tada_nori

see, that's one of my fav silver age batman covers, so i was glad to see it go high (once it was waaaay out of my ballpark, of course). such a great graphic layout by infantino  

that Kobra page went for way more than i expected! Was a beauty tho

On 12/9/2017 at 10:09 AM, nkatradis said:

Jan 1962, Archie's Pal Jughead #80 Cover, Samm Schwartz pencils/inks, classic "Martian" cover!,

This classic cover is from the late 1960 to early 1962 period where all Archie titles had Horror or Sci-Fi covers; (the Jughead covers included issues #77, 78, 80-82, 85, 86, and 88);

such a sick cover! 

Picked this little fixer upper.
Very happy with the way it came out, and the piece in general!  

Jughead with Archie Digest 4, 1974
I believe it to be Dan DeCarlo (he wasn't signing the Digest covers yet in this period), or potentially Stan Goldberg, but looks like Dan to my eyes. 

After:

Before:

18 hours ago, *paull* said:

You stated, "Seriously though, i'd rather have my art safely behind museum glass than rubbing up on some polypropylene plastic sleeve. That's not how fine art is archived."

you win!

23 minutes ago, *paull* said:

We are discussing framing... and about assumptions regarding framing materials.

Quote

Instead of inert mylar, you're ok with mattes touching the front and back of the page in the frame? 

Haha... you're the one the brought up Mylars!!
Look, there's nothing that's impervious to aging to some degree. If you handle with care, and choose materials wisely, things will be fine.
I personally prefer to look at actual art over a digital or offset print... if there's layering in the paper (such as stats) I want to see the shadows. If there are scratch techniques in the inking, I want to see the textures. If others prefer to look at a flattened copy, that's their thing and totally fine.

7 minutes ago, *paull* said:

Have you tested the UV glass and your acid-free mattes?  And have you tested it after time passes?  Museums do.

I don't care how you store art that you own.  However, materials stated to be acid-free or packaging states that museums use it doesn't make it so.

Right. And i have Mylars and top loaders on 20 year old comics that are yellowed and warped. OP asked about framing, not about not-framing. 

take care

6 minutes ago, *paull* said:

Instead of inert mylar, you're ok with mattes touching the front and back of the page in the frame?  Are you positive about the acid content of the mattes?  How about the mounts that are used to hold the page in place?  As far as I know, UV resistant glass doesn't block 100% of the UV spectrum.

 

yes.

archival, acid free matte board, as well as acid free art hinges are used in museum collections and archives of works that are hundreds of years old. store your art however you like though!

If handled and framed properly, there is no reason not to display art. No Ditko ASM page is worth more (culturally or financially) than Picasso's Guernica, and that tours the world on display! 

Seriously though, i'd rather have my art safely behind museum glass than rubbing up on some polypropylene plastic sleeve. That's not how fine art is archived.

The majority of OA i see framed is done so poorly. Here's how I generally frame mine:

Float the art on a white/off white matte (one that compliments the hue of the OA paper, but doesn't necessarily blend in perfectly). Floating is always ideal for artwork where there may be lines to the edge, margin notes, cut corners, etc. that all add to the piece and might be cutoff by a window matte. 

Black mattes are a terrible idea (unless the piece itself is on black paper). Aside from being high contrast and overpowering, black is the most light absorbent, and therefor the most reflective (not to mention potentially damaging). You will be looking at more of yourself than your art. 

UV glass. This is more expensive, but in theory will protect your art from light. If you don't have windows in the space, not a huge deal in the short term. 

Spacers. Never let the glass touch the art. Use 1/2" to 1" inch spacers so that the art is sitting behind the glass in a shadow box style. Looks classier, and is better for the art. This is what museums and galleries do. 

Frame wise, I am of the mind that less is more. I prefer depth to width when it comes to frame profile. Example attached.

5 minutes ago, malvin said:

It certainly doesn't look like easy money.  Sure, if you are a dealer and you have the infrastructure, I suppose it's not bad since you will just feed it through your process.  But if you are an individual, scanning, listing, packing, etc.  Even if the estimates of $83 cost and $125 sale price is accurate (I personally think the $125 average is optimistic) I'm not sure if you making more than minimum wage after netting all the costs required.

Malvin

not to mention storing, and lugging around 80% of it for the next five years

New here, hi! 
Has anyone actually seen pages beyond what's on the listing site? I'd go the 1.5 hours for a nicely priced Ayers Fury page that's not from the reprint era...  
I was considering begrudgingly driving out to this before Comic Art Con very early tomorrow morning, but seems like it might be a bust judging by the pages they chose to feature in the listing.  
 

Herb Trimpe Wolverine watercolor, this guy's got it all 

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Herb-Trimpe-original-comic-art-sketch-Wolverine-watercolor-on-paper-/332171605378?hash=item4d56f87582:g:tN4AAOSwmgJY4Cab