RockMyAmadeus

"Well what have you got, sonny boy?"

No need to rehash it - just provide links to the threads so people can see for themselves how ridiculous your arguments were. If anyone missed it, RMA said that Wolverine was not a superstar until the late '80s. Go check out the two threads on the subject for the plethora of evidence to the contrary while watching RMA pout and do his best James van der Beek impression.

Not revising at all - I thought that was implied in what I said. Guess I should have remembered how pedantic you can be. Wow, that's a first. You consistently ignored new information in the Wolverine thread and kept going back to arguments that were comprehensively proven wrong. In any case, the Hulk #181 OA was not destroyed, and the cover was never part of Len Wein's collection caught in his house fire. And, again, there are other pieces that are more important than the Hulk #181 cover, such as the GSXM 1 cover.

No one is denying that this is the first appearance of Wolverine and that it is significant. However, it is not the famous, iconic image that the Hulk #181 cover is, which is why the #181 cover is more significant, even if it is the second appearance of the character. There are people, like myself, who know the OA landscape, know who the usual suspects are for this piece, and what they are likely to pay and not pay, both for the #180 page and the #181 cover should it surface. I'm not saying that $750K-$1mm is impossible, but it would be a total guess/leap of faith and certainly not based on any facts, logic, comps, or any other kind of information that dialed-in collectors have at their disposal. I'm certainly no expert, but I don't really believe anyone is in this case since it is an unprecedented sale. I am basing this on my belief that Wolverine is the 4th most popular character in comics (way above #5 whoever that may be), and the other 3 did not have a cameo before their first appearance, so how can you judge where this sale will go? Comparing Wolverine to any of the examples you have given is IMO a joke. Like I said originally, the figures I gave are a guess, just like yours. + forever.

I guess that's one way to look at it. Thankfully rational people who read that Wolverine thread could see how wrong you were and expressed their collective opinion as much to that effect. People could see that your arguments never actually proved the points you were trying to make, and that you were just plain wrong and refused to admit it. Virtually all of the data, polls and recollections supported my point of view, and even your sole ally in the thread ended up trying to unsuccessfully reframe the debate after you and he were comprehensively proven wrong. I don't usually tell people they don't know what they're talking about, but, then again, people usually don't opine authoritatively on things they know little about as much as you do and refuse to back down even when informed people tell you you're wrong. Really? Do you really want me to go down the list of things you got factually, demonstrably, provably wrong? You argued points that were not in contention, you misstated multiple points, you misread people's statements (either willfully or negligently, I don't know what's worse), you got all sorts of relevant data just flat out wrong. And do you REALLY want to make the claim that I don't "back down" when YOU were the one who kept going, and going, and going, making hostile, dismissive, condescending statements long after I ceased talking to you about it? No, I think everyone saw what happened there. I think everyone saw what happened there quite clearly. You can believe whatever you wish, but if you can't even get your facts straight, and in the process make incredibly specious and arrogant statements like "you weren't there, so you couldn't possibly know what happened", despite the example of...you know...ALL OF RECORDED HISTORY....I think it's quite clear to everyone what happened. PS. "Consensus of opinion" does not a fact make. A fact is a fact. It either IS or it is NOT. It doesn't matter how many people "agree" with you.

It doesn't, in and of itself. But, when you're as active in the hobby as I am, particularly this segment of the market, I can speak from a position of experience and authority. What are your OA credentials, sir? "Active in the hobby", which I assume you mean paying close attention to the market, is of much greater value than "I buy a lot, so I know what I'm talking about." Nice to see you revise. It is not "the first appearance", regardless of when it appeared in print. As far as most important, it had been stated that the OA to Hulk #181 was destroyed. If that is NOT the case, then I will revise my statement to the SECOND most important piece of OA, after the cover to #181. See? New information, minds changed. Easy.

Hey Bronty...the Spidey #328 page, where was it at at three weeks before the auction went live? That would be a most interesting bit of information.

Yeah, no one has written a million dollar check yet for a single piece of US comic art, and it's hard to believe that an interior page is going to be the first. The Hulk #181 cover or a great Ditko Spidey cover I could believe, but iconic covers like ASM 50, Silver Surfer 4, Dark Knight Returns 1, etc. have all changed hands in the past year or so at lower levels so it would be pretty surprising to see this page sell for double or so what some of these other covers have allegedly sold for. It's funny to see people who aren't dialed into the market at all voicing opinions that go against what both seasoned collectors and dealers alike are predicting for this page. You know, you really can make your points without telling others they have no idea what they're talking about. How about I go through our Wolverine discussion and point out the many, many, many mistakes you made during the course of the conversation...? I didn't, because it didn't advance the conversation, but I could have. You made comments that were factually, demonstrably, provably wrong, multiple times, and on the few points you were corrected, you weren't told that you had no idea what you were talking about. The whole "you had to be there, or you couldn't possibly know" was one of the most glaring. If the page sells for a million, that doesn't prove me right. If it sells for $300K, it doesn't prove *you* right. You keep arguing subjectives as fact.

Oh boy. You make some very odd comparisons. Hulk #180/181 is a very special case, and not at all related to Conan #23/24, X-Men Annual #14/266, or...ads? Really? In any event, the debate about Wolverine's first appearance has been around...as I'm sure you're well aware...for decades. The market has decided that #181 is the more valuable appearance, but there is no character in all of comics...with the possible exception of the Spectre's first appearances in More Fun #51-52...whose first "real" appearance is more debated than Wolverine. X-Men Annual #14 has never carried a premium (or "premium"), ever, despite many attempts by many people to convince the market otherwise. Conan #23/24 have been looked at as a matched set. And I don't think I've ever seen anyone who has made an argument for ads being Elektra's first appearance before your post here. Forget all that. Logic, or rather logical arguments based on comparatives (flawed or not) don't matter when the buyer pool is like, three people. The real question is - who's going to write the cheque? Look around at the deeper pocketed OA collectors. The biggest cheques that have been written that are widely known anyways are around a half mil, in that ballpark. Is this particular page the hill any of the OA guys are going to die on, so much so that they will double what they've (or perhaps I should just say "he has") been paying ? I doubt it. If I'm that guy or those guys I'm not killing myself over this page when 181 is out there. I'll bid strongly on it, but that's it. MORE IMPORTANTLY, I've already pushed and probably REGRET pushing, the price ceiling on key pieces. Am I willing to pay $1m for this piece knowing its going to cost me every single time I make another key purchase? I pay $1m now - and every single big piece after this one is going to be priced at seven figures because the wolverine page sold for that I'm not going to shoot myself in the foot by paying a million. Paying a million doesn't cost the usual suspects one million. It costs them SEVERAL million because the landscape changes. Absolutely, 100% agree. It absolutely sets a new benchmark, something I consider frequently. "Well, you were willing to pay $X for this, so why not for that?" It absolutely happens in art, in coins, and all sorts of collectibles fields, and it happens up and down the scale. When people have something that someone paid some crazy price for, all of a sudden the value of the item goes up in their minds, whether it is justified or not (and mostly not.) "Well, SOMEONE paid $10,000 for my New Mutants #37 9.6, so mine must be worth that, too!" I understand the phenomenon, especially in markets where few or single examples are available.

FF #50 is going to be "the Surfer" piece, since he appears on the cover of #48 not at all, and is secondary to the cover of #49. Huh. Interesting! I didn't know that owning something made one knowledgeable about it. First appearance is definitely just one consideration. OA is not a complete comic book; they are markedly different animals. OA is a single page, a single strip, a single cover. Composition, layout, technique, popularity of the characters on the page, personal taste, level of preservation are all factors, among others. But all of that is trumped by importance in certain cases. It is the very first depiction of Wolverine (that was published), and it is that phrase..."first depiction of Wolverine" (most notably "Wolverine") which takes a piece like this out of regular considerations. "Better" is subjective. I'll argue for the composition of #168 all day. You may value the OA to the ad higher than many, but I seriously doubt you'll convince others that it is more valuable, or even approaching in value.

By the way....Pollock's appeal is because he is Pollock, not because his art is superior to anything done before. Picasso's work is fascinating, but his earlier work, before he delved into surrealism and cubism, is why he is "Picasso." Had Picasso turned out work only like his later styles, it is doubtful he would be as famous (although that's up for debate.) But many of his most valuable pieces are from his impressionist pieces of the early 20th century, which are breathtaking masterpieces ("Garcon a la pipe", for example.) Picasso was a master at surrealism...but he made his name as a realist, classicist, and impressionist. (Granted, it's hard to really make many speculations about Picasso, he is probably the most talented painter who ever lived. It is difficult to overstate his talent.) It is the NAME that provokes the hundreds of millions, not (necessarily) the merit of the work itself. In 20th and 21st century art, it has become a competition to own names, rather than masterpieces for the sake of themselves. The pieces have "superstar value" because of the NAME, not the work's artistic value in and of itself. Monet is valuable because it is Monet, the same with Cezanne, the same with Dali, the same with Pollock and Warhol. These artists obviously were masters, because of what they achieved, but the real stratosphere in value occurs because of the name involved. Van Gogh, for example, did not support himself very well with his work, and sold only one painting during his lifetime (for about 80 2014 dollars), despite gaining some modicum of notoriety in gallery exhibitions in the late 1880's. His brother supported him. But after his death, and because of the circumstances of his life, his work became sought after, and gained fame because of what it was: a work by THE Vincent Van Gogh. The work is genius, no doubt. But there are plenty of artists who were just as talented as Van Gogh, whose work is valued much less....because they are not "Van Gogh" (Gauguin, for example.) But because of the circumstances, tragedy, and madness of Van Gogh's life, his work became highly sought after. What changed in between 1888 and 1905? Van Gogh exhibited in galleries; those interested in his work could certainly have made an offer on his work, and I doubt he would have turned it down. But they did not. After all, his work ended with his death in 1890, so it's not as if he didn't display his work while he was alive. So, what changed? Answer: he died, and his life was a soap opera. He was a master, but few recognized it until he was dead. And once he was dead, the work became fixed and finite, and as his fame grew, so did the value of his work, until his name became the most valuable part of the price tag.

Oh boy. You make some very odd comparisons. Hulk #180/181 is a very special case, and not at all related to Conan #23/24, X-Men Annual #14/266, or...ads? Really? In any event, the debate about Wolverine's first appearance has been around...as I'm sure you're well aware...for decades. The market has decided that #181 is the more valuable appearance, but there is no character in all of comics...with the possible exception of the Spectre's first appearances in More Fun #51-52...whose first "real" appearance is more debated than Wolverine. X-Men Annual #14 has never carried a premium (or "premium"), ever, despite many attempts by many people to convince the market otherwise. Conan #23/24 have been looked at as a matched set. And I don't think I've ever seen anyone who has made an argument for ads being Elektra's first appearance before your post here.

It may be the first depiction, but it's not the most important one. The Hulk #181 cover and the GSXM #1 cover are both more significant. Hulk #180 may be where Wolverine first appeared, but X-Men is what made him a star (and the X-Men franchise is more popular than Wolverine alone). I own the OA to the very first Gwen Stacy appearance in ASM #31, but it's not worth as much as, say, the cover to ASM #121 or 122 and probably not as much as some random Romita covers which feature her as well. I also own the OA to Red Sonja's very first panels in comics from Conan #23, but it's not worth as much as the Conan #24 cover or most of the interiors; heck, there's probably at least 1 or 2 #23 pages worth more as well. No, I'm not comparing Gwen Stacy and Red Sonja to Wolverine, but I am dispelling the myth that first appearance trumps everything else - it doesn't. This is the art world and there are numerous other factors which come into play - cover vs. splash vs. interior, content of the page, execution of the page, etc. Fact is, Wolverine's second appearance on the cover of Hulk #181 is bigger, better and more significant, and probably would fetch $1 million. And, by the transitive property, if the (superior) cover is worth about a million, this page isn't. Comparing Gwen Stacy's first appearance with Wolverine's, even by way of analogy, is where we take leave of our senses.

The value of the piece has little to do with Herb Trimpe. The value of this piece is because of Wolverine, just as the value of Warhols is because they are Warhols. Um. Ok. Not relevant, but whatever. Yeah, it really is. It is the first depiction of arguably the 4th most popular superhero in the world. We'll see where it ends up.

you can't use the outlier of all outliers as a benchmark, sir. No way does it reach 1m. Sure you can. In fact, you almost have to. Once *something* breaks a psychological barrier, it then becomes easier for something else to beat it. It took decades for coins to break $1M. The first one came tantalizingly close in 1989, at $990,000. It took 7 more years, 1996, for it to finally happen. Since then, in 18 short years, more than 200 different coins have sold for $1M+, some as much as $10,000,000 (1794 Dollar.) The sale itself was a huge outlier...granted...but the public then forgets that it was a bidding war, and only remembers the price. And then it becomes "well, if such and such sold for $600K, it's not out of the question that this far more important piece would sell for so much more. It's bound to happen. When Warhols and Pollocks sell for $100M+, 1/100th of that for pop culture icons doesn't seem so out of the question. I mean, if Jasper Johns works...and he's still alive...can sell for around $100M, it is hardly inconceivable that the most important piece of original art from the last 40 years can break $1M. It's the original art showing the first appearance of what has become arguably the 4th most popular superhero of all time. The only thing I could see being more valuable (as it relates to Wolvie) would be the cover to 181.

Yes, seriously. It's that important. If it sells for as little as 300-400k, the buyer will have gotten one hell of a deal, relative to other pieces of OA.

I have little doubt that it will cross $1,000,000. If the cover to Spidey #328 can sell for $600K+, this should have no problem. It's probably the most important piece of original art that has been auctioned in the last 20 years.

I would be happy to join you in that sentiment, but no one here is serious about buying. Now, granted, I don't give my stuff away. My prices are high. But I sold a raw 9.6 Spidey #299 for $55 on eBay the other day. No one here will pay $55 for a raw 9.6 Spidey #299. Even with all fees, I still clear more than $48. I'd be lucky to get $30 for it here. I sold a NM 9.4 copy of X-Men #114 for $65. A NM+ 9.6 copy of X-Men #106 for $100. I just don't see the type of prices paid here that can compete.

No, they don't. I have re-bagged a few books that I bought at cons that had stickers on the bags and sometimes the stickers do leave marks on the books inside. You might only be able to see the mark if you hold the book at a certain angle or in a certain light. It also probably depends on the thickness of the bag and how tightly the books were packed in a box, and for how long, etc, etc, but it can happen. Yes, it can. I've seen it countless times. That's why I never use stickers for anything and immediately rebag anything with one. Sometimes the dent is extremely deep. Without a doubt stickers will leave impressions over time depending on the way the book is stored. Even the flap of a bag could leave an impression if stored too tightly together. This is correct. I've seen that too. (thumbs u I purchased quite a few books a while back that all had those impressions on the b..c. from the flap being tucked in, and being compressed in a box at 200 p.s.i. Not only all the above, but the flap LINE and piece(s) of TAPE can leave indentations over time. And it doesn't even have to be tightly packed. Over years, they'll just work their way into the cover. Good thing there's pressing.

Sorry I didn't know about this before, I would have had you send it to me and I would have brought it with me to C2E2. But I leave tomorrow for Chicago. I am bringing a few copies for him to sign with me. No problem at all. I usually try to get 10 or so books done at once and still need several more 9.8 candidates before I submit for another signing. That is nice of you though, thanks. Have a great time at the show. I hope you're getting close! What a great set this is.

True. I just wish the people who found me annoying...you know, like you....would simply pretend I don't exist. Oh, I know, I broke my own rule in this case, but it was too good an opportunity to pass up. Not true at all. Yay!

Remember those Spidey #324 and 319 (?) 9.6 copies I sold you? That's the way I pack, so that the slabs can "float" against soft bubble wrap, rather than hard edge, when they're impacted. They made it all the way to Singapore without damage!

He seems to be a good guy, and I steered him to the USPS insurance route, so we'll see how it turns out. Totleben sigs are rare, he's only done 3 (?) signings, and I'm happy to keep the book, even as it is (9.0/9.2). The cover is just torn at the staples about 1/8", not completely detached.