CollectingFool

Hari, you and I don't usually see eye-to-eye on collecting and valuation but this is one point where we really agree. Most issues I have with the way collectors refer to the hobby is talking about it like it's ART (meaning a visual art like a painting and describing it as purely visually appealing art) when it's a collectible. Trying to value it using the rules for ART when it's a collectible that was creating with some artistic talent. Trying to pretend one piece is technically better (therefore worth more) than something else that is much better but not as collectible. A lot of people can't or refuse to see the point you made. I think most arguments among collectors I'm involved with in the hobby have to do with people missing this point.

To me it's not a cover if it doesn't have the stats. For the panel page, I have the mat cut to the art area. Only time I leave room to show the other stuff is if there's a significant reason to (artist's signature, important note from editor, etc). Mostly I like seeing the art as it was intended to be published. There are exceptions like with some painted covers but not many.

These aren’t from NYCC but I haven’t updated in a while so… Added pieces by Hal Foster, Neal Adams, James Jean and others. You can see my CAF gallery for the highlights here: http://www.comicartfans.com/GalleryDetail.asp?GCat=33 and as usual all my pieces are on my website (including those “smaller” pieces I don’t want to clutter CAF with). Ruben http://www.collectingfool.com

You're ignorant and your art is ! Just kidding man, welcome to the board. Congrats on your collection of pages from issues that are personally important to you. I know it can be hard to find items from specific issues, looks like you've got a nice start to possibly someday even completing one of those issues. Do you have a gallery where people can contact you if they have pages from issues you like?

I love Raboy Flash Gordon Sundays. I think it's some of the nicest art you can get for the money. Congratulations.

Which brings up the point of what should be considered "Comic Art". I know there will never be a consensus but to me, comic art is art used in the production of a published comic book or art with a comic theme created by a published comic book artist. Only other things I'd want to see in CAF is illustration artwork that follows the same guidelines as there is cross-over there. Everything else is fan art. Not just excluding "smut" as you call it but family pictures, kids drawings, all that stuff. Maybe convention pics would be OK but under a different function, not in the general artwork database. The one other "improvement" I would love to see but I know won't happen is a blocking function. Being able to block certain galleries from your search results would be fantastic. Certain members have made the search function practically worthless by filling CAF with artwork supposedly for sale but impossible to deal on. Would be great to filter those out. I will agree with SequentialT on one thing, this thread has veered OT.

Funny, I was just thinking the same thing. If you truly don't have the capacity to understand why such images would elicit the responses you got then I'm sorry for wasting your time trying to explain it.

I was expecting "no response." Exactly what I got for the Iron Man page I posted. I know you're currently in an online argument so maybe you missed my point. I wasn't saying YOU posted it to get a response, that's Terry's argument. I'm saying the art itself was drawn that way to elicit a response. It elicited a strong response by some other viewers. To some, that's the definition of art. To others, it's not art at all but pornography created specifically for shock value. I'm not looking to argue with you or chastise you because your piece offended my delicate sensibilities. All I'm saying is that the art pretty much did what I feel it was designed to do, elicit a response. Don't even know why you care that someone else doesn't like something you own. People can comment as they wish here. You may consider it rude or not in the spirit of the forum but there are too many diverse and opinionated people here to take offense so easily. At least not when any rational person should know that the images you decided to share aren't exactly in the mainstream of the hobby.

It's obvious these images were drawn to elicit a response. Don't be upset because the response elicited isn't the one you were expecting.

Congratulations on the fine art and the 10 years with the awesome wife.

Yep, Comic Art Con plus I've known Scott for years. Some of the best Sandman pages came through him years ago.

Congratulations. Nice Sandman page. I held that in my hands for a while before putting it back down. Love the Lucifer/Sandman interaction.

That is a character called "The Fox". Alex Toth liked the character because of the 40's feel. He did it as an illo for a bio/article.

Finally scanned the items I've gotten so far this year. These are my favorite three:

Congratulations on winning this long-fought battle! Always glad to see when a piece lands in the home of someone that truly appreciates It.

When you least expect it... this was offered to me and I couldn't say no. My favorite Peanuts characters done in the late 60s, my favorite period for Schulz. http://www.comicartfans.com/GalleryPiece.asp?Piece=706545&GSub=18583

I put a mess of stuff on my website (Adam Hughes, Sal Buscema, etc) but thought I'd show these here as I'm kind of fond of them and I think they're pretty different from the usual stuff we see. Both are from 1939. Not every day you see a self portrait of Uncle Sam (James Montgomery Flagg) in a bathing suit! The top one is commenting on an incident that happened with Flagg, a famous photographer and a beauty pageant contestant that wound up being a relatively famous actress in the 40s. The incident was written up in Time magazine and I have the article, explanation and a picture of the girl on my website.

What drives you to collect? Do you love the medium and just can't get enough of comic art originals? Are you a "Prestige" collector and only looking to pick up some top pieces? Are you really just a comic book collector that ran out of stuff to get and this seems the next logical step? Are you interested because of the money aspect and if you're going to invest money, it might as well be something fun you're interested in. Are you a full time collector just dabbling? For me, I know I'm a compulsive collector. I'm starting to get things under control recently and the insatiable desire isn't as strong as it once was. That aside, I do love the medium and I enjoy some $500 pieces as much if not more than some $50,000 pieces. A lot of stuff I get I think I'm the only one willing to pay more than $10 for. What category would you put yourself in? Do you think it's the same category others would put you in?

Well, it's not my grail but if you like Watchmen you may want to check out this piece on CAF. Hasn't been seen before: http://www.comicartfans.com/GalleryPiece.asp?Piece=592796&GSub=14523

Grail is such an overused term. Multiple grails is essentially an oxymoron. I have one in mind but it's basically unattainable as far as I'm concerned and to me that's what a grail really is.

I just updated my CAF and website. Here are the links: CAF: http://www.comicartfans.com/GalleryDetail.asp?GCat=33 Website: http://www.collectingfool.com I don't normally put images here but since this forum is set up for that I figured I'd give it a shot. Here's the highlights of what I got: For the rest you can click on the links above. Happy New Year!

The new Frank Miller, Adam Hughes and Neal Adams? I'll be the first to admit I'm not that well versed in the new pool of talent out there but those are some pretty big names. The established artists you mentioned are all recognized innovators. They've developed styles that spawned hordes of mimics and changed the look of modern comics. When you look back at their early works you can see they were marching to their own drummer even then. Do any of these new artists you mentioned show that kind of promise or are they just working in the styles of those you mentioned?

Remember when that did happen to the Kirby market? Didn't take that long for prices to stabalize and start climbing again. Maybe because dealers got a hold of the majority of it first but prices started climbing again within 6 months of that huge amount of art hitting the market. Ruben http://www.collectingfool.com

I'm sorry, I'm not used to this forum... who are you? If you are going to address me directly by name I'd like to do the same. My point was, is and will still be that EVERYONE has issues with their business, the only reason we are discussing IH is because theirs was televised. When everyone starts commenting as if this were some big outrage and it doesn't happen with just about EVERYONE in this hobby, hell even some people IN THIS FORUM, it seems to me to be hypocritical. At least do your homework about the people you praise and do business with before casting stones at others. For instance I'm sure everyone knows about the 8 million shortfall a major auction house had because their main buyer ran into difficulty (still 2 mil in arrears from what last I heard), or dealers taking each other to court over trades gone sour or collectors who do deals in bad faith and when called on it respond with "sue me". Never mind all those who knowingly deal in stolen goods (real stolen not Marvel returns stolen) or knowingly hide or falsify information about pieces that are now valuable but were once considered garbage. All I'm saying is there was a lot of misplaced outrage directed at IH as if this were a squeaky clean hobby and something shocking was revealed. Please! This was nothing and to even imply Roger should have to address this issue publicly is ridiculous. As a matter of fact I would consider it as ridiculous as Congress going after baseball players for steriod use while there are two major wars going on and the economy is going in the toilet. Maybe not that level but pretty close. Ruben http://www.collectingfool.com

Wow, I stepped away for a minute and all hell breaks loose. I'm glad to see Roger came on here and showed he was not trying to hide anything and put it all on the table. It's a lot more than I would do. After all, we're just a bunch of gossiping hens and his business issues are his to deal with not ours to speculate about. The one good thing about him having posted here is now anyone that has anything else to say about it or has any further questions can just pick up the phone. Unless of course people like being negative for no reason but that can't possibly be the case. Human nature doesn't work like that at all, right? Ruben http://www.collectingfool.com