Rick2you2

I buy the newer stuff, but, I collect to the character and don’t usually get commissioned work. Frankly, I think a lot of the newer stuff is at least as good, both in terms of illustration skill and design approach. But, I’ve basically said this before on this thread. Let me add, that I don’t think a lot of older art “is inspiring, amazing, and timeless...” It is old, sometimes stiff, and designed to illustrate a -script instead of moving the story. That is the antithesis of timeless. For every Will Eisner there are dozens of Curt Swan’s or Richard Dillin’s.

It isn’t a lot of money if you are engaged in price maintenance, and say, have access to a whole lot more. Set the table on Heritage to a price point, and you have a talking point on a higher price for a popular artist’s other work. There is another piece on this week’s auction in which the agent or rep is pricing things at roughly double what they sell for elsewhere—even now. If that auction piece does the same, I will run from making offers for other pieces he is selling. Too suspicious.

I think it will be a lot more sudden than that, even without a nuclear war. First, pieces at auction will remain at market prices even when demand goes down. As discussed on other threads, dealers and others interested in maintaining price supports will buy to protect their inventory/collection. Then, there will be private sales where people will offer special bargains (and refer to things like recent auction prices to support their position). That circle of people getting offers will widen over time until it becomes obvious the price is not sustainable. By then, when things are off by 1/3 or so, panic selling by some owners kicks in, while others who can't believe what happened to their billion dollar babies stand firm. The market, by then a little smarter, sees what has happened, senses an avalanche, and the price pressure increases to drop things even further. The insiders know what is going on--the average collector does not. Now, we are down to maybe 33% to 25% of price. And maybe it stabilizes. Maybe not.

With a face like that, the demons should be running. Maybe it’s a relative.

I’m more in keeping with vodou’s approach because I feel it honors the form. Cartoon and comic art is designed to tell a story; it is a key difference with that of fine art where the story is basically a single panel, and the viewer is sometimes left to guess at what goes before or after. The clutter is part of the limits inherent in that particular type of cartoon art. In fact, I will downgrade art if I feel a panel page is being used by an artist to show off instead of move the story along. Sometimes, I will even look at the whole story to see if the page fits in properly to the overall story.

I am certainly one of the older collectors here, both in terms of age and collecting (first pieces bought around 1980), so I don't know how you want to view this. But in my opinion, most of the old Silver Age art, let alone earlier art, and a fair amount of Bronze Age art, just isn't very good and ought not be bought on that basis. Oh, the artists could be skilled, but the medium was build around the text selling the story while the art illustrated it. Now, the art often drives the issue with the story and text taking a back seat. So, way back when, you might see a page with a text box saying "Superman picks up Lois", and sure enough, the art would have Superman picking up Lois. Whoopie. Pages were often done in classic 6 panel (Marvel gets credit for being better on that score), and the artist worked under severe constraints (including lousy pay and no royalties until the late 1970's). The world changed with Neal Adams. Over time the art became transcendant to the text and then the story itself, which, incidentally, resulted in some really awful story lines. That's where we are now (with high book prices to boot). So what's next at DC? They've been through the Universe, and the Multiverse, which was then collapsed into a single universe and then expanded to a mini-multiverse, and now we have the omniverse? What next? How about the Song-and-verse? I generally just buy to the character, but I rarely buy Silver or Bronze age work (even though that's when the Phantom Stranger shows up). My sense of nostalgia doesn't extend to buying repetitive images by the same artists in the relatively same dull way. I count myself fortunate in that those early artists (like Aparo) were more creative than the Curt Swan type of the 1960's, but still and all, my limit has been reached. Now, I generally buy stuff which is less than 20 years old, and when I get an urge to find my past, I get out the reprints or originals and look at them. As to the future, I wouldn't waste a chunk of money (over $5K) on anything over 20 years old. It is likely to keep its value or go up for the next 10-15 years. But honestly, so many dealers have so much inventory already, which moves slowly, you have to wonder when they will decide enough is enough. And then, you'll have the collectors cashing out, too. I don't honor collectors who spend, say $50,000 on a page of Whatchamacallit 204 with the first appearance of Whocares. As far as I'm concerned, a fool and his money are soon parted. If you aren't planning to move it in a few years, you are asking for trouble. Enjoy the hobby. But treat it as a hobby or you're playing with fire.

There ought to be an emoticon for Holy Sh*t!

Cool means acting like you don’t care.

I always wondered who bought some of those “artistic” pictures of naked women off eBay. 👍

You’re right. My bad.

Not what I would call cheap. Anything over $1,000 is not cheap.

I had one dealing with Sal, and it was excellent, but I must say, the writer is dealing with a branch of the hobby I don’t recognize. One great thing about our niche is how closely we can get to the artists—lots of artists. Treating this stuff like fine art takes a lot of the fun out of it. The article writer totally missed that. One of the reasons this hobby should keep growing isn’t just the artistry. It’s the fun.

Have you priced anything from the Donnelly Bros.’s?

Curiously enough, I’m wrestling with something like this. An inker on a cover did the original digitally. He is now offering to recreate his own original off the digital pencils (or sell me a monoprint). While I know how I feel about option no. 2, I’m debating the value of that recreation to me. I’m leaning against, but still undecided.

I remember a date of mine like that.

First, check to see if any pieces have been sold at a higher price. He may be resetting the prices based on sales elsewhere. That’s also a primary reason I have complained loudly about shilling. Second, the market has gone a bit nuts overall, and you may be looking at someone trying to take advantage of it. I have a similar problem with the recent pricing of some of Jesus Marino’s work and the price Kirby’s is setting for it. Finally, you can always make a lower offer, pointing out the change in pricing to the dealer. If he bites, you’re okay. If not, nothing ventured nothing gained.

Albert always was tough on pricing for sales.

Bill Ward’s babes at half-time, no question (unless I had a Vargas girl lying around).

It’s really a matter of taste. I don’t think it’s stunning. Personally, I think the Hulk looks retarded, and the angle looks flat. Rare? Sure. Good? Not so much.

That’s only true if you buy as a partial investment. I don’t, so I don’t care if it goes up or not. In fact, I would prefer if it goes down— and stays down. So many people here spend too much time and effort worrying about whether something was a “good buy” instead of a nice piece, that I think they get distracted about what this hobby is really about— the reliving of childhood memories and/or an appreciate of illustration (probably in that order). My childhood memories aren’t worth that much, and that’s how I spend. But boy, this stuff can be a blast. The other interesting part of the hobby is the other hobbyists. I don’t see many knuckledraggers here. And that’s not about the money, either.

Keep the cards. They are a newer collectable, and likely have a higher upside. But, don’t lose sight of the fact these are only hobbies, not business ventures.

This isn’t politics, and of course it’s an oversimplification. I was just trying to explain a basic recognized and admitted policy of the Federal Reserve for decades as to why it likes a little inflation.

But if everyone’s income is rising, due to inflation, the real dollar value of the art doesn’t change. The question is whether particular pieces rise and fall with inflation, or more/less than inflation.

I think the title is correct. Deflation means the value of money increases because you need to use less of it to buy the same goods and services (excluding price reductions due to improvements in technology*). Currently, the Fed (as well as government spending) is pumping up the money supply, so, you need more of it to buy the same goods and services. That’s inflation. *A primary reason why some inflation is okay. It keeps everything on an even keel.

Come on, who really cares? Reminds me of an old rhyme: The election is over, Let the bitterness pass. I’ll hug your elephant, If you’ll kiss my donkey.