Rick2you2

I’m thinking of the “long run” tipping point where even those not particularly affected by the Coronavirus may have decided to sell off. There seem to have been a number of large collections in the past year that are being sold off.

Are we now seeing the beginning of a tipping point where the willingness to spend a lot will exceed the expected high prices due to the volume of material coming onto the market? Not all at once, for sure, and not all at this auction, but I will be curious to see if some of these don’t make their expected sales prices. Not a bubble bursting, just some air leaking from it.

Thanks, but it wasn’t that late. Around 1982. I also agree with you the face lacks character.

Just be warned that while the people here are a lot of fun, and smart, it is a dangerous hobby. Apart from the rampant fakery on eBay, it gets very easy to spend too much on too little, both per piece and overall. My little niche gives me some protection there. Unlike many people, I don’t advise general, unfocused collecting unless you know what you are doing, or will accept the eventuality of shrinking your collection a lot later, and perhaps losing money in the process (or getting stuck with “what was I thinking” stuff).

I had been basing my comments purely on what was posted since I can only react to what is before me unless I really know an artist's work very well. By was of example, I am not overly impressed with Ross Andru's work, but that is mostly because his pages from an issue of Brave and the Bold with PS and Batman keep showing up for sale (mostly, so-so quality). While I have occasionally seen very good work of his in other books, I don't see enough of it to think a lot better of him. As to Dan's work on the Phantom Stranger, I appreciate the tip but I have seen it before (all leads appreciated, particularly if not yet on Comic Art Tracker which I use regularly). I also have several of Dan's pieces in my collection which, at least so far, have filled up my need for more. Here's one of them:

I don’t consider myself a pro or anti-Sal fan, but I have to say that the face of the Hulk complaining about what Rick Jones might suffer makes it look like a split second after he was kicked in the balls. It should have been anguish or concern. Definitely not right.

Still not okay with it, but having been trying to find a good Perez piece at a reasonable price with a nice Phantom Stranger in it. I have seen a number of pieces, but either the image of the character is poor, the overall page is only so-so, the price is high, or all three.

Why Walt Simonson doesn’t sell his Thor art.

To me, they both look like “Marvel House Art”, lacking in much distinction, except for the stupid face made by Sal’s Hulk.

I prefer Tony Daniel’s pages, but they are both so “over the top” to me they don’t resonate. Why are Finch’s Batman’s spikes on his gloves in the last image so shredded and being blown unnaturally like that? Why does Daniel include spikey things coming out of Batman’s cape in the second picture? Is there supposed to be a jet pack underneath? The windy effect and shadow is okay in the first picture, however, as it is clearly an overdramatized image. Overdoing the dramatic effect by these artists isn’t needed; both have skill sets that speak for themselves.

At least they didn’t autograph her tail.

My understanding is that Byrne respects Adams’ contributions to the field, but he is not a fan. Adams has a huge ego, as does Byrne, but really huge. So, my suspicion is that if they stood close together, you would more likely get the result of a mixing of matter and anti-matter.

Neal Adams and John Byrne doing “Battle of the Bulge”?

If the increase had been significant, like with DD, I suspect Carmine would not have cancelled it. Shenanigans, of whatever type, can't bury a tidal wave.

Let me add that Adams’s art did not save Green Lantern/Green Arrow from cancellation. The only time I had a letter to the editor published was in the Flash, where Green Lantern then moved as a back-up. I complained about the loss of his book and the end of GL/GA, but the editors politely pointed out the sales weren’t there to keep it going. So, while his work had a profound effect on fans, artists and writers, it wasn’t like the impact on sales for Daredevil.

The Phantom Stranger run operated with a pretty small needle, so it didn’t take much to move. We aren’t talking Batman, here. The first issues of the run were a mix of original art and reprinted pages. With issue 4, the one he drew, he introduced the now classic medallion and cape, while turning the direction of the book to more supernatural horror from mystery. His covers, which ran until the late teens of the issues, particularly after Len Wein started writing, I think are amazing. They also made me a fan, and as far as I’m concerned, that is a pretty big needle.

Miller saved DD from cancellation.

Adams art on the Phantom Stranger before Aparo.

More than it deserves. $378,950.

The general rule for copyright infringement can be viewed as whether the second product is “passing off” or trading on the original product to make a sale. So, if the author tweaks his original version a bit and tries to get buyers as though it was the original, that would be a violation of law, not copyright law, since he owns the copyright already, but probably, the Lanham Act or perhaps fraud and breach of contract (implied promise). In reality, none of this matters because no one is going to court over this stuff in my lifetime. In terms of uniqueness, that is a problem you will never have with inks and pencils.

Sorry, I don’t. I should point out that Neal Adams does sell reprints of individual pages and covers he has done, so perhaps the publishers don’t mind except if someone wants to reprint a whole story.

I am a lawyer, and I do know a little about the subject. Your second scenario was specifically changed by the Copyright Act of 1976. But, publishers can buy/take an assignment of rights for reproduction purposes (or anything else the creator agrees to sell).

It isn’t just the provenance; it is the act and knowledge that something was hand drawn, and what you see is the final product, blemishes and all. Those blemishes and questionable judgements vanish on a computer, making them easier to do, along with repetitive portions. No cut and paste is possible. On Bristol board they have to be worked over, covered over or incorporated, as originals—I think it’s tougher to do. Do the most expensive photo’s sell for the same as the most expensive paintings, or at least high end photographic works compared to comparable reputed painters (no cheating on comparable). I consider that a fairer comparison than multiple copies of a photo.

The copyright granted by the Copyright Act is held by the creator, not the publisher. The creator, however, can assign, license or sell whatever rights he/she has to the publisher, as I expect many of them do. So, if the artist chooses to break his promise and make more copies, he may be in breach of contract, but not in violation of the copyright laws. That could potentially be very different in terms of damages if someone wanted to sue.

Okay, let's be more specific. If a pencil and ink piece of OA would sell for $1,000, recognizing individuals value things differently, is it reasonable to think a monoprint would sell for $1,000? How about $500? As little as $100? Maybe in the 25-33% range? And what about proof it will not be duplicated? Is there any way to lock it in as a 1 of 1 print, realistically? Or do we just take the word of someone who may be the next Salvador Dali in the making?