hmendryk

I guess WD hasn't left my consciousness. Has it tanked? I guess I have mixed feelings. If it has tanked then I lost money on the two pieces of WD art in my collection. On the other hand if WD tanked I can buy more WD art.

I have no problems with inks over blue line. My interest is the art, not whether the penciller actually touched the page. Generally speaking I am only interested if the inked version was the one actually published. Two exceptions being cases where I made blue lines from Kirby pencils and had someone ink the results.

Kirby for both questions. While my preference for Kirby over Adams as an artist might seem to prejudice the answer to which was the more impactful I think I can make a case based on objective evidence. Kirby collaborating with Stan Lee created much of the Marvel universe, the impact still being felt today. Some of the art devices that Kirby used are still found being used by comic book artists. Kirby Krackle is perhaps to most obvious example of this. Kirby's career as a comic book artist is extensive and over most of it he was influential to other artists. Most collectors only think about silver age art and what follows, but that ignores a lot of comic book history during which Kirby dominated the industry. Kirby collaborating with Joe Simon created the romance genre of comic books. While that genre is pretty much currently extinct, it once was a large and vital genre with many titles published. This is not to put down the talent of Neal Adams, but comparing his impact to Kirby just results in downplaying what an artist he was.

Prelim by Mike Zeck

Not long ago I sold a piece of original art on ComicLink. It didn't do as well as I hoped (what with price jumps I have seen during Covid). I didn't loose money, I just didn't get much of a profit. Whoever bought it must have realized it was undersold because after a few months they placed it on Heritage. There it went for over 3 times what it got on ComicLink.

Albert Moy had this for sale at one of the Big Apple Comic Con in the basement of the St. Paul's Church sometime in the late 90's. He had this up alongside a Simon and Kirby Artist and Model (In Love) cover both for 4.5K. A lot of money for me at the time. I was a big Simon and Kirby collector at that time but also a big fan of Kirby's silver age Cap. In the end I choose the S&K piece and even that I had to pay in time installments. I would like to think it is worth more today (I still have it) but I am certain not anywhere near as much as this Cap splash would go for today. What can I say, my biggest collecting regret.

Published Bait #1 cover by Glenn Fabry

Published Black Sable #2 cover by Drew Edward Johnson

Published War Machine pinup pencils by Jim Calafiore, inks by Johnny Greene

I already posted about some recent additions to my Morlock cave so I hope I am not breaking any rules by adding a new addition. I used to be a Simon and Kirby collector with a few nice pieces by some more modern masters. However since retiring I am now largely in the low price market since I can't seem to give up collecting. Of course the way the market is going it is getting harder and harder to continue. The cover to I Breathed a Body #2 by Andy MacDonald. I find the body parts exploding from the figure's head to be bizarre but very well done.

I picked up 4 pieces of art. Yes they were all for my Morlock cave, but I am pleased with them.

Picked up at the last NJ Comic Art Con. Page 89 of the Big Tease.

I have 3 that I picked up during the previous year. A Django Unchained Kerry Washington Broomhilda pinup by Sanya Anwar Cover for Simon N. Kirby #3 (a Kickstarter comic) by Steven Butler Cover for Black Sable #2 by Drew Edward Johnson

I did a study a few years ago, actually two studies. In one I took a group of popular artists who created work during the period there was a obvious market for OA. I listed all the cover art that they did and then proceed to try to find it anywhere on the web. In the other I used a group popular artists who also did work before there was an obvious OA market and then listed their works that had been sold on Heritage (the only seller that provides such historical data) and again tried to find these works on the web. The results for both studies were pretty consistent, I could only find about 25% to 35% of the work on the web, mostly on CAF. Some artists were outliers with smaller number of work found on the web, I suspect there were artists that had so far kept some of the work. There were no real outliers on the high end. I believe the highest percentage of works found for a particular artist was 45%. So the large portion of OA is not visible on the web. Some of what I think of this as dark art belongs in black hole collections. I know some such collectors who never share their collection on CAF, but what I don't know is how much of the dark art is in black hole collections, and how much is held by investors with no real interest in the art itself other than the money they hope to make. And, for me, one of the lessons of the YouTube clip on the videogame market that open this thread, is that you only need a small number of people to manipulate a market. I am not saying that is happening to the OA market, but it is a concern.

For me the art is the most important, but sometimes dialog can make the art special.

Yes there are some, relatively small number, who collect golden age art. Before I retired I collected Simon and Kirby OA, including artists who worked for the studio that Joe and Jack ran. But golden age Kirby art have become increasingly expensive, just not nearly expensive as his silver or bronze age art. Nostalgia plays an important part for OA collectors but there aren't many left that were young during the golden age. Plus most OA collectors prefer superhero art and a lot of golden age art was from other genre. Anyway you pickup is really neat. So enjoy.

I have scans of the art currently or formerly in my collection. Mine are at 600 dpi. I can understand the desire for 1200 dpi but they take muck longer to scan and the file sizes are cumbersome to work with. Unless you are going to enlarge the already large OA, 600 is IMO sufficient. I use an Epson 11000 but I have to say they are expensive and their current quality is not what it once was. I did the scanning of Joe Simon's personal collection. This included compete stories. They were, however, mostly pre-Silver Age and non-superhero so they do not go for the high prices of most of the OA market. Therefore I suspect they are unlikely to be broken down and sold in pieces. I did the restorations for Titan's Simon and Kirby Library volumes. Anytime I could use scans of the OA in those restorations, I did. Even when it was not a complete story. Restorations from the OA were always superior to working from scans of the comics.

I never had that response from Bechara, but many years ago when I started collecting golden age comics I stopped at one dealer at a NY con and asked the price of one of his Captain America Comics. I got a long lecture (about 10 minutes at least) on why such comics were so expensive before he finally gave me his price. Like you I felt he was so condescending that although I saw him at many cons after that I never stopped or bought anything from him. It is a hobby, he needed me more than I needed him.

It seems to me that this is not a case of "no market value". If it sold that is the market value. It may not be "fair market value", that is a price that others would find acceptable. IMO assigning a fair market value for pieces of OA is often no more than an educated guess. People may declare what they think the value of a piece is, but unless they are actually willing to put their money forth what they say has no substantial meaning. The only good indicator of a fair market value of an OA would be the price determined at an auction. Yes shilling may result in higher price reached than without shilling, but it is still an open market.

I am another that have benefited from the boom in comic book prices. Last night on ComicLink a golden age book that I bought for about $300 (admittedly years ago) went for $5700. And I have a number of comics up now on ComicLink and more to go in the future. I hope to rebuild my depleted original art war chest.

I was selling a lot of comics on eBay before the pandemic hit, after which for obvious reasons I stopped. Then eBay started to bug me about signing up for there new payment service. I even got a call from them. I explained to the guy that I wasn't selling because of Covid and saw no reason to sign up right then. He tried to make it sound like that if I didn't sign up right away I would miss my chance. As if they would not accept me if I signed up later. Anyway I am back to selling comics but through ComicLink. I am not saying I am never going back to eBay, but I think eBay needs us more than we need them.

I don't think the majority of owners of black hole collectors are not on the Internet. I am not saying you can't build a collection without using the Internet, but it would put you at a disadvantage. But you have to wonder how many older collectors are out there who collected before there was an Internet. While some may have continued collecting, I can see others may have stopped collecting with the rise in OA prices and just kept what they had and saw no reason to post on the Internet. Not every collector I have met has posted all their art on CAF or social media. One collector in particular has never posted his any of his art anywhere. At one time he told me that he once owned a piece of art that is now in my collection. Not that unusual but what was surprising is that he ask me not to reveal that fact to anyone else. I don't feel that saying that much breaks his confidence, but I never told anyone the specifics as to his name or which piece of art. I once asked him why his is so secretive about his collection and he said that way if he wants to sell something it would have greater perceived value as being fresh to the market. A rational explanation, even if I don't totally agree with it, but I do not feel that is his full reasoning as it doesn't explain his wanting to keep his previous ownership of my art secret. Like Ricky2you2 I see nothing wrong with being a black hole collector, either in part or completely. I guess my only hope is any collector, black hole or otherwise, takes good care in preserving their art.

In 2018 I did a study to try to determine what percentage of original comic book art was what I thought as "dark art". That is art that does not appear anywhere on the Internet but instead was in what many describe as a "black hole" collection. For the study I limited myself to cover art. Primarily this was for practical reasons as the the much more numerous interior art would have made the search for all of them all the more time consuming. With covers I used two methodologies. The first method was to examine various artists who worked from the mid 80's or more recently. That is the period when art was generally returned to the artist and known to have some value if sold. The artists I used were Andy Kurbert, Bill Sienkiewicz, Brian Bolland, Dale Keown, Dave Gibbons, Greg Capullo, John Romita Jr, Mark Bagley, Mike Mignola, Ron Garney, Sam Kieth, Stan Sakai, Terry Dodson, Tim Sale and Todd McFarlane. Artists that I thought were popular enough to be regularly collected. I then used CGD to find all the cover work they did during the period. Then I would search to try to find covers by these artists. The search would include CAF and various dealers but basically anywhere on the Internet. When completed I would then know for each artist what percentage of the cover art I was able to locate on the Internet. The first method excluded artist who worked in periods where original art may have not have been returned to the artist, perhaps even destroyed or discarded. To get around that problem I then used Heritage archives to find what cover art existed for various artists. Of course some cover art may had been sold outside of Heritage, but I would at least know these particular cover did exists. The artists I selected for this method were Al Aison, Al Feldstein, Barry Smith, Carmine Infantino, Dave Cockrum, Ayers, Frank Frazetta, Frank Miller, Fred Ray, Geen Colan, George Perez, George Tuska, Gil Kane, Jack Davis, Jack Kirby, Jim Aparo, Jim Starlin, Joe Kubert, John Buscema, John Byrne, John Romita Sr, John Severin, Johnny Craig, Marie Severin, Mike Zeck, Murphy Anderson, Neal Adams, Nich Cardy, Rich Buckler, Ross Andru, Russ Heath, Sal Buscema, Steve Ditko, Wally Wood and Will Eisner. The results from the first method were fairly consistent with most in the range 20 to 35% of the cover art being found on the Internet. There were 3 outliers grouped around 10% (Andy Kubert, Greg Capullo and Sam Kieth). I cannot say for certain, but I wonder if these artists have kept some of their art. The results from the second method were broader ranging from 5 to 45%. This is not too surprising as the number of cover art being searched for was smaller than in the first method. However most artists fell in the range of 15 to 35% cover art found. While I do not claim that my results hold for all cover art, but it is interesting that in all cases examined the majority of cover art cannot be found on the Internet.

Of course. Earlier I was largely a Simon and Kirby collector. When I retired I thought I would stop collecting OA, instead I now focus on current artists.

I have never been bothered about the art I could never afford to own, or jealous of those who could afford it. I am only sad about the art that I once was able to collect but am now priced out of. But of course that is what often happens when one has collected OA for a long enough time.