Rick2you2

It means nothing more than it says: inked over pencils on a board with a Marvel imprint. It would have to identify artists as penciller and/ or inker to know more about what it means. If it is published, it may indicate it, or be obvious from the condition or content. If not, email the seller and ask. Also, try making sure it isn’t fake.

^^^ General agreement. So long as the book is for personal use, I doubt they will care. Look at all the copyright violators we have here who post copies of comic pages and covers. When I go to shows, I often see merchandise like T shirts and pillows sold with a comic company’s art as well as characters ( thereby add trademark violations into the mix). Do they pursue those vendors where real money, albeit small, is at stake?

If the copyright isn’t registered, then the holder would have to prove actual damages. Here, I don’t think there would be, as no one was in a position to buy it, thereby resulting in no loss to the copyright holder. Adding an actual printed cover to a comic may change things if the copyright for the cover was registered (and if the publisher gave a dam’n).

Also, add Tony Luke, RIP 2016.

Just out of curiosity, did Violet ever develop any character?

Your enthusiasm alone deserves you the win.

I just wanted to add that I have a strong personal dislike for it because of my work where I see the “flip side” of abusive bidding practices (and advertising for bids) on public works contracts, some illegal, others merely evasive of the law but legal. I also have some familiarity with illegal practices involving public auctions, like bidding rings which suppress prices (and are wholly illegal). They are closely related to this. At least there, I can often find a remedy. All I can do here is sound an alarm, which is why I harp on it.

There is no “solution” except to use common sense. We are clearly in a period where prices are shooting up. When you look at a particular piece, and given comparable history, does the price make sense to you? Does the bidding pattern makes sense? Is the high bid sensible? Have you seen it for sale before, and did it come with a sale price that, curiously enough, is around the same as the earlier list price? Example: why did BWS pieces seemingly die in pricing, and then get a new lease on life? Has Conan suddenly become more popular? Are the particular pieces extremely beautiful examples? What about the artist (not referring now to Smith)? Is the work in question really that good, or was the series just that popular? I hope you get the point.

I saw that was coming up for sale. Supposedly, it may bring the highest price ever to be paid for comic art, let alone unpublished art. If you’ve got the credit, sure. Unless there are some special restrictions I didn’t see, like no credit cards accepted for purchases over $1,000,000. That’s a lot of frequent flyer miles.

That’s a really nice thing he did. Does anyone know what happened to the funds raised for comic books stores?

I wish I hadn’t used a rhetorical question. You are right, of course. And so is ESeffinga. That was my point about no card swiping; no potential for spreading the virus. Stick to your guns. Credit card, or refuse their terms of payment (so long as they were that way when you won). They would be in breach of contract by refusing to honor the earlier terms.

No, I don’t. But as I understand what I have been reading elsewhere, not enough people realize it has embedded in the bidding matrix for any on-line bidding and contributed overall to an increase in prices. A healthier part is legitimate supply and demand, both by collectors and speculators/dealers.

It also doesn’t make sense to me. Why is a wire transfer safer than a credit card? They aren’t swiping or putting it in a machine.

If you want to spend a horrifying few minutes, go to Google News, type in shill bidding, or something like it, and get blown away at how common it has become across collectibles like cards and coins. I think that at least for the more noteworthy items, it is very common. And that is raising all market prices. It’s not just inflation fears (actually, dollar devaluation in this context) or boredom.

Not that one: copyright violation. Sounds like an investor playing the "long game." Hold things back for now; dribble a few pieces on the market to set the price, and see where it leads.

Heck doesn't usually do it for me, but this image, and his work on Romance titles, are really nice. Great buy.

I like yours better, but it may not sell for as much because it isn't a splash.

You are right: it doesn't matter for bidding purposes whether I like it or not. But that wasn't what I was responding to. It was this comment of yours: "Gorgeous 40 year old splash by Colan". In my view, and that of others, I see, it isn't that gorgeous.

Or, a shill bid. I think you have to factor that risk in on any bidding these days. It’s too rampant to consider an occasional threat to the process. Same with Heritage, of course.

Frankly, I don’t think it’s that gorgeous. Yes, two close-ups, but the subject matter is kind of dull, along with the character positioning. Besides, the subject matter isn’t Colan’s forte, in my opinion. It’s no Dracula.

That may be conservative in this market.

Double that $50K.

The artwork is skillful, but as I have little idea of what is going on, I don’t think I can say whether the artist is doing his/her primary job of moving the story along. Also, is this supposed to be read left to right like an American book? The small panel locations are unexpected (they may be perfect, I just don’t know).

This is a subject I feel strongly about. Don't forget that you are looking at a piece of a story. Without the text bubbles, it is difficult, at best, to understand what was behind the artist's (and writer's) thinking in his design of the overall layout and of each panel in the page. To me, it is like removing a piece of a Caldor mobile because you didn't like one of the colored bits. I would either get a restorer to fix it, or use some glue (acid free) to put it back on, after cleaning off the brown residue.

I think it is somewhat akin to the difference between an artist’s original oil painting vs. a limited series lithograph vs. an unlimited print. As art, it doesn’t matter much, but as an item of collectible worth, it matters a lot. You can’t see painting details below a certain degree in a print— there aren’t any. But, in many painted pieces, that level of detail is also missing or inconsequential so it doesn’t matter. Once we get to a question of worth, things change. People buy collectible cards and comics for nostalgia and potential future value, not how good Wayne Gretzky looks while holding a hockey stick. So that distinction isn’t hard for me. Same with mono prints: their value is a function of potential future demand for the piece, not their artistic value (which it can have).