bluechip

46 minutes ago, vodou said:

Since you're such a nice guy, 'n all, maybe PM @Bronty next time?

Ok, will do.   

And oh, is that your hand still out for the Good Samaritan Award? Well...no  

No that was tryin' not to engage on the substance of the initial post by keeping it on views that're presumably "mootchal".    

1 hour ago, Bronty said:

no, you didn't report it, you just made sure to make it a topic of discussion so that it would be reported, which it was.

Vodou is right, just report it directly next time.    At least then you'll be an honest snitch instead of a backdoor one  

Heaven forbid we speak inconvenient truths around here, anyways.

Actually, I was hoping you'd just edit the moment out once you were made aware. 

Sometimes even the best people slip and let a political comment fly.   The whole point of CGC's policy is not to say someone's "bad" for making a comment, but to avoid having political comments appear in the first place, so as to to avoid the sort of feelings that arise when somebody makes a comment that is clearly political and disparaging, even if they consider it an "inconvenient truth".  Actually, especially in that case.  Where I grew up, it was not uncommon to hear someone defend a prejudiced remark by saying, effectively, it's not racist if the people they're talking about "really are lazy", or thieves, or whatever.  Hoping you can agree that sort of talk is over the line.  But I imagine guarantee you we both know people who don't think so.  And to them, a racial slur is, also, just an "inconvenient truth".  

1 hour ago, vodou said:

Then by God, just report it and let's move on.

Your posts are OT, completely OT as to: inflation, art, record prices.

That's what the rest of us are here for...poli-sci-police-state-boy  

I don't snitch. 

(as a real poli-sci-police-state-boy would've) 

4 hours ago, Peter G said:

Unfortunately, censorship has no limits  once it gets started. 

What has even fewer limits is politically divisive talk on message boards.  Once somebody fires off a straw man remark declaring "what 'they' really want is--" you get people wondering if they should respond to show their disagreement, while others express their agreement by saying no politics is a good policy in most cases but in this case (because the responder agrees) "it's no big deal". 

Better to have a very strict policy saying it just isn't allowed.  Period.  And that's what I understood the policy to be.    

18 hours ago, Cat-Man_America said:

 

  Hide contents

 

Love the MMC 46.   Had it several times and wish I'd held onto one.

On 1/22/2021 at 2:03 AM, Bronty said:

Not to split hairs but an unpublished work is not the same as a prelim.   A prelim is a working draft.    This is a final work that was rejected and he had to start over. 

Splitting hairs is okay because in this case you are correct.   (Although now I see NiCov's opine that it is a prelim.  Interesting).  I was riffing off the way some focus on published art to such extremes that they equate a vintage prelim or unused cover to any old commission which might have been done many years later when it wasn't a part of the original creation process and by which time the artist's style and technique had changed or even devolved.  If you're a fan of Tin Tin, it has to be more interesting to you that this was made during the creation of the issue(s) you remember.  

On 1/14/2021 at 11:51 AM, alxjhnsn said:

It went for a lot of money (surprise!).

From a letter to the comicartl@freelist.org mailing list from ruediger.krischel@t-online.de

Dear all, there’s a new record price for a cover by Hergé: 2.6 plus fee = 3.000.000 Euro for 34 x 34 cm in gouache!

 

 

 

"From a letter to the comicartl@freelist.org mailing list from ruediger.krischel@t-online.de

Dear all, there’s a new record price for a PRELIM cover by Hergé: 2.6 plus fee = 3.000.000 Euro for 34 x 34 cm in gouache!"

fixed it

I have seen a lot of foreign versions of comics over the years, and every now and then one makes me smile (like the Peter and Gwen "marriage" in Mexico) or laugh -- like this "psycho spidey" from India.

Decades after first discovering the Mexican Spidey comics I heard the story behind them.  I'm not sure we'll ever know for sure why somebody thought Spider-man was a thrill-killer.         

In between those examples I'm sure there are many others I found intriguing as local artists put a spin on the cover, or something was clearly lost in translation.  I just don't recall them all at this moment.  But if I think of any in particular and I have some spare time maybe I'll add them to this.

2 hours ago, LDarkseid1 said:

No words lol, except wow 😳

It's an unused cover.

4 hours ago, Randall Ries said:

My whole thing basically boils down to Stan Lee was content to let people think he was the sole creator of all these characters.

That's a subjective supposition so it's hard to say without question it's not true (or true) because none of us ever were literally inside Stan's head.  So all we can do is go by what he said and how he reacted to what other's said.  He was quoted early in the silver age giving credit to others long before many of them even cared to have credit.   As Marvel got more attention and much of that was put on Stan, he did not correct people every time one implied he was the "sole creator" but he did correct them often, and I would bet, if it were possible to tally up all the times people gave him too much credit, that he corrected them more often than not. 

18 hours ago, Randall Ries said:

The fact is, there are a lot of people running around thinking he was some sort of prodigy hyper genius who could pull characters out of his hat and every one of them was gold.

That is extreme, but so are your assertions that he did virtually nothing but edit and hype.  He was a prolific and talented writer who had to master many genres over the years and the experience and talent prepared him uniquely to spearhead Marvel's silver age.  Up until his end times he could, indeed, pull characters out of his hat -- but he would be the last person to say "every one of them was gold".   I've never met or heard of anyone who was creatively both prolific and infallible.  The biggest problem in Stan's latter years was not that he had "lost it" or was "jaded".  Neither of those, in fact.  He still had "it" and he was jaded only by the Hollywood method which veers wildly  between "development hell" and charging forward with reckless abandon.  So while he remained creative and prolific, at one extreme there were some people would question good stuff (or even great stuff) to death, while at the other end were some people who'd say "genius!" no matter came out.    There's always people in the middle but they, too, have to navigate the same system.  Stan never could completely get accustomed to it because he'd spend so many decades co-creating characters, seeing them realized immediately and then in print shortly after.   

2 hours ago, Bronty said:

And you won’t even know it’s happening because you can’t tell your copy from someone else’s (unless a truly scarce book) 

I see books all the time that I used to own

8 hours ago, Rip said:

It's not too much in the slightest. They only have around 8 episodes a season. (Some are more limited)

This is over a few years. I've read more in a couple weeks at the comic store then what I see being released in the next couple years for upcoming Star Wars and Marvel.

More than anything I'm hoping for quality. And I (or anyone else) certainly doesn't have to watch then all, just like I don't need to collect and read every DC or Marvel comic to enjoy those.

Agree.  People who talk about "too many shows" often forget that we're talking about entire seasons that can be (and often are) binged in a weekend or even a single day marathon.    

4 hours ago, pemart1966 said:

Pressing and dry cleaning DO alter books.  If they didn't, no one would have it done...

If you open a book to read it, you alter it and then you alter it again when you close it -- "restoring" it to its original state.  If dust or crumbs gather on your book and you brush them off, you have restored it by cleaning it.  If you bend the corner too much reading it and then bend it back again, you've restored it.  Same thing if you put a weight on the book to flatten the bend by "pressing" it.  But if you just put the book at the bottom of a stack of books for no particular reason, the same alteration will occur without it being "restoration" because you didn't put it there with the intent of flattening it.  If somebody put a dot of black ink in a worn spot on a black field of the book, he's restored it.  But if somebody then scribbles in black ink over the same book while drawing a mustache on the face of the hero, inadvertently going over the same spot that was restored, the book may escape being labeled as restored because the mustache hides the restoration under new marks that clearly were made without the intent of restoring the book.   

1 hour ago, Mmehdy said:

Using restoration and "getting away with it" before, during or after the grading process misses the real issue here. What true GA/SA comic book collectors are objecting to it changing something from its ORIGINAL condition or modifying it..of course adding additional profit on the CGC reward system grading scale. Why should a 8.0 Action #1 become a 9.0 highest value comic book over a "true" and UNRESTORED , unpressed 8.5 That is unfair putting it mildly  . This is grade and greed madness and not motived by the real issue here. The true comic book collector in reality what to purchase the GA/SA comic book in ORIGINAL CONDITION...just like in coins if you cleaned them, it decreased the value. That is why we have a purple label to begin wtith...I do not buy in to you  theory as to timing before labeling or grading  to eliminate conversations as to what is right and wrong in this collecting world. Why have a purple label at all, if these grade manipulations are allowed, encouraged and rewarded  which change the  original appearance and grade of the GA book..where does that leave us in the end?... Should CGC create another label saying " Original "Answer please.

I would be fine with them adding the word "original" if they use the word correctly, but creating another label would compound the problems already created by the colored labels, which may have started with the idea of identifying books which "aren't actually as nice condition as they appear to be" and quickly devolved into identifying books that are, in some purists' opinion, "desecrated" by actions which are "disapproved of".   That's why we find ourselves in the arguments posited here, where the discussion is less than it should be about how good or bad a book appears, hardly at all about what's been done to a book since it was published, and almost entirely about what thoughts (good or bad) went through the mind of a previous owner.  

That has become such a dominant factor that books are judged as tainted even when what's been done was clearly not done with an intent to improve the book but simply is SIMILAR to what other people have done with bad intent.  Even though razor thin trimming is not restoration by any commonly accepted definition, I get why people want to call it that -- because it can make a book APPEAR to have naturally unblunted edges, IF the trimming is expertly and subtly done. 

But then it was decided to put the same label on books which were trimmed so a kid could put it in a folder or a librarian could put them all in bindings.  And that's just one example of how some labels make you want somebody to step out of the "Princess Bride" and say "that word does not mean what you think it means."

17 hours ago, Will_K said:

I don't think I'm attaching "emotion" to categorizing that piece under Original Art.  And I'm not "upset" over it.  Certainly, no "outrage".

I do think HA was making a money play by putting that piece under Original Art. 

In HA's April 30 - May 3 2020 auction, this Cockrum piece was under Memorabilia, a totally separate category from Original Art:

Dave Cockrum Giant-Size X-Men #1 Splash Page 1 All-Stat Production Page (Marvel, 1975).

https://comics.ha.com/itm/memorabilia/dave-cockrum-giant-size-x-men-1-splash-page-1-all-stat-production-page-marvel-1975-/a/7229-94143.s?ic4=ListView-ShortDescription-071515

Without ranking GSX 1 vs Avengers 2, I'd say they're both very significant issues.

But given the Cockrum piece (again, filed under Memorabilia) closed at $21,000 (with bp), I think maybe HA was hoping that putting the Kirby piece under Original Art might give it more "oomph"

And no deception was involved, both pieces are clearly described as being all stats.

 

Even though "production art" is a term that was created and used for decades before collecting of comic art was even a thing, and even though fine and modern art auctions often contain prints, I would be fine with production art pieces being described as "memorabilia".  My personal appreciation for them is pretty much on that level, anyway.  

5 hours ago, Will_K said:

The threshold for "original art" is really low these days.

In HA's November 19-22, 2020 auction, they listed this "all stats" item in the Original Art section.  Granted, it was in the Miscellaneous sub-category.

https://comics.ha.com/itm/original-comic-art/jack-kirby-and-sol-brodsky-avengers-2-production-cover-stat-group-of-2-marvel-1963-total-2-items-/a/7236-94175.s?ic4=ListView-ShortDescription-071515

The description also says:

NOTE: All stats, no original art.

At least the piece didn't fetch an "original art" worthy price.  The Miscellaneous sub-category also features blue lines and prelims which I think are closer to "original art" than an all stat piece. 

There may be a little too much emotion at work here.   If people use the correct terms you should not get upset just because somebody likes it/values it more than you do.

The headline omits the word "art" and the description couldn't possibly be more clear.  As you point out, it says, unequivocally, "Not original art"  

Prelims aren't "closer to" art.  They are art.  Just not the final.

You approve of bluelines more than you do "production art" even though neither is actually executed by the artist in pencil/ink and the production art is at least the actual PRINTED production art used to make the book.  And it's worth reiterating that the listing which upset you didn't even use the term "production art," despite the fact it's been an accepted term in the printing industry since before any of us were born. 

In this case, the item in question was the actual printed art used in 1963 to make the cover of the 2nd issue of the Avengers.  It's oversized, original vintage and frameable.  Is it really such an outrage that somebody paid low four figures for it, instead of choosing to pay the same, or more, for a copy of the original comic book?  (or choosing to go in with a dozen other friends, all paying the same money, to buy some book from the 90s in a 9.8 slab?)

1 hour ago, aokartman said:

Well, of course, they will be vetted to the best of their ability, no auction house with a long view wants to be known as

a place to dump frauds.

Another question is whether there is a sturdy market for this pre-publication material.

It's not so much the "fake" aspect, as you noted, but also lack of "original"  drawn art.

Just my opinion!  David

 

The ebay has been flooded with so many fakes that it would ne nice to see one or more auction house (or even CGC?) get into the business of vetting the ones that are actually vintage and rare.

On 11/29/2020 at 4:31 PM, lou_fine said:

From a supply point of view, the one advantage that GA buyers of these high end books have is the very limited number of copies of these books in play makes it so much easier to track these books as they are going through their permutations ever upwards in terms of graded condition.  This allows potential bidders to bid accordingly with better information assuming they are conducting their due dilegence on the book before placing their bids.  

Good luck trying to do that on much more common BA or CA books where there might be hundreds, if not thousands of copies already graded in 9.0 and above just waiting to have their potential maximized so that they can take their Great Leap upwards.  Lots of temptation to do this on the hundreds of HG copies of TMNT 1's and/or Tomb of Dracula 10's when you see a copy selling for for $90K and $85K respectively.  Even easier to hide the work done when you have literally thousands on copies in these high grades to play with for big dollar books like Spidey 129 and Hulk 181 where you see the latter being able to sell in CGC 9.8 for a record price of $59K either last year or earlier this year. 

I guess the latest one that should be relatively easy to launder into the marketplace for big money would be the red hot Spidey 300 with the seller of a CGC 9.8 graded copy grudgingly having to accept a piddly offer of only $15,000 on the book or at a $5K discount   off their so very reasonable BIN price of only $20,000.  Especially when you consider the fact that this is a relatively common CA book as there's already well over 10,000 copies of this book graded in CGC 9.0 and above for the manipulators to play around with.  

Well okay, to each their own and if I were the lucky seller of this apparently super rare book even at a $5K discount.......     

when "relatively common" means hundreds of thousands of copies that virtually all people, including nearly all hobbyists would find indistinguishable from the one that sold for 15K.   Some hobbyists would agree on the grade enough to winnow the hundreds of thousands down but there would still be tens of thousands of copies that seemed indistinguishable.  A few hobbyists who are either top expert and/or purists and/or just arrogant would say they see enough difference to winnow the tens of thousands down to low five figures or maybe even high four figures.   But any way you cut it there's no way there aren't thousands and thousands of copies which on a given day, with a given grader, would not be judged as good or better.

16 hours ago, tth2 said:

This.

One of the odd things about our hobby is that the supply axis doesn't seem to be nearly as important as the demand axis.

And that both are sometimes manipulated.  

5 hours ago, tth2 said:

Showcase4, is that you?

Naw, he'd go on about Obadiah Oldbuck, whereas I'd remind you that France's "Mr. Jabot" was earlier, and before him was Dr. Syntax, who appeared in a series of one panel cartoons that told a continuing story, beginning in 1809!

On 11/27/2020 at 2:59 PM, Wayne-Tec said:

Often times, what we hope to be the true “first” isn’t. And as much as it would be cool for Superman to be the first meta-human/alien, super-powered, costume wearing, duel identity hero—he wasn’t. He owes a lot of his inspiration to others that came before.

What makes Superman special is the impact he had on the comic book industry and pop culture as a whole. If it weren’t for Action Comics #1, there would be no Detective Comics #27. There would be a Detective Comics #1, but chances are we wouldn’t care about it or assign much monetary value to it.

When you pick up a PS5 copy of “Spider-Man: Miles Morales”, you can credit Action Comics #1 for part of that. When you watch “Wonder Woman 1984”, you can credit Action Comics #1 for part of that.

Superman and Action Comics #1 would not have existed without prior inspiration, but it was Superman and Action Comics #1 that we can credit for what we now know the superhero genre to be.

It’s ok to be pre-dated by Popeye and The Phantom, but the universe that DC/Marvel/Superhero fans have grown to love was truly born in Action Comics #1.

Throw away your Action 1s and Superman 1s. 

1st comic book featuring a superhero -- Popeye, 1931

1st comic book with new material about a single character -- Clancy the Cop 1930    

The first comic book superhero was Popeye.

5 hours ago, shadroch said:

This is the tribute
 

back of original

Love her work.  She could do heroes but was unsurpassed at humorous/parody/satire.  The only artist who came close to her in capturing comedy on a page was (surprisingly) Kirby.