ESeffinga

Nostalgia is a HUGE issue with guitarists. They HATE innovation and change. The part about Gibson's features change is a big example of this. It's not a literal direct parallel, but there are massive similarities to do with the aging out of guitar collectors/players. Especially where you mention current musicians affect sales. Similarly to the way Gene's been arguing for years that if new kids don't pick up comics and develop nostalgia for it, it can't hold up the market. People do collect guitars, both new and vintage, and the cream of the crop (something like a Les Paul Burst from 1958-60) can cost roughly 250K up to a bit over a Mil for real uber-trophy examples. In this case, instruments owned by celebs used to record "classic" albums/tracks for instance. So it's interesting, to me anyway, that even the ceilings are roughly equivalent in both rarity and price. Guitars like OA, were up until the 70s, a part of the "process" of making a new artform. Many, expecially the oldest, were chewed up and damaged in the process. It was the boomers that turned keeping parts of the process undamaged, or even collecting it into a hobby. And most folks would tell you the new instruments aren't worth hanging onto, it's the true vintage stuff that's where it's at. And once a 70s era Stratocaster was considered garbage. But as with everything, their prices have risen dramatically because of what they are, age and rarity. I'm sure people can easily think of comic artist equivalents. Work that people used to turn their nose up at, and yet have managed to rise with everything else. Interestingly, guitars are more often like Comic OA than other durable goods.

The piece in Ron's CAF gallery... http://www.comicartfans.com/gallerypiece.asp?piece=1241985

I've mentioned the parallels between other hobbies and comic OA collecting in past threads. The link below it totally tangential, but I think if you follow along to it's end, it illustrates what might be a wider cultural shift, as older forms of entertainment/interests evolve for the next generation. They don't stop, they just change to a point of being somewhat unrecognizable to us, the older participants. And if nothing else, the aging out of the Baby Boomer generation is the beginning of a closing door for a lot of hobbies, I suspect. Curious to see some other thoughts... https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2017/lifestyle/the-slow-secret-death-of-the-electric-guitar/?hpid=hp_no-name_graphic-story-a%3Ahomepage%2Fstory&utm_term=.93dcb67b6a41

My guess, it'll end up in someone's home. Presumably someone who likes Byrne comic art. Less clear is whether that person likes or dislikes asparagus.

The artists that work this way that I follow tend to sell the inks and pencils together as a set. I've seen pages from these artists come up for sale in the aftermarket, but alo as a set. I don't know that I've even noticed anyone selling the pencils and inks separately as of yet. It's bound to happen eventually, but I'm not aware of any good examples of this selling of pencils and inks separately scenario in the real world. Anybody have some specific examples of that? The closest thing I can think of off the top of my head is Darrow, but then it's not blueline, it's ink on velum. And there are dozens if not hundreds of the pinup type "inks" out there in all kinds of variations applied to them. For his published art, I've even see bits of that make it into his pinup type convention work for sale. I've no idea what the split in Darrow's published pencils and published inks works out to. I can't think of ever seeing the inks and pencils to the same cover turn up before. I've seen published covers sell in the 1500-4000 range. Some of those listings were pencils. Some of those listings were ink. His cover size velum drawings he sells at conventions are more like $100-400 roundabout. But I think he's a bit of an anomaly anyway.

Call me crazy, but I feel like these jumps happened in the mid 90s with the introduction of internet to most homes, then another around 2000ish, and again around 2006 or 2007 when prices really started to climb into the stratosphere. I don't have hard data to back that up, just casual observations and an admittedly flawed memory.

I have a deep abiding affection for Tim's art. That cover is seriously groovy.

The baking soda method is what I'd have suggested as well. I did that once with a box of old books. Just put an open box of baking soda in with them and closed up the box for a couple weeks. When I got back around to looking at them, the smell was all sorted out.

What's with the goofy lookin' guy in all the pictures? It's a joke! Thanks for posting these Mike. Now I'm planning a trip up to NYC in July, just to see this.

Cool composition to that piece.

Gotta be Jim's office. In one of the DC office tour videos posted in another thread, about Hamill being shown the unused Death in the Family survival ending page... Jim was drawing the Joker for Mark Hamill in his office. I noticed the Akira poster was in the background next to his drafting table.

Truth.

Fun idea.

Fantastic.

Still nada. I see a fiber arts collecting group when I search for "Art collecting Addicts!". No othe groups, and not much else I recognize other than a couple of the groups I am already apart of like IX Gallery popping up as random topics. Oh well. I don't spend much time on Facebook anyhow.

Yeah. I tried to check it but gots no permission either, man.

I just love to see the work too. Though i don't check daily. just when I've got downtime to kill. Usually waiting for meetings, at car shop, doctors offices and the like.

I know exactly where you are coming from and it makes total and complete sense. I've tried to explain other artist's work to people before, and the analogies I've used have been music/performance based. One could liken it to a highwire act with no net. Scott's execution is flawless and well rehearsed. When you go to that show, you know what you are going to get, and it will be good. Jim going solo is about the thrill of doing things that border on the reckless, because the end result is a more death defying execution. Ashley Wood is possibly a more extreme example of a modern creator that flies with no net at all. In his case, he generally has eschewed even penciling his work. It's pretty much all direct ink on paper these days. No pencil. No computer cleanup after the fact. He's the one at IDW that pioneered the reproduction technique that later became the Artist Edition books, by insisting on reproducing all his work, whiteout and all in his art books and comics. We can thank him for that. He told me once that he creates tons of drawings, stories and pages. They don't all work. He tosses them. He keeps what best reflects what he wants out there. But the spontaneity that comes from the initial drawing is difficult to re-achieve in inking. So he combines the two, with no chance of hitting an undo button if a piece goes off the rails. He lets it all hang out. And there is a reason he's become well known as an artist's artist. He approaches each page, and each panel, like a zen sumi-e artist. Jon Muth is another one, though he uses more traditional brushes and techniques. Also, might as well mention, Ash will be doing an art show with his company ThreeA at SDCC this year outside the con halls. They have a space set up in an actual Gallery this year that is sure to be a real treat for any of you that have never experienced one. They've done them in Hong Kong, Singapore, Japan and China. This will be their first stateside. They are typically huge, extravagant, meticulously designed and include a ton of original work. Not just of Ash's, but of other participating artists as well. From Ash's Instagram, as he was recently working on the program for the SD gallery catalog... [/img]

I think I buy maybe 4 or 5 things a year typically. I keep trying to chisel it down to nothing, but there's this little pilot light for art that just stays lit. Usually no more than one larger purchase a year though, and by large I mean nothing over 4 figures. My biggest issue is space though, since the wife and I have primarily become on-the-wall or not-at-all collectors. Of course, lucky in that we are both into most of the same artists, so we've been able to fill the house with lots of wonderful work accumulated over the last 25 years, without it becoming some overwhelming Hoarders edition of an after school special. We prefer that the art we do have presents well, rather than having more art. Wow... just realized this year marks a quarter century since I bought my first OA page at a local con, and that lightbulb went off. Anyway, I put myself in as moderately addicted as well. I still look. I can go weeks without doing so, and then I can get into rhythms where it becomes habit for a while. But I rarely ever buy. Especially based on the collecting habits of many folks around here. But I do hit the board here most days. Even though, again, I don't post frequently. At least I don't think so.

I kinda dig that you've got the prelim on the back. I used to put a copy of the comic book on a heavy sleeve on the back of my pages way back when. Just in case anyone was interested. Handy. Totally forgot about that until seeing this.

Walking Dead art sales picked up prior to the show, and went through the roof after the show took off. Saw a lot of bandwagon jumpers that first year for sure. Not clear how many new people it pulled into collecting, but it sure caught some existing collectors' attentions.

Hahaha. Touché! I dare say I'd never have thought MOST folks would think of the comic character when they think of Thor. I don't at least. Is that really what people in the real world think of when they think of Thor? Maybe now with the movies, but I'd argue that fame was because of the movies rather than the comics. Genuinely curious.

An attempt to cash in on the whole Burton movie release that year, as was everyone with anything Batman to sell. Thanks for posting this.

Wondering, have there been many other characters that have jumped INTO the comics from other media, and then gone on to be primarily a comic book character, and then gone on to be really well known? I'm struggling to think of any. I'm sure there have to be some. If so, would those first appearances trigger any kind of premium in the comics or comic OA, considering their origins? Back to the topic at hand. My wife and I were huge Harley fans back when Paul and Bruce were running the show, and then the Mad Love book came out and just cemented everything. IMO Mad Love is the most important early appearance of Harley, because it's when she became the tragedy/comedy character everyone loves, and all writers have built upon. Not to mention it was drawn by the fellas that kicked off the whole Batman animated style that everyone else was emulating in the books. Nothing against those other guys. Folks like Mike Parobeck, Ty Templeton, Craig Rousseau all brought their own flavor to that style, but it all started with Timm. If I'm into Harley OA, it's from him. This coming from someone whose only cartoon cels in the house (all 3) feature Harley & Joker together. Such big fans in fact, we received Harley and Joker themed commissions from friends as wedding gifts. Not really sure what it was supposed to say about our relationship (hah), but yeah. Big fans. I've never given BA12 much thought. To me, it was just another early story in a series of appearances. For my money Mad Love is the Killing Joke or Dark Knight Returns of Harley stories. I voted under 100K. But with the way people are talking, maybe the OA market is total kookoo town now? I could put some great pieces of art together for $100K, and I just can't see BA12 being where I'd go even if I wanted Harley Art. By the by, I see the artwork debate surrounding the Batman animated comic art style a little bit different than what Gene seems to have implied earlier. He mentioned it was based off a cartoon for kids. Which it was. But that doesn't negate the artistry of what those story tellers were able to imbue it with. To me, the style isn't any different (IMO) than the corporate "house" style Marvel was pushing in the 60s. Re: Everyone needs to draw as much like Kirby or Romita or whatever, as possible. The guys that worked on those animated books did bring some very different flavors to each other, in terms of storytelling, pacing, and even the way the characters appeared, while still holding onto a certain level of consistency. Think of it like playing the blues. There are rules. THere's a sort of structure you have to stick within. Now do something unique with it. So that's what those guys did. Though as much as anything, I suspect it was probably more about having a regular paycheck to cover the rent. Anybody wanna take a guess at how many comics were created for that reason? And as for the "for kids" comment. Who were all those spandex comics were originally intended for? I get that the spandex books became more as time went on, and the audience kind of grew up with them and into them, to the approaching retirement man-children we are today, but at their beginnings... we all know none of this stuff was never "Art" with a capital A.

Indeed. It's why I would love for Heritage to release some kind of public rebuff, or at least let their customers know what their current stance is, until things change necessarily, one way or the other. But I get why we've not heard anything yet.