Dazzler #1 as the beginning of the Copper/Direct Market age, as it was the 1st Marvel exclusive Direct sales regular comic book. That came out in 1980. Bronze would be, where the Comics Code authority loosened its standards in 1971 to allow more horror themes. I have no problem with using GA/GL 76 either, as its about the same time. So, when does the copper age end? 1980-2009 is 29 years. People have suggested the Image era, but how about the Overprinting Era, starting with X-Men #1 in 1991? Then Id probably end the overprinting/speculative boom era at point when the X-Men film came out. That marked the beginning of the Mumtimedia era, which we are still in.

I think it did. Marvel and DC had to create creator owned branded titles to compete. So Marvel created Epic and DC created Vertigo, which both resulted in some important properties and characters (Vertigo, epecially). The Direct market era changed everything. It broke the comics code, for one. It was the end of the comics code era. That's a huge demarcation point.

We have to use "Direct Market" age as a demarcation point because with apologies to Image, you had a new crop of independent publishers come onto the scene a result of the direct market in the early 1980's. These were Eclipse, Pacific, Comico, First, among others. And these independents produced some pretty monumental characters and titles, such as Groo, American Flagg, Grimjack, Starslayer, Grendel, Mage, Rocketeer, TMNT, etc. All of which were creator owned well before Image ever showed up on the scene.