Fischb1

Sure, but when I was looking at the page and considering buying it, what canceled out the Lucifer for me was the woman with 6 drooping breasts, nipples out, right in the middle. Not the most attractive image and definitely one I can't frame for people to see in my house. That's a big knock(er) on the page in my opinion.

Who cares what the ask was? It's like ebay prices vs ebay sold prices. That page at 60k is super strong. It wasn't an 80k page.

In the very first auction of the day, someone put a cut bid on the Adams Wolverine and she ended the auction immediately after. She didn't realize that it was a new bid right under the wire. She took the cut bid and closed it. If I was the Adams consigner I'd be so upset.

Other than the Sandman page, there wasn't a single WOW page today. In fact, most of these pages would've been in the Friday lots in a regular Heritage auction. Which page is the anchor of this session to get everyone talking? There really wasn't one. 5 Signatures and a bunch of international auctions so close together have taken their toll on the top pieces available. In fact, some of these pages would have done better in a Friday session because they would've shed their outsized expectations and maybe started a bidding war.

.

pm sent

This was made 1 year earlier in 93 (Marvel animated series cards by SkyBox).

I don't think it "impossible" to happen. Just unlikely. And ESPECIALLY unlikely when dealing with a savvy dealer that's offered the "quarter" pieces by collectors all day long. That's a beautiful cover.

Agreed. I like Isherwood too. That's probably why he came to mind.

I'm surprised no one's made the obvious comment yet. It's a given in any collectible market that 4 quarters are worth less than a dollar bill. (It's the same reason that you have to give up so many pieces to get a mega-star in sports.) It's relatively easy to find a quarter-piece in the wild (or at auction) but a top piece? A "dollar bill piece" is much harder to obtain. No collector I know would give up a primo top piece for it's "equal value" in a lot of smaller pieces. The same way you wouldn't trade your Kirbys for 50 Isherwoods. I think your expectation is unrealistic.

Wow. You tried defending someone for saying that selling because of the holocaust is similar to selling because of house repairs and then you're calling me a super-sensitive type, a dingbat and a troll? And then you blocked me (and some other account that is not mine). Great job failing at reading comprehension and calling names like a child.

Agreed for the most part. But it's different if art is stolen instead of just sold. If someone steals a piece from you should you able to reclaim it when it pops back up? After 2 weeks? 2 years? 20 or even 50 years? And what happens if it doesn't pop back up until after you're dead? Should your descendants be able to claim it for your estate? And what happens if something is sold with a gun to your head (or a gas chamber to your back)? Is that considered stolen? These are all questions for the courts to decide. Tough questions that people schooled in this field of law have to figure out. That's very different though than comparing selling because of the Nazis to selling because of house repairs.

You say you will not try to speak for Brian and then you try to speak for Brian twice. Just saying. As for the rest of your argument, I still strongly disagree that this comparison makes any sense in any way. You can't look at the example of the Holocaust and say "Ooh, without getting into why they sold then, it leads to an interesting discussion of should we get today's value on art that was sold long ago." It just doesn't work with the Holocaust. In fact, there are already many settled cases where museums or owners did have to give back the art. It's not a regular circumstance. In this case do they have a legit claim? I have no idea. But if they do, it's because their choice was to sell the art and buy a visa to get out, or to have their kids thrown in the gas chamber. So please stop trying to draw connections between this and any other selling of art and trying to claim future value.

The fact that you correlate it to someone selling an OA piece for family needs is sickening to me, Brian. I would expect better from you. If the case is true, the family had to sell their possessions in order to purchase super trumped up Visas in order to escape the Nazis. The callousness with which you compare that to selling oa today is disgusting.

But one claim is that a family had to sell their art under duress of extermination from an illegal war(whether that's true is for the courts to decide). The other is an artist who sold his art to make a living and pay the bills. I still fail to see the connection at all.

I fail to see the comparison between a German art dealer taking advantage of fleeing Jews, and Europeans selling their art in the 80's. Can you clarify for me?

Starlin is somewhat associated with Hulk. Just recently we saw: 1) Starlin Marvel Super Heroes 47 Cover (Hulk transformation) sell for 102k 2) Starlin Rampaging Hulk 4 Painted cover sell for 81k 3) And there's about 7 other Starlin Hulk covers that have sold just on Heritage. So was this a very healthy price? Absolutely. But saying Starlin isn't at all associated with Hulk isn't true at all.

C) Plenty of buyers want the best available piece by an artist. If they later find a better one, they quickly sell the other and recoup what they can. A big loss to some people here, might just be pennies to a wealthier collector.

I would agree with Bronty on most of what he said: I'd love a FM Wolverine page and have no interest in DD. The only place I'd disagree is with calling Wolverine an A. I think there's a tier above A that has 4 or 5 characters in it. AAA++ or something. Wolverine, Spiderman, Hulk, maybe Captain America and Ironman (the last couple only since the movies). Because there's no doubt that Thor, Thanos, Silver-Surfer and Magneto are not B characters. They're all A. But they aren't A like Wolverine or Spiderman.

Yes...and it's come true. There is plenty of oa that was hot 20 years ago that only guys like Michael Finn collects now. As each generation ages out, there are some strips or artists that become obsolete. I believe Peanuts will go that same route. As will Prince Valiant. Etc. But Spiderman and Batman still have legs for a while to come.

The way I see it: If the oa market softens a bit, who cares. Any of us can lose 10% of the value of our collections and not mind too much, especially after things have appreciated so much the last few years. If the oa market comes crashing down, that probably means a major recession and the stock market is crashing down too. In that case, I lose nothing by having this money tied up in oa instead of crashing stocks. The only alternative would be to put the money into cash (but inflation?), or some recession-resistant commodity (gold?), but even if I didn't collect oa, I probably wouldn't be buying gold and grain. So, sure, spend responsibly. Only buy what you can afford. Be prepared for a possible 10% to 30% setback this next year. If things go down, as the economy recovers and stocks recover, so will oa. It's still one of a kind and people like us will still have the strong urge to buy it. The real test for oa isn't this coming year, it will be in 20 years when many of the collectors in their 40s age out. But that's still a 20 year party and I'm here for it!

thanks!

Not buying something for a month. It took me a month.

This is terrifying on many levels. I'm glad you and all your loved ones got out safe. The rest is mostly just money. Thanks for the wakeup call!

Last night, all at the same time, I was watching: 1) The CL auction 2) The Heritage auction 3) Dueling Dealers 4) Spencer selling art livestream on Clan Mcdonald Like J said, there was a lot going on and not much room for impulse buys. That being said, although there were some lower prices, there were also some higher prices. Did you see what that Galactus page went for?