ESeffinga

Was the language much different than the original letter? That whole who-got-what-&-how situation with Kirby art is so muddied, there's no way they can make black and white claims to the work. It seems to me the last thing Kirby collectors need is more behind the door dealings. Is the family leaning on them primarily in the hopes of getting a "taste" of every piece that goes to auction, or what's the metric they plan on using? I still don't see it. I think it would be great for Heritage to post something publicly that states what their current stance is, and how they plan on proceeding. Then, if things change down the line, they could always modify that statement as the situation progresses. Just leaving it up in the air makes it worse for everyone, IMO. I'm sure many folks are sitting tight until something is said publicly. Not going to be good for Boomer folks that thought they'd cash out their Kirby holdings as they hit and/or settled into retirement age. Maybe the Kirby family is trying to get out ahead of that?

The Alice cover looks great.

Dig that Batman Adventures cover. Classic action.

Love that thing!

Call and say you have a toilet leak!

I bet FedEx takes one look at it and blames the shipper. Good luck though!

Hrm. I think there was probably a pretty equatable level of greatness to suckitude, personally. As there probably has been in every era. But I guess as with everything, it also depends on what you are into and what's important to each individual collector.

...and here I am playing devil's advocate for the Image guys. Hell really must be a polar tundra right now, or I need to get out more.

Indeed. But I think the second point might be an interesting one for a future discussion in a topic that isn't about Felix's podcast. Which is that the Image guys brought a change in the view of self-worth and self-value among many comic artists, who up to then were just happy they got to make a living, no matter how meager, by drawing funny books. There were exceptions previously of course, but that was the real sea change. Something I think is of huge benefit to artists today. Almost to the level of pre-internet and post-internet, in how they conduct business. At the very least they go into work for the big guys with their eyes wide open when it comes to creating characters, derivative stories, etc.

I knew some paper conservators / restoration artists at the Smithsonian about a decade ago. Back then we had a couple conversations about a piece I'd bought that the original artist had packed... poorly. 1 piece of cardboard, and in the manila envelope it went. A nicely lettered "do not bend" written on the envelope, because everyone knows that works, right?!? Anyhow, the takeaway I had at the time is that folds, bends, etc. and their ability to take a repair is wholly dependent on the extent of the damage to the paper fibers. Since paper is made up of all those little pulp fibers, when it bends, it stretches to the fibers, and in some cases they tear. Not necessarily at a visible level, but at a more imperceptible with the naked eye level. If the fibers have been distorted, stretched, and whathave you, then differing methods like temperature, moisture and pressure can be applied in various ways, to try and work the fibers back to normal. If your OA has a wave or wiggle or what looks like a softer bend to it, they can usually be sorted out. But when you end up with more of a proper crease, where the paper really buckles in both directions and almost looks like it has dimensional "scars", well those are a different animal. They can be minimized to a certain degree, but they are more or less there forever. That is, if you want to hang onto the originality of the piece. Beyond that is heavy duty restoration that is almost like patching a car fender with bondo and having it resprayed at the original shape, but at a much much tinier level. And once you get into that level of resto, you are talking about big big bucks. I just wrote it off, and found a new owner for the piece at a loss. It made me too mad to look at it, to keep it.

Mignola on Hellboy. Allred on Madman. Lapham on Stray Bullets. Moore on Strangers in Paradise. Mack on Kabuki. Kieth on the Maxx. (and just because) Miller and Darrow on Hard Boiled. Miller and Darrow on Big Guy & Rusty. Miller on Sin City. To say nothing of Vertigo slate of books like Sandman. A title which DID start up in 89, but didn't really become what it became until well into the 90s. Nope. I can't think of good 90s art to collect, when back in the 80s we had such classics as Arak God of Thunder. Crystar the Crystal Warrior. Chuck Norris Karate Kommandos. Adolescent Radioactive Black Belt Hamsters. Dazzler Team America Power Pack Sultry Teenage Super Foxes The Jack of Hearts I think the most fascinating bit to me is that the material Felix is selling for his current slate of artists is far closer related to the work of those 90s titles I list above in my eyes, than it is to the 80s material so near and dear to his heart. Not to mention that a lot of his guys are on the very label of those 90s guys. And here's the kick in the teeth for myself. I loathed the founding Image crew by and large. With the exception of Kieth, I tried the books by all of them and couldn't stand them. BUT had it not been for the door they kicked open to the industry, and more important, kicked open to a wider audience that a self published book could be worth looking at. A lot of us were aware of this from what happened with the Ninja Turtles, but far too few books were given that chance at a readership and that distribution, until the Image boys came along and did their thing. So while their books may have been lousy, and late, and the art crappy (all IMO), they are begrudgingly due a level of respect for effect they ultimately had. Could we have gotten from the 80s to today without them, and the wave of creator owned properties that followed?

Great McKean drawing!

Gouache maybe... I'm no expert in comic art of that era, but gouache was around.

And funnily enough, me as well. I see a lot more cohesive individualistic style and thought in the LOTR piece than I do in the Narnia stuff. The Narnia material (to my eye anyway) is uneven and dates itself, where the LOTR piece has a timeless quality to it. Now if someone is interested in any of these covers as a piece of nostalgia and it bringing back those old feelings of a place and a time of sitting on their bookshelf as a kid... we've talked about this plenty. It makes no difference how it looks. It's what many people do. But if I was a fan of both series, and I had to hang one on my wall, it'd be the LOTR all day long. And not because of the books, or the movies, but because I'd still be able to enjoy the execution of the visuals in the work, nostalgia aside. In any case even the LOTR piece not really my thing, but I can respect it more as a work. And fully acknowledge that the things about it that have less meaning to me are likely some of the same reasons the piece costs what it does.

This is the picture Benno was referring to. It's legendary.

Understandable. The whole situation is a total mess show on their part. I hope something good comes of it all. Pulling for you regardless.

That would rule, but the budget on it would get astronomical to do it at the later world-ending level the books get into. Who needs Seattle anyway?

Make sure they pack it well!!!!

I'm tentatively optimistic. My only hope is that the story holds up. The visuals are there. The cast is fine. It's all about the story though. The first one was nuanced and complicated in the questions it asked, and there wasn't a lot of fuss to muddy the introspective nature of it up. I'm hoping the story cooked up here is worthy. I've been avoiding trailers and comentary/spoilers so I get to see it all fresh.

My problem was the first 2 films felt NOTHING like the comic does. I watched them. I've seen them more than a couple times over the years. They were fine for what they were. I liked the cast. The first story was lame but the cast was great in it. The second story and cast were better, but way too much 3 Stooges dumb humor in it that totally busted the vibe for me. Not what I really wanted a Hellboy movie to me. They are a different artist (del Toro) and a different medium, but I never felt like they were Mike's vision of Hellboy. He seemed happy but as a HB fan, I wasn't. If the new film pushes closer to Mike's storytelling and visual sensibilities, I'll be thrilled. I love new takes on Hellboy so long as the character feels "right". I've read the comics, the rest of the "Mignolaverse" books, and I've read the actual novels not written by Mignola. All have a different feel, depending on the writer, but still come across as Hellboy. For me the Del Toro films came across a bit too heavy on the camp. Too little sardonic, deadpan and gallows humor. Mignola's humor is always there but never cheesy. Del Toro's often is. And that's fine if you want to see a certain kind of Del Toro film. It totally worked for me with Pacific Rim. I also love Del Toro's personal flicks. Devil's Backbone, Chronos, Pan's Labrinth. Even Crimson Peak to a degree. But the Hellboy stuff... I never thought it was a good fit. So I'm looking forward to this in good faith. If it isn't good. I'll certainly say so.

Just don't take any Alex Ross prints in exchange.

Such fun work! Hey JB.

I for one wouldn't mind the listen. Glad to have you here Scott.

70s to the 90s? Could be some super cool stuff in there. Could be a lot of nothing. I think what Bronty was suggesting is that the OA market is nothing like the comic market. People who collect OA (and sometimes even sellers) tend to specialize. Someone may be super knowledgeable about the 70s Buscema Conan market, and not have any real feel for the 90s Image or Marvel comics market. Mutch less know anything about the independent creator art market. Etc. I'd think the folks that might have the best feel for a wide swath of comic OA pricing would be the dealers that have been around a few decades. But I'm not sure how eager they'll be to give you full dollar values of the pieces so you can turn around and haggle with them or be sales competition. I was thinking Burkey or Mitch, Albert, etc would have sold a lot of this kind of material and be able to give the best price approximations, but might be more inclined to just makes offers for what items they see on the list and think they could sell best? I dunno. I think I've seen Mitch with Graphic Collectibles offer to do an appraisal for someone on this board before and mention that he'd done them before, but you'd have to check with him to see if he is even interested. Pretty sure he's offered to sell some things on consignment for people before as well? I had Tom Horvitz of TRH gallery do an insurance appraisal for me about 20 years ago and he was one of only a few that offered such a thing regarding comic art. If I'd been gearing up to sell, I'm not sure he'd have been as keen on it.