Rick2you2

And, you may get even better art if you do. 🙂

The original art does not do the cover justice. That is a wonderful cover. Balance (with the title block), moodiness, no distractions from the central theme. Sometimes, I think we forget that cover art is a sales tool, and should be seen with all the trade dress applied to be fully appreciated. Right now, the high offer is $62K, not meeting a reserve at $175K. Don't know what its price should be, but I agree with ESeffinga. Excellent.ESeffinga

I completely agree with you that price and quality are not the same thing and have little to do with each other. Where we part ways is the choice of words you are using, and the thrust of my earlier comments. "Value" and "worth" are synonyms for each other. Just look up synonyms for each of them and see for yourself. That is the way I usually use those words. Unfortunately another synonmym for "worth" is price, as in: "what's my car worth"? So, things do get bollixed up. But calling the things I referenced to be issues of "technical competence" is demeaning to artistic skill. Installing a new door handle requires "technical competence"; it does not require a sense of artistry. What I listed were categories "in gross", not intending them to be viewed as flip switches. So, one piece of art may have a better central focus than another, or perhaps an artist is particularly good at facial expression. Mondrian's work is particularly strong on elemental balance: light large objects in one quandrant balanced against small dark ones in an opposing quadrant, for example. That is an example of skill, not technical competence. There is no reason why we, as presumed conoisseurs of this art form, cannot discuss the elements of pieces for comparative purposes--not for price, but purely aesthetics--to determine why something is better or worse. What I gave are examples of categories, by no means exhaustive, of things to evaluate. And as to Joe Kubert, I would love to see a Strawberry Shortcake page of his. For example, has he modified his more typical style to a simpler line approach for Strawberry Shortcake? Maybe he didn't/can't. Not all artists make the jump between genres successfully. Would I want that in my collection as a "typical" example of his art? Probably not, but I might want it because it could demonstrate his verisimilitude as an artist. Perhaps it might be an interesting exercise on these boards to take one of those McSpidey DPS's and take it apart, element by element, so members can see what others think of specific aspects of the work itself. It might be a good exercise to see what makes something "good" to most of us, or where our opinions differ. And remember, none of this has to do with price--purely aesthetics.

I don't agree that art can't have "intrinsic value", but perhaps I used a poor choice of words. Many years ago, I dated a woman who did nothing more than evaluate the quality of art, stripped of identity, and whether it was good or bad. She actually had a Masters Degree in it, which she had to create, but her skills were in demand to evaluate pieces. I was thinking of starting a thread on this point, but I may as well give examples now. What this consists of is breaking down an image that I think we often do unconsciously to arrive at something we like or not. Take a look at a particular, say, cover. Is the image balanced, so that the eye is drawn to the center? Are the four corners of the image balanced not only to avoid distraction from the center but as between themselves (e.g., white space in the upper right corners, brown corners on the bottom for earth). Has the artist made any glaring anatomical errors, or spatial errors which distract from the object of the piece (e.g., too short a leg for a character where the leg is behind him)? Has the artist used a rendering style appropriate to the subject matter (No Charles Schultz stylization in a horror title). Has the artist produced an overcrowded background? Are objects on the image badly spaced? Are the images dynamic without being overdone? Things like that. I don't care whether the artist is Chaykin, Lee or anyone else, you can definitely compare the quality of image along these lines. Now, pricing is a different matter. That is certainly a function of nostalgia, "group think" ("I gotta have that McSpidey; look who did it!"), and the marketplace et al. Hell, I would be the last one to claim I only buy "good art". Furthermore, a lot of highly appreciated artists hew to the sorts of considerations I mention above. Now, does any of this have an intrinsic worth more than $100? That's a different call. But I can figure out if the $100 piece is "good", "mediocre" or "bad". And if that makes me an old man waving my fist at the kids, maybe they will actually pay attention before plunking down $5K on something so-so.

To me, it looks like a commission someone spent anywhere from a few hundred to several thousand dollars to get. Being off-center isn't worth the extra $173-174k. And, the inking kills a lot of the pencil work.

I just looked at it. No, it is not “bad” art. But I’m not thrilled with the clutter, or the odd rays shooting into troops which are apparently having limited effect, or why Spider-man is hitting someone on the back of a helmet (designed, in part, to cushion a head from concussions), or why soldiers are standing around like schmucks getting hit, ... but it does have nice balance.

I get that. But, for me, nostalgia has its limits. Perhaps if I had Bill Gates’ money, I wouldn’t care, but I’m a few billion shy of that (and then some). There has to be a level of intrinsic value for me to spend that kind of money, and I don’t get it for this work. My nostalgia will be funded some cheaper way; there is no going back to my youth with expensive paper products.

It is, but I cannot get around the fact that we are looking at 1 page out of a comic book of 20 or so, that probably took a day to do. Covers, more time, but not weeks. And, both are based upon scripted ideas. I realize that price is a function of supply and demand, not pure quality, and not cost of labor and material, but wealth to me isn’t the key factor. It is value received. That is what I find missing from the equation. But, it is their money to throw around. Let me add that my views are not about budget buying due to limited wealth. More like is the additional value received justified by the higher price.

Honestly, I don't see the attraction, at least at those price levels. We're talking $100,000, for gosh sakes.

"If it ain't broke, don't fix it."

I have no more inside info on this than anyone else, but it seems pretty clear that the “sweet spot” for this hobby, where most collectors usually buy, is under $2,000. Ordinarily people spend more than that, of course, and experienced, well-heeled collectors probably go into the mid-high 5 figures on occasion. But above that, I suspect you are mostly seeing a mix of owners buying things with funds earned from selling things, and dealers greasing the market price to a higher level to sell. When these “musical chairs” stop, it could get interesting, since I can’t see people buying in the lower end all of a sudden”jumping” at the chance to save $50,000 on a $250,000 piece. How many people who are not collectors buy the occasional high end piece to show off? I saw a clip of Anthony Scaramucci in which he had a color cover of Superman v. Mohammed Ali on the wall that he was very proud to own (segway was that even OA?). That may be the source of new money—people like him.

Don’t forget the dealers selling to each other. They shouldn’t be counted either.

Did he eventually get called Raisen Ape?

I enjoy the “technical” aspect of collecting, so comparisons matter to me in ways that are different than just the appearance of a final product. But, it can add up.

A definite possibility.

My gut just got involved this morning when the pencil piece showed up. The other one won’t be around very long. One thing I hate are non-buying regrets. There have been several times I have passed on a minor piece, and to this day, kick myself over it. But yes, I am going through a form of withdrawal.

I’m “kicking the tires” on 2 minor pieces, and I’m curious what others might think. Neither piece is a “must have”, and neither one is expensive in hard dollars. 1. The pencil page for an inked, published page I own, which is overpriced by a few hundred bucks. 2. The published, inked page of one I own that was by a different inker (over the same e-pencils) and not published. I already have examples of the published inker’s work in my collection, but it would be cool to have both. I could also walk away from both of them and spend the money elsewhere, or buy both and blow my future spending habits for a while. For this exercise, let’s skip those alternatives. What would you do?

That’s true for me. But for people who want the hobby to be viewed more like fine art, snob appeal, it will be. And, if comics lose their appeal, it will hurt OA values without new buying blood.

I completely agree, particularly in this instance. For example, I am a big fan of Tom Mandrake, in general, and his work on the Spectre in particular. Not only does he have the technical skills to draw a really spooky piece that is so in tune with the character, but he is wonderful at page layouts and panel compositions, interjecting design elements which move the story along without screaming “look at me” unless called for by the content. But then, when I look at the price of some of his work, and compare it to this, the relative lack of value just screams out. I think this is also a long term problem which will interfere with the hobby gaining broader acceptance outside our little world. An outsider who understands really good art will be left scratching his/her head at this type of difference, and decide their ignorance doesn’t justify a few hundred thousand dollars. Multiply that by potential buyers, and a breakout into the rest of the art world will be limited to trophy hunters and potential investors.

The reason they get to do that is the standard contracts with credit card companies only permit a premium over cash/check if the price difference between the two are noted for each item. Gas stations can do it because they only sell, say, 3 grades of gas plus diesel (things the repair shop or 7-11 sells don’t count). Try labeling the price difference for every item at a supermarket, which also change regularly, and it would be impossible. So, no premiums to post (or discounts for cash/check).

Maybe it’s a generational thing, but considering all the hubbub about his work, I don’t see it as justified. Yes, some of it is very, very good, maybe great, but how much for that art? On a more absolute scale, 1-10, with 10 the best, how do you rate them? I can see some 8’s, maybe a bit higher at best, but others just seem cluttered. And, I do not like the coloring, which seems somewhat harsh (and not His doing).

Not bad. $720 w/Heritage’s cut.

Pre-live bidding doesn’t have much to do with pricing after final bidding. The question, I think, is whether this is the right place for a toy related item or not.

Geez, what a doo—che bag. In my opinion, Guernica was drawn by Andy Warhol, and that makes it legitimate.

When dinosaurs went extinct, it led to a flowering of new bird and mammal species. When the Tower of Babel fell, yes there was no longer a common language, but there was a flowering of different cultures. The end of “Ma Bell” led to the relatively rapid and cheap development of cell phones. Would there be anime and manga if the US lost WW II? Or was it at least partially a product of US cross- cultural pollination of our comics and cartoons? I am not that gloomy about it. I think we are more likely to end up with more shows on TV, directly or indirectly affected by comics, which then produce more comics. And the variety, unleashed from the strictures of creating giant “tent pole” movies, is more likely to result in more creativity to find profit, and a lot of it.