Rick2you2

PhD candidate?

The difference is that with live auctions, you have "crowd fever." It isn't quite the same when you are just posting bids on the computer. The numbers flash by, but there isn't the same sense of excitement.

My suspicion is that, despite contrary opinion, proxy bidding w/o time extensions results in higher bidding prices. With proxy bidding, bidders know that there is an undisclosed amount another bidder could post to win a bid. Furthermore, bidders know that the deadline to consider bids is firm. Since one can never be sure if they will get a bid in before the deadline, they would logically bid their highest possible proxy amount as protection. If more than one bidder does this, than the highest proxy will not only win, but be higher than a bidding arrangement where the time is extended. That's because in the latter situation, a person may think he can make his/her bid higher later so the bidder will intuitively hold back (allowing second thoughts to creep in).

That's an interesting observation. By "storyteller", do you mean he was better at weaving the art into the story, as compared to straight-up illustration skills? If my assumption is correct, that's really an interesting way to divine OA pricing--collectors value the use of art to tell a story more than technical skills. That, IMO, would be sensible for this medium.

I agree with you; people buy what they want. But for the OA market, in general, is that a healthy perspective? It has the effect of limiting participants to an ever-shrinking number of comic book readers. Furthermore, it makes cross-comparisons between artists difficult by making their work dependent on the underlying subject matter. Perhaps if there were some generally recognized analytics it would help. For example, why is Byrne perceived as better than Cockrum? I think the imagry is stronger, and the characters appear more exceptional, but that's not a lot of analytics. What about panel layouts and borders? Use of image flow to carry the story? That sort of thing.

But Romita isn't Picasso, at least not to anyone who isn't into comics. And that is a very big difference. It is what separates the collectible from the permanent art collection and dooms its 20 year future.

I don't think we are using "context" in the same way. I view "context" as involving matters outside the comic, and more narrowly, outside the particular page. So, a crummy page from the Spider-man wedding issue does not deserve a high price just because it is a wedding issue, or because it was written by Michelinie and Shooter (for example). I think you are using it to refer to the combination or art and -script.

The comparison wouldn't work. You have to look at things like when it was painted: Picasso's cubist period, pre-War, post-War, etc. Then, you start getting into things like composition, color balance/contrast, imagry, and a whole host of things I don't know much about. If you mean Marie-Therese, one of his mistresses, Picasso's variations are extensive. If you look at this Wikipedia site, it lists various paintings and busts with links to what they are. Take a look at them for a few seconds. It's worth it. Now, look at Romita's drawings in ASM (from my recollection, sorry), they aren't all that different--at least not when compared to Picasso.

I think you are undervaluing the specifics of a particular piece of fine art. Every artist has good and bad days; that applies to the artwork, too. Not all Pollock is great either. And, don't forget that people are sometimes buying as an investment in a recognized market. OA isn't there. When fine art has been reduced to a collectible status, it has a tendency to rise and then fall with popularity. Traditional landscapes and realistic artwork used to be more highly valued (inflation adjusted) than now. So in my opinion, while context does have an impact, it ought not be valued as highly as it is.

I would rather have a great Spidey fighting Tombstone page than a mediocre page from when GS was killed. I passed up bidding on a John Byrne page from Legends with a mediocre Phantom Stranger image for that reason (and which ultimately sold for just a little less than 2K). Whether the strength of the story matters, is a different question. In my view, not so much.

From the perspective of how I framed my initial comment, your view is more compatible with the "OA as a collectible" than "fine art" approach. That's fine, but I don't think it is universal. It isn't my approach. A piece of fine art stands on its own, so long as you understand its context (which a modern teenager may not). But understanding context is not the same as appreciating what is on the canvas. For another example, look at Don Quixote, a masterpiece of writing. On one level, it's a darn good story. But, it is also a political satire of the governing institutions of Spain at that time. You don't need context to still like it. Every collector obviously has different interests which propel his/her purchases. For me, I don't want a totem and I wouldn't care about buying a full book. If I want the full book, I'll get the comic--for a lot less money, the publishers even throw in some color. The teenager may be thrilled with a "seniorita on black velvet" painting, but I don't think that's a fair sort of standard when considering OA as the equivalent of fine art. I look at a page from the perspective of whether it is doing what it is supposed to do in order to move the story along. Does it do a good job conveying narrative, like a traditional six panel, without losing the reader's interest? (This is why I always like sophisticated border work) Does it emphasize a point to the reader like a splash? Does it combine action and narrative which balance the two in the context of the story on that page? For a collection, I like focusing on a single character. It let's me compare styles, adding to my personal appreciation. For people who are interested in financial value, by all means, nostalgia matters a lot (for now). And I'm not so pig-headed to think it should be entirely left out of valuation. But to elevate OA to another level, the primary consideration should be the "canvas", not the other stuff.

My immediate reaction was to wonder if Cap had his fly open. Then I remembered he didn't have one. Nice imagery, by the way.

Balls.

All of which raises another question: can we fairly consider OA as comparable to fine art when much of the value of a particular piece is rooted in comic book knowledge? The logical answer is no. It is merely a collectable which will die with generational change. Picasso's Guernica raised all sorts of political hackles, but its value is based on the intrinsic impact of the piece--the brutal violence of the Spanish Civil War. It would be considered a masterpiece even if it were quietly hung somewhere in a museum. Honestly, I think too much comic book trivia is affecting price. People have a right to buy what they want no matter what the price, of course, but some of the level of detailing seems to have grown to excess. What should matter most, in my view, is the quality of the page at conveying a story while keeping the reader intrigued by the story. But that's me.

I gave this some more thought and changed my mind. I really like Arthur Ranson (British artist). Two pages from Batman & Phantom Stranger were available, and I bought the better one, I think, for about $600. I wish I also bought the other one, too, with Batman and PS talking on a fire escape in a way which disoriented the reader. Great work.

Not for the women, it isn't. You can tell those panels are old. MJ looks like she's only a B cup.

"Getting realistic...."--you never know.

That's a cool line.

I generally don't like to share my preferences because I am afraid someone will try and bump the prices on me (not a good idea, by the way, if someone really wants to make a sale).

One of the interesting things I have noticed about critiques involving OA, in general, is that there really isn't any evaluation on technical grounds--we "go with our gut." For example, how is the composition of the elements of a piece? Is it centered? Is it original? Do objects blend well? Are the figures anatomically correct, if that is the artist's style, or stylistically exaggerated in order to make a particular point? Things like that, besides raw emotional impact. The comment I quoted is the reason I bring this up. Is it fair to compare the artistic work in ASM #100 with another piece if price is driven by nostalgia? Or, what about the significance of it being ASM #100? "Going with your gut" is critical to any piece, but maybe if there were generally agreed things we look at, it might be better at sorting out the good stuff from the great stuff.

Quantitative easing? I do believe I detect another WSJ reader (or at least Barrons).

This subject has come up before, some of which by me. IMO, if you are looking to buy stuff as a long term investment with a 20 year horizon, OA is a lousy idea. Collectibles, in general, have values which rise and fall with generations. So, what used to be booming hobbies in toy trains and porcelain dolls is sinking or dead. We also had a boom/bust in Beanie Babies (and artificial collectible). If the average collector is in his (and from what I can tell, this is mostly a male hobby) mid-40's to mid-50's, I think there is still at least 10 good years left for very good material. Other stuff will generally go up or be static, with some drops at the lower end. My suggestion is you buy what you like, but only from "free cash" and not investment funds.

Picked up this from Frank:

I've made choices about where I have spent my money, but it's not in my nature to second-guess a thought out decision. Although, it would have been nice to have more money on several occasions.

Easy. A Neal Adams cover of the Phantom Stranger for $200. It was in the early 1980's, and the dealer had 2. I bought 1, but thought having 2 was a waste of money.