Rick2you2

I would be honored to have been so highly thought of. And if he did a "New 52" version of the costume, I wouldn't be that interested anyway.

Anyone who writes these off on their taxes is making a mistake which they may get called out on. The only portion which could be written off is the difference between the fair market value of the piece and the price paid. If Lee's market price is now the same as these sales prices, no write-off is permitted. On the other hand, the IRS has to catch it.

Now that the marathon is over, I was just wondering if anyone had any wrap up thoughts. As for me, I think the number of Batman-related images may have been good for attracting $, but it got dull after a while. I also liked his earlier pieces of a more traditional nature than his experimental ones or head shots. I think he may have gotten tired near the end. I sure would have been. How he cranked out work of that caliber so quickly, while still doing other work, is impressive as hell. I also confess my amazement at the amounts so many people would spend for his commission work; but by this time, I should have gotten used to it. With that said, I am happy he did not do a Phantom Stranger since it would have been out of my spending range for this material. And, he is a really nice guy. I had sent him a few emails and he responded directly, or indirectly, through things he posted. If anyone is wondering, his screen name of Chunky Monkey has nothing to do with the Ben and Jerry’s ice cream flavor. He just liked the way it sounded.

A professional restoration will generally improve its value over an unrestored piece which needed help. This is also to personal taste, which varies. I, for example, would not object to a replacement word balloon because, to me, it was intended to be part of the published work. But, I would not want a minor restoration performed unless I knew its current condition was an early step in further serious deterioration. Again, opinions vary.

One of the advantages to my little—ahem—niche is that major competition isn’t that common unless the page overlaps with something else, like a Batman image, or it involves a special artist, like Adams. So, I guess I will take my chances on the future.

Fair points. Just not anxious to spend it.

Are there any rough rules of thumb anyone uses for pricing covers vs. good panel pages? I am looking at a cover which is almost 6 times higher than good panel pages by the same artist. I could see 4:1, or even 3:1, depending on the panels, but this cover seems priced a little on the high side, and I am not really comfortable with trying to bargain it down (yet). Assume there is nothing special about the cover, e.g, no intro’s of major villains or extra-ordinarily powerful imagery.

You can have my share

Sure he is. You don’t recognize Charley Dikto?

Your Talaoc is better than my Talaoc. A lot.

When I was around 6 years old, I went to summer day camp where I actually collected sticks of various sizes and shapes because I thought they were interesting. What still gets to me, however, is the kid down the block actually stole some of them rather than find his own.

On Monday, in an act of pure boredom, I won this mediocre piece on Heritage Auctions for about $95.00, including BP, shipping and taxes. The art itself is by Tom Grindberg and Dennis Janke, from a story in the old Action Comics Weekly. In my view, what makes the piece mediocre is basically the clutter. There is too much dialog shoe-horned around too little plot. With tighter text and the elimination of unnecessary facts (e.g. details about the FBI, warnings and banter), this probably could have been condensed into a respectable 4 panel, with more actual action going on. The artists had to pretty much make do with a 3 legged dog, and they did a pretty good job of it, I think. I blame the writer for this. SInce this was a DC product, it was presumably based on a -script which the artists were expected to follow (unless they collaborated with the writer for changes). The editor doesn't score points for this lack of effort either. So, even though it is only a mediocre piece, it does have real entertainment value to me which makes it worth the price. That's not terrible. And, as a bonus, I'm even getting some zip-a-tone.

Thanks. After I saw your comment, I double checked and confused him with Tony Harris.

I double-checked. Make that Tony Harris as a problem. Sorry. Go to the Facebook page “Comic art buyers beware“, from around last October or so.

Don’t count on actually getting it. Bad reputation. CORRECTION: Tony Harris. From Facebook page. I double checked.

He is very good, but don’t sign up for his commission list, either. I think you have picked 2 of the 3 worst offenders I have read about (Jim Kyle is the 3rd on the list).

Out.

It doesn’t. I was expressing my agreement with grape ape in a less than clear manner. Sorry.

He could probably save a whole lot of money buying a commission from a Facebook artist, and maybe get something a bit better, too.

Well, there was a surprise for me today. I was interested in a piece on another auction site, and bid over 5 times the estimated experts' price (which was probably a bit low, but not very). It actually lost. I'm not too unhappy since I already owned a piece from the same book that is better than the one I lost on. Stil and all, it would have been nice to own.

If you knew your history on the subject, you would discover Adams was a prime mover, if not the prime mover, to protect comic artists. Marvel would have the right to re-use those images post 1975 because I am sure the artists’ contract of employment would give them that right. The artist can sell the original, now, which the companies used to throw out or give away, and if the artist wants, probably have it copied for T-shirts (although that might violate the company’s own copyright or trademark in the character). I don’t know why you keep bringing up Kirby. I just followed your illustration. Finally, companies could always essentially reduplicate the old work for hire doctrine by requiring any artist to assign his/her right title and interest in copyright to the company. The fact that they don’t is indicative they now agree the old way was unfair. Now, I am done. Had to get that off my chest.

One doesn’t have to view this purely as a “moral” issue, it is also an economic issue. Higher pay generally begets higher quality. How many really good artists left the field, or wouldn’t get into it, when pay was lower?

The “facts” as you put it, are a function of US Copyright law. When changing the law, Congress essentially decided that the old “work for hire” doctrine was unfair to artists and others who perform creative work. This isn’t a personal decision as to what you think is fair. It is a function of law. In Europe, my understanding is that artists in certain cases are entitled to even more, by getting paid something for the value of art after it changes hands at public sale. Think what that would do to this hobby. As to the amount artists were paid being low, Neal Adams championed the rights of artists to get their art back even before the change to Copyright law, and he was supported by none other than Marvel’s old Editor in Chief, Jim Shooter. While Kirby sued and got money, what about all the other artists? In my view, the overall quality of comic art has increased since the change (yes, there were some excellent artists before then). Better pay generally results in better work. Kirby was a workaholic. Read Evanier’s biography. Easy to take advantage of.

First, they were NOT well paid and market conditions at the time did not give him any choices: my way or the highway. Besides, Marvel hired him to do art for specific comics, and is undoubtedly free to republish the pages he did for their intended use as part of post- 1975 contracts. But It remains his creative work, so Kirby should have the right to make some money off it for other uses if he were alive.

As a general rule, I do not permit the behavior of an artist to influence any of my purchases. Art should be viewed through the prism of its own quality. Furthermore, doing so makes me the judge of their character, and I don’t believe in that. Certainly, other parts of the art market haven’t seen fit to do so in years past. Artists like Picasso and Dali weren’t exactly saints. And, “swipegate” just doesn’t strike me as the type of high crime deserving of a special exception to that rule. If you like it, buy it.