New School Fool

Don't all or most of the art Felix reps sell out in minutes..? I'm not referencing any particular art Felix sells specifically, just in general. As for the art I am talking about...I had a feeling this question would be asked...I'm somewhat of a blackhole collector. It'll be easy to deduce which art I've purchased if I send you the link. Which, right now, I'm not prepared to do - sorry.

Yes, I think this must have been it. For those that were asking, yes they were published pages of modern art. I guess not many people on this forum go for the modern stuff which may have been reflected in the price tag.

Recently a new batch of comic art was released that was pencilled from a well established artist with a large following. I normally don't think this artist is that great myself yet their pieces command high sums on the secondary market. I noticed the price tag on these new pieces were very reasonable (i.e. not expensive at all) yet they didn't fly off the shelves like I seen with other artists recently. Then I noticed the pages were inked by another artists that had decent credentials to his name but is essentially far less well known than the penciller. Which begs the question, Do people frown upon different artists doing the pencils and inks? If so, which is considered the more worthy? Me personally, I would have thought it wouldn't matter who the inker was with this well known artist, but I was able to browse at leisure over the new art, ponder over what I wanted and pick a very good page at a very good price. Normally (e.g. Felix's drops) if you even stop to think for a microsecond you're missing out. Is a separate inker considered detrimental to the art if the inker is relatively unknown? What if the penciller is unknown and the inker is well known? Would the page have commanded a higher price if they were pencilled only? It would be great to hear your thoughts, I've been collecting for about 4 years now but I'm still a relative newbie.

NFT art sales are making a S**T LOAD of money for digital artists right now. This is why I think Jason, Felix and traditional artists are jumping on board. To make money. Your favourite traditional artist may want a piece of that pie. If they started selling their work on digital platforms with the NFT, would you following along?

Technically yes, but the artist would only get say 10-40% of the resale value (as they stipulate when creating NFT). They would actually make more money from their initial sale. It would be better for the artist to keep making (digital) art and selling it (+NFT). I am a digital artist myself by the way. Also who's to say the amount received from 5 years of continuous resale doesn't equal the exact amount from one sale after 5 years on someones wall?

I think you've misunderstood the entire concept of NFTs. Do you remember the point in the interview where they mention to Google 'Beeple'. Well, Beeple is a digital artist and most likely the reason NFTs have become so popular recently. Beeple sold his repertoire of digital art + NFTs, amassing more than £3 Million from the sale. Christies are now going to auction off more of his work (+ NFTs) in the coming weeks, a first for Christie's and the digital world. There is now an entire market of digital artists selling their work with NFTs. To answer your question NFT + digital art = legitimised one of a kind digital art. Its one of the reason NFTs were created in the first place! For NFT collectors, digital art and the NFT is probably more important than pencil and ink pages. It's definitely more suited to (and easier to apply to) digital comic art pages.

My take on this, based on nothing but my opinion: Monoprints, due to the fact that they're entirely from recent comic books, are most probably sought after by younger collectors, new to the hobby. Monoprints don't seem to be desirable to older collectors. Heritage seems to be the place for older collectors to auction off and bid on art, I remember reading this somewhere - forgot where. ComicLink, I have been told, is the place for more recent artwork. I feel this auction would have done better on ComicLink over Heritage. Younger audience, more receptive to monoprints. Isn't Comiclink the place where the Lady Thor Monoprint sold for profit? It's about knowing the market, which I feel is a little splintered at the moment, with 2 (maybe 3) factions. This Batman monoprint art was marketed to the wrong people....that and the fact that the artwork isn't that great to begin with.

This is what I see happening. Like it or not, new pencil and ink pages will start to become rarer and rarer. The prices of pen & ink pages from sought after artists will sky rocket...maybe not so much for less desirable artists. monoprints or NFT digital pages.....these will eventually be the norm. Also, while I don't doubt the 'cold reception' to monoprints by the community at this point in time (misplaced or not), Heritage was definitely not the right place to sell one by auction!

My guess would be 'no'. Same with 'analogue' OA. Purchasing the art doesn't automatically give you publishing rights, which is a separate cost in itself. I've heard this before. Similar to not putting your art in a CAF gallery so it's fresh to market at time of sale. Why would that be? Surely the more people who see the art, the more there'll be who desire it?

I refrained from buying any SS:B art, even though it's amazing, Silver Surfer is just not my guy, and I only buy the characters I read (stops me from literally buying everything I see). However, when I first saw the cover to #5 I was like I'M IN! But Tradd initially held onto it, and now it sells for £40K direct! I sure know how to pick em! And I never really stood a chance! Congrats to you both Tradd & Felix!

I feel the answer to both questions are clearly a yes, as can be seen from the previous records of high priced art. Though I do agree with you, the actual art should be formost. 'First appearance art' does sell for a premium though (even from the artists themselves). I wonder how much this cover would have went for if the artwork was a lot better? You're right @Peter G, Spider- Gwen is also a derivative character. An icon gaining more and more popularity and cultural significance and she's...Oh wait! There's other black characters in the Marvel Universe that came long before Miles. Why haven't they garnered the same success 'because they're black'? I feel you're wrong here. As aforementioned, the reason Miles Morales is so popular is the same reason Peter Parker is. It's because they're both Spider-Man.

I've been holding back from posting this but now I can't resist! I must admit, I love your sense of humour!

Did you read the article? The previous two records for the highest selling comic art were both first appearances of both Wolverine and X-23. Both iconic books. Yes, this high selling art is from an iconic book. Obviously not iconic to you mind. You seem to be from a generation that can easily disregard Mile Morales, which is absolutely fine. Comics and comic culture is moving on from your golden age though, this sale is a sure sign of that. Miles Morales has his own video game. I'm guessing you haven't played it, but I wonder how many younger than you have? I bought a sticker book for my son a few months ago, it reminded me of my first exposure to Marvel which was a Secret Wars Sticker book back in the day. I noticed though that Spider-Man (Peter Parker), Miles Morales and Spider-Gwen had equal prominence throughout the book. As far as my son knows, these 3 characters have existed together since day one. As we age and the comic art market matures, it will change. I wonder what comic issues and art my sons generation will consider key. I'm guessing it will be wildly different from your 2 cents

... you're contradicting yourself here...

It's obviously less about the art and more about the significance of the key issue it's from. Everyone's entitled to their opinions I guess, but in my experience, prices only ever go one way. The big question is, what does this mean for the prices of art from key issues of more established characters?

It was only a matter of time. Can you send me a link to the auction results? For the record, I'm a strictly pencil and ink guy myself but I can see that a majority of artists will be working digitally in the near future. Monoprints will become commonplace.

If buying a popular piece at auction, expect to pay double of what you think it's worth.

Undoubtedly. But then again, it already is no?

Hot Take: People's perceptions to monoprints will change when they start selling for thousands at auction

Another thing I've observed which I feel is relevant to this conversation may negate this fact. 2019 saw the release of two Ms Marvel Kamala Khan Covers. One of her in a standing pose and the other of her in a more dynamic action pose. I've subsequently learnt from 'Comics, by Perch' on Youtube that the run these covers are from sold abysmally, so not many collectors would have been aware of them, even though (IMHO) the cover art was top notch. I liked them both but had my eye on other things, both were selling in the $2000 range. The standing pose cover took about 4 months to be snapped up. Not very fast in relation to the artwork on offer. The dynamic pose cover took about 2 years, and has only recently been sold. I would feel I missed out on these if it wasn't for the fact that I had my sights on something slightly better during the time. The standing pose cover came up for auction recently. This was the 2nd chance I was looking for. I thought I may even get it cheaper seeing as it is modern comic art, (something that apparently no 'old school' collector goes for), and a character that isn't viewed as popular as the others, despite a TV show being announced, and the seeming lack of demand for the artwork. In the end it went for just over $4000, I was an under bidder on the piece. more than 100% increase in value after 2 years. This confuses me because the dynamic cover by the same artist, which has a similar composition to the standing cover sat around unsold for 2 years at $2000

You're right, but I was just using an easy to relay example. Typically, panel pages of great composition go equally as fast.

My definition of 'good' here is the same as the scale used to determine the price of a page. eg. A splash of the main character in costume in an action pose (good) is more desirable (and more expensive) than a splash of the same character in civilian clothes in a neutral pose. (Not as good - regardless of the art). In a given issue, there's usually only one or two of these 'good' pages and they're always the first to go.

From my observation, whether it's original art or monoprints from not so well known artists, the good pages go quick. People are definitely buying them. The rest sit there for 'years' until collectors realise the artist is a hot commodity and then snap up the less desirable pages as investment opportunities. This time last year you could still buy a Tradd Moore page or cover on Felix's site, they went untouched for a while. I heard that a dealer initially had trouble shifting the famous McFarlane ASM #300 cover back in the day, and sat unsold for a few years. Then there's the fact that the collectors with buying potential are simply not reading modern comics and have no interest in modern artists...this may explain the lack of sales of 'The Milkman' art. I was able to purchase a great ensemble All New All Different Avengers cover in the Black Friday sale for less than $1000. Eight characters on one page for less than $1000 - Insane! The art was unsold on the site for a year and I bought it in a sale! I couldn't believe it. The piece is unquestionably great art, maybe I was only able to purchase it because this team was overlooked by the 'big boy' collectors.

Sorry, totally overlooked that. I'll try to answer your question properly below. In doing so I noticed that If I ever really liked something at whatever price, I would either buy it, or it's snapped up while I debate it. I'm often happy to pay whatever price unless I'm low on funds at that particular time. But here's an example: Bang centre in my sweet spot for nostalgia, but not a very interesting piece to look at, no action, no spider-man. The fact it's currently available says a lot. It's on offer for $4500. I'd seriously think about it for $600 and definitely snap it up at $200-$300 I do agree with you. I have a few panel pages and if I see a page that tells a coherent story, I will gravitate to that page over a splash. I cannot deny that I'm intitally drawn to splashes though, which, themselves can tell the story on their own. Take a look at the one below: Powerful image, and you know what has come in the preceeding panels even if you've never read the comic

Hmm, this is still a difficult question to answer as I feel (as a newbie) prices are all over the place. There's always collectors who seem to have unlimited funds, who I'm sure are driving prices up. Todd McFarlane and Jim Lee, while excellent artists, have extremely bloated prices IMHO. Mainly due to their popularity and the deep pockets of collectors who chase them. Even if their prices were slashed in half I still feel they would be too expensive. Same goes for the art from the John Romita Sr era. Whether they're worth it or not, they're out of my price range. But then again, I'm a conscientious collector, I hunt for the right piece at the right price. It's half the fun of collecting I need to find a very good piece at a very good price. It's boring if I can just throw whatever amount at anything and get whatever I want. What draws me to a piece is the art primarily. I love splash pieces and covers but if sequential frames show good action sequences I'm all for it, I need to clearly 'see' the hero, none of this 'back of the head' business! The artist comes after that, I would not buy any old piece from an artist I like though. The pieces still has to give me that 'this is great art' feeling. Nostalgia factor comes 3rd, but if a nostalgic page doesn't fulfil the first 2 criteria, I'm reluctant to really go for it. The amount in what I'm willing to put down for a piece is limited, though steadily going up. I have other commitments, and this is just a hobby. My limit is currently around $6500, and for that's for a top art piece with great composition....the price I'm willing to pay goes down depending on if it fulfils my criteria or not. Anything above that, I feel is just not worth it, whether I like it or not. Looking at the example you sent @vodou tells me that we are very different collectors. I prefer cleaner splashes/covers. Images you can see clearly from across the room. That piece is way too busy for and I would never purchase it, even if I was a fan of the comic and it was dirt cheap.