Ted_L

On 5/4/2024 at 1:26 PM, Sooners151 said:

Who the heck thought that was a good buy?!  ;-)  

But Glen legitimately thought it was Cockrum when I initially reached out.  I did some fast research and figured out who it was inked by.  I did let Glen know, and we came to amicable terms.  Happy with the transaction!  

I was on a Night Crawler kick from X-Men 97 and didn't mind a little premium on a nice piece.  You should be happy, Brian. You have some great perceived comps for the pages you own!

Also, I haven't posted on the CGC forums in a LONG time... I'm James S on CAF!

Cheers dudes! 

Congrats on picking up that great Nightcrawler page!  I was really admiring that.  I'm a big Cockrum fan and I don't think the fact that Rubinstein inked it materially affects the value very much.

As a general rule (not specific to this piece), I always recommend trying to double-check credits, with the caveat that GCD (comics.org) isn't always accurate.  I've spotted some really egregious errors on there over the years, but it's definitely better than nothing. 

On 4/5/2024 at 3:21 PM, PhilipB2k17 said:

Cockrum X-Men 100 page goes for $38K.

I know I'm biased, but that seems like a bargain considering how great that page is.

Thanks for the photos!  I really wanted to go, but had a conflict I couldn't miss.  Hopefully it was successful enough to warrant another show in the next year or so.

On 4/10/2022 at 2:32 PM, Bronty said:

I look at it differently.

Remember that ebay doesn't want to be what you and I want it to be.

It wants to be amazon.... it wants the seller selling brand new $100 widgets all day long.    The seller selling those $100 widgets or $20 phone cases is running a business.    You have them issued a 1099 to force them to report.

You don't have that type of seller at play at heritage. 

Now, things might change and whatever, but I don't look at ebay reporting as going after mom and pop, I see it as going after the person selling brand new widgets, with mom and pop as the unfortunate collateral damage.

 

Yeah that makes sense, although I do think eBay initially did try to fight the new reporting requirements.  Ultimately it does benefit them though because it makes it that much harder for any new players in the market to compete given the cost of complying with 1099 reporting + state/local sales tax requirements. I guessing this is yet another of many factors driving sellers away from eBay to Heritage.

On 4/10/2022 at 1:23 PM, Bronty said:

"true auction house"

Ha yeah.  This is a good illustration of how the world works.  Mom and Pop sellers trying to get rid of their junk using eBay, Etsy and other sites are now subject to 1099's.  Wealthy collectors tend to use physical auction houses (Sotheby's, Christie's,etc.) which are currently exempt from 1099 reporting.  For the moment, Heritage and other collectibles auction houses benefit from this exemption, but I'm sure the people in charge will eventually figure out the right loophole to fully exempt the rich while requiring reporting for regular collectors.   

On 4/10/2022 at 11:20 AM, batman_fan said:

Story of my life !  I had CLINK reach out to me about selling a piece I have and In took a hard pass because

1. I am sure it would underperform

2. I would get 1099'd on it

3. What profits there were would be taxed at 41% (I live in a low state tax state)

I'm pretty sure no true auction houses issue 1099's at the moment as it's not currently a legal requirement unless they're paying you via an online service like Paypal.  Obviously you're supposed to be paying taxes on auction income, but that's currently self reported unless something has changed very recently. I've sold via Heritage multiple times and they've never asked for a SSN or tax ID and I'm guessing it's the same for CLinK and ComicConnect (but please correct me if if that's not the case).

On 4/8/2022 at 4:41 PM, Bronty said:

Excalibur 16 goes for double Dazzler 1?  

Great cover, but that's nuts!  Obviously it was a bidding war between two people who really really wanted it!

On 4/7/2022 at 1:34 PM, Kryptic1 said:

I was going to say the same.  The X-Men 106 cover going for less than half of the 107 cover last auction surprised me.

The X-men #106 cover image is really weak compared with most other Cockrum X-Men covers, so I'm not too surprised.  I'm a huge Cockrum fan and this really didn't appeal to me.  This was also hurt by the bad yellowing and the fact that this was the cover to a crappy fill-in issue that fell outside of the Chris Claremont continuity.  I think we'll see another strong result if a better Cockrum cover comes to auction soon -- I'm sure #104 would do great for example.

Can anyone help identify the artist of this Dealthlok illustration?  It was done for a fundraiser auction for Rich Buckler in 2016, but there's no identifying info apart from the signature, which I haven't been able to make out.

I get that this is frustrating, but it's not really that late all things considered.  I would just pay the 10% and let it go. 

Having said that, I don't think 10% is enough motivation to get a flaky artist to complete the work.  If you're going to go with this strategy, then you probably need to go with 50% or something in that vicinity.

On 1/16/2022 at 11:59 PM, stinkininkin said:

I don't track Gil Kane art as closely as some other artists, but I'm thinking that Kane/Sinnott FF 143 cover at 150k is a new high water mark for non Spidey Kane art. Does that sound right?

Looking at Heritage, the X-Men #95 cover went for $155K in 2016, but apart from that I"m not aware of any higher non-Spidey Kane art.  Of course Giant-Size X-Men #1 would easily break that record if it went up for sale again.

On 1/17/2022 at 12:03 AM, AnkurJ said:

Yup was the Lightle. I asked their estimate.

Thanks.  Sorry it didn't do better for you.  Hopefully some other art made up for it.

On 1/16/2022 at 6:22 PM, AnkurJ said:

I thought the MCP Wolverine cover I consigned went very cheap. Heritage had estimated it at 20k. 

If it was the Lightle cover then I agree that was a good deal.  I probably should have bid on it, but I've mostly been discouraged from bidding in the Signature Auctions due to the high fees and taxes.  Out of curiosity, did you ask them to provide estimates?  I've consigned with them multiple times and never gotten estimates (but I do provide my own rough estimates to them for insurance purposes).

On 1/14/2022 at 4:44 PM, Shin-Kaiser said:

Thank you, that's extremely useful information and confirms what I had initially thought.
I'll see if I can get access to his facebook group. I absolutely loathe facebook but I don't think I'll be making it to a US based Comic Con anytime soon!

Thanks once again!

No problem. I should clarify that Spencer himself doesn't do the posting or communication directly on the site (although he is a member of the group).  He's teamed up with Clan McDonald Comics and they do the communications regarding billing/sales on his behalf.  I bought one page so far from this group and it all went smoothly.

Spencer has been selling some repped art recently on a Facebook group called "Clan McDonald Comics and Signature Witnessing".  It's a private group so you have to request membership.  There's roughly a weekly original art claim post.

The reason a lot of longer term collectors (such as myself) like Spencer is that he's honest, he really cares about the best interests of the artists he's repping as opposed to making $ for himself and up until a few years ago, his website was fairly up-to-date and he had great holiday sales.  I've picked up a ton of art from him over the years.  However, in recent years the site has become useless, it's harder to get responses and the holiday sales have stopped.  I'm really hoping he comes to New York Comic Con in 2022 as convention appearances are by far the easiest way to do business with him now.

On 1/13/2022 at 9:09 PM, Brian Peck said:

$63K for the X-Men 94 Cockrum page was also strong.

Yeah, although it almost seemed like a bargain today.  I'll be curious to see how the Cockrum Hulk cover does -- I really like that one!

I know I'm probably the one one who cares about this, but I think the X-Men #107 cover was a record high for Cockrum art at 360K!  I would have loved to own that, but I'll have to be satisfied with my pages from that issue.

On the plus side, I picked up a cool page for less than $100 yesterday in the Heritage Weekly Auction, so not everything's unaffordable just yet.

Published 

Incredible Hulk #426 - 432 Cover Corner Box Art by Liam Sharp and Robin Riggs

I like the art, but agreed that this is pretty nutty for a fairly insignificant character.  Spider-Man 2099 was really the only successful 2099 book due to the superior writing and art (and cool character design). 

Other surprises to me in this auction:
Super-Villain Team-Up #12 cover for $65.5K.  I love Cockrum art,but this went for at least twice what I thought it would, especially since there are no heroes on the cover.
Solar #3 cover for $59.5K.  It's a cool image by Barry Windsor-Smith, but  that seems pretty high compared with the Conan #6 cover which went for $89K.

I was also somewhat surprised by the strong price for the Gil Kane Inhumans #1 cover in the ComicConnect Auction at 88.5K.  I have a Kane Inhumans cover (which I think is a better image) and I'd never value it that highly, but maybe people are just going nuts for #1 issues now.  

Speaking of Spencer, does anyone know if he's planning to be at New York Comic Con?  I'm still deciding on whether to go (most likely not), but I might try to make a quick appearance if he'll be there.

I don't disagree with you here and it's pretty obvious that dealers have been artificially pumping up the market by trading pieces back and forth.  However, I do think the nature of original art makes it much harder for pure investors to make a quick buck.  There's just not enough high level inventory for Heritage and other venues to make the same kind of money as with mass produced graded collectibles.  There's obviously some dealers/collectors doing really well these days, but at least these are people who've been in the hobby for years and not just jumping in now to pump and dump.

Regarding the hidden art out there, I do think a lot is the result of black hole collectors, artists such as Simonson, Austin and others keeping a lot of their art and people who were given art years ago who don't really know what they have.  I think there's also a certain amount of fear on the part of silver age collectors that the Kirby, Ditko or other estates might try to come for their artwork with questionable provenance, so a lot of this art has been kept private.  

On 9/7/2021 at 9:15 AM, hmendryk said:

I did a study a few years ago, actually two studies. In one I took a group of popular artists who created work during the period there was a obvious market for OA. I listed all the cover art that they did and then proceed to try to find it anywhere on the web. In the other I used a group popular artists who also did work before there was an obvious OA market and then listed their works that had been sold on Heritage (the only seller that provides such historical data) and again tried to find these works on the web. The results for both studies were pretty consistent, I could only find about 25% to 35% of the work on the web, mostly on CAF. Some artists were outliers with smaller number of work found on the web, I suspect there were artists that had so far kept some of the work. There were no real outliers on the high end. I believe the highest percentage of works found for a particular artist was 45%. So the large portion of OA is not visible on the web. Some of what I think of this as dark art belongs in black hole collections. I know some such collectors who never share their collection on CAF, but what I don't know is how much of the dark art is in black hole collections, and how much is held by investors with no real interest in the art itself other than the money they hope to make. And, for me, one of the lessons of the YouTube clip on the videogame market that open this thread, is that you only need a small number of people to manipulate a market. I am not saying that is happening to the OA market, but it is a concern.

Really interesting video and pretty shocking to see how closely Heritage was involved in the 80's coin bubble.  This definitely reinforces my distaste for graded comics and makes me suspect some of the record breaking sales we've seen in recent years.  Having said that, I do think original art is less susceptible to this level of manipulation and collector sites such as CAF provide evidence that much of the market is still made up of individual collectors who enjoy sharing their collections. We just need to stay vigilant against attempts at official art grading or certifications that can be easily manipulated.