glendgold

1 hour ago, Will_K said:

I'm surprised noone has mentioned this...

The display for My Tracked Lots is messed up (too narrow). 

When using My Tracked Lots | Auction Previews, also too narrow.  And then when trying to order by Opens for Internet Bidding, it goes back to My Tracked Lots | Current Auctions.

I noticed it before the weekend and just notified HA.

I noticed this -thought it was just my browser. Thanks for telling them.

This is really neat to see: https://comics.ha.com/itm/original-comic-art/jack-kirby-captain-america-193-cover-original-art-marvel-1976-/p/7242-234014.s?ic4=ListView-ShortDescription-071515

This is...maybe?...the last 1970s Cap cover to surface.

I think HA is going to post a scan showing it with its mat off, which confirms how weirdly this was done. To my eye (and I'm curious whether I'm right or not), Romita extended the crowd scene outside the margins, then lightboxed the final cover to fit everything in.  I'm not sure who added some pencil work around Cap's fist and (maybe) around th Falcon. But it's cool to see Jack drawing Cap with his 1960s face here. 

14 minutes ago, Latverian Tourism Board said:

Why is eBay letting this go? Odd. I know people here have logged complaints.

You do know that eBay won't pull dubious Kirbys, right?  It's the wild west out there.

I'm  interested in the thought process of planning on sniping a 1970s Kirby pencil piece of Cap and Bucky for $400, but on the other hand, no, I'm not that interested. Carry on.

Looks like this one took care of itself: https://www.ebay.com/itm/154334109048?_trksid=p2471758.m4704

I'm not sure what the story is here. I wouldn't have rendered an opinion about it one way or the other, but the original was reproduced in the Art of Jack Kirby book and it had no foxing on it, and it isn't yellowed there. So it would be weird if someone had let it get damaged like that in the last 20 years. EDIT: It's a print.

Next time I'm at my storage unit I'll see if my 1997 catalogue has the prices realized.  Crumb cover, right?

13 hours ago, malvin said:

I'm not a Kirby expert, but this seller has both a Kirby, a Simonson and a Robinson Batman:

 

https://www.ebay.com/itm/Jack-Kirby-Darkseid-Portrait-Signed/254828504576?hash=item3b54f66600:g:-SYAAOSwAXhf975I

 

https://www.ebay.com/itm/Walt-Simonson-Thor-Sketch-Signed/254828506999?hash=item3b54f66f77:g:AxcAAOSwbYJf977j

I managed to ask Simonson and this was his reply:

 

I can't be sure, but I think this isn't by me. Some of it looks like lines I might draw. I'm inclined to think it's a copy of one of my sketches. The signature in particular does not look like mine, especially on the right side. So I'm not 100% certain, but it seems unlikely.

Malvin

Yeah, I didn't like that Darkseid but by the time I saw it, it was sold. The screwiest thing about it is the reverse side - that circular stamp seems to be the hallmark of someone trying to pass off their work as Kirby.  Ernst S Raab?  Is that whose art we're looking at? 

Late to this, but it's a great idea. Wouldn't have changed a single design choice myself - I think you did it perfectly. I might just try to swim in your wake, dude.

55 minutes ago, ThothAmon said:

I way overpaid ($300) for this thing on eBay about 15 years ago. I think it’s what you guys are talking about. One of you Merry Marvelites might know what Avengers issue it’s from?  It was trimmed and then glued to a board which I think I removed upon my receipt

 

 

That's Tales to Astonish 49.

4 hours ago, SuperBird said:

What happened to the auction? 

Anyone want to revise their guesses?

1 hour ago, TellshiarMarvelmaniaCollector said:

Thank you for the info. The original owner laminated them before leaving for college. I asked why he didn't have the others signed and he said because he knew they were his. He actually had the Sub-Mariner drawn in front of him, while the others came from his pad. I don't think he co-created the Human Torch or Namora, but I know he did with Daredevil and Namora.

Oy vey.

Wow, these are great! Thanks for sharing. The DD is fascinating - someone who knows the history of the character's creation will no doubt see some clues here.

Weirdly I do have one T-day-related piece of art. There's a pretty funny and convoluted story behind its acquisition but for now let's just check out The Glob as he uncinches the waistband of his Prehero shorts. 

3 hours ago, tvindy said:

This comment really deserves more likes!

The movie was hit and miss but Arnold's character was fantastic.

5 minutes ago, comiconxion said:

At first, I thought that was Arnold Schwarzenegger in disguise.  

"There's just more to it than picking the right color. It's the texture, the weight of the material. One wrong choice, it can destroy the look of the entire room. There was this one customer that came to me, he wanted solid colored drapes in a little girl's room. I said 'DON'T DO IT.' - You need butterflies, polka dots, balloons. "

Oh, that's great. Marie was a terrific source of humor (and color) in the two most fabled bullpens of all time - I really love her satirical work like this. Thanks for showing it off.

What a coincidence.  Friend of mine was watching CNN -- Norm Eisen, Obama's Ethics Czar and Ambassador to the Czech Republic, being interviewed by Chris Cuomo. Annnnd here's what was in the BG. 

I recognize one of them, of course, but the one that's further away? What do you think? Reminds me of a  Shuster Superman page, but I dunno.

Interesting to see where the Kurtzman Little Annie Fanny prelims ended: https://comics.ha.com/itm/original-comic-art/miscellaneous/harvey-kurtzman-unpublished-little-annie-fanny-story-preliminary-original-art-in-a-folder-hmh-publishing-/a/7236-95242.s?ic2=mytracked-lotspage-lotlinks-12202013&tab=MyTrackedLots-101116

I figure there are maybe six people in the world who care about such stuff, but these little books are really cool.  Kurtzman was a messy perfectionist working for an anal perfectionist (Hef), which meant the production of this strip was insanely over-edited, with multiple drafts of gags and such - seeing Kurtzman's initial ideas and the energy of his prelims, and the amount of storytelling he can fit into some sepia blobs, then colored blobs, is astounding. Also astounding: getting to see Hef's picky-to-the-point-of-maddening edits. I bought a couple of these books a while ago and hoped I could pick up more before they were discovered. Alas.  Healthy price. Also: this isn't unpublished, but I'm guessing the high bidder (and underbidder, at least) already knew this. 

2 hours ago, Rick2you2 said:

I wasn’t so much commenting on Krazy Kat as commenting on how it appeared in this bidding round. Is this evidence of a market bifurcation? If people assume that art goes up an average of X% per year, and it turns out there are really two different sub-markets in existence, going up—or down— at different rates, that should affect future predictive cost and price. 

Of course, Krazy Kat is historically important. The lower prices could be evidence of the wrong bidders in attendance, the economy overall, the specific pieces, or any number of other variables.

But, is there evidence of market bifurcation? I think there is, but I don’t know if it really shows up in this auction. Alex’s evidence is yes. My PS analysis is yes. Any others?

 

I think the Krazys in this auction weren't that remarkable, but that's just me. The prices were healthy but not an advance on where they were a year ago as far as I can tell.

1 hour ago, ShallowDan said:

Same here.  It seemed like a good buying opportunity, due to the fact that there were three nice Sundays up for grabs, as well as the two dailies.  I'm bummed out to have missed an opportunity today, but congrats to the winners all the same.

 

Plus the other Krazy Kat that sold yesterday at Weiss.

2 hours ago, bluechip said:

Howard prices all over the place.  The 18 cover went for half what it once sold for, but still not low enough to entice me to be the high bidder because the cover image just doesn't appeal to me.  In published form (i.e. in color) it works great, but barely at all (for me) in black and white.       

Can confirm all of this, especially the "all over the place." I probably think about Howard prices more than most people. A few splashes and covers entered the marketplace in the last 18 months or so, and the ones that didn't disappear again have met very different fates at auction. I feel like that 18 cover has been for sale one hundred sixty seven times in the last ten years - it might be my least favorite. Other covers have sold at much more healthy amounts, privately. That Howard/Dr Strange splash went for a very reasonable price, but some people might have been put off by the circular shape. 

1 hour ago, tvindy said:

I bet a lot of people noticed the anachronistic comics. That comic rack was in a prominent location in the shots, and there were multiple visits to the pharmacy. The brightly-colored comics really catch the eye. And with the popularity of superhero movies, most people nowadays have at least a passing familiarity with some of the characters. Also, that rack was way overstuffed for a small neighborhood pharmacy.

And they got the weekly magazines 100% right. And friends of mine who know chess say they got the 1960s chess details right. I don't think there's any sort of copyright issue, as the comics they showed were all real, just  from a different time period. It's a very careful show, so I still think it's odd.

On 11/15/2020 at 6:14 AM, RBerman said:

I went back and got screen caps from "The Queen's Gambit." Not OA, I know. Are some of those comics in bags?

It is odd that a show that did so well with period set design and costuming punted on the comics.