Aman619

Restoration, full blown Restoration of comics got a boost with Sotheby’s elevating our basement level hobby into mainstream of Collecting. Susan was the it girl turning VGs into HG copies. And she didn’t hav3 to do much selling! It was thought that now that comics have “arrived” via Sotheby’s, time to treat comics same as the bigboy stuff… restoring is accepted in posters, cars, furniture, artwork, sculpture etc. Turned out comics changed their minds, especially when CGC identified these copies, and used the PLOD case too. So are you saying as TCBC Prime, you went along with this and now have beautiful restored books? Lots of other TCBCs did the same. It mad3 sense at the time.

how many TCBC holdouts do you think are left? all of you will do the thing when you sell. Why keep harping on it as the evil it was called 2 decades ago? Or am I misreading your post? or you are finally capitulating to reality? Because any TCBC with the goods will never slab without proper due diligence. But I suppose with guidance (rather MISguidance) from the wrong people, it could still happen. You know, like where Chuck pays cover price without alerting the Church family what they have.

the 7.5 was a long long time ago. Best thats come to market since was a 6.0, right? A high grade Superman 1 is a cornerstone (the scarcest too) of the DC Golden Age 4 of a kind medley: Action 1, Superman 1, Tec 27 and Batman 1. which are Overstreets (and for most of us) top 4 Golden Age comics. Guide still lists All American 16 as #4, but Batman 1 has had a better year and should overtake it next year. (for whatever its worth)

to me since there hasn't been a high grade Superman 1 in a very very long time, and so few nice slabbed copies at all, I think pent up demand pushes this copy to 2.5 -- or more

On the surface that’s fairly correct. But the story I’ve been told was a bit more complicated and less black and white of an attempted swindle. It was between two big old school collectors, exchanging pedigree copies for their collection. this was back in the simple olde timey days when just a few guys cared for or coveted or even were aware of of pedigree” comics or collections. the deal was at an impasse so a few nice copies were marked with Church codes to swap to make the deal conclude. That’s my memory of what happened. But don’t think I have all the details,

whatever connection one has to the source material etc, this would look so great on a large wall in your huge downtown open loft or your tastefully decorated 5th avenue penthouse! A really attention getter especially if all your friends and guests know how much you paid for it!

I dont know either! ask szaz, I just copies his joke! : )

not my favorite. objects dont seem to be working well together in any organized or irregularly organized manner. Kind of like a kids tangrams on the floor... hey wait a minute!!!

but the key difference is that the kid (rather his mom) just scoops them all up into the box again and forgets all about the serendipitous entropy lesson that created the image/pile. The artists recognizes that fallen objects often land in a pleasing configuration, and embarks on a lifetime of creating similar groupings in paint on canvas.

exactly.

Bronty I never heard of Malevich, but I defend his right to paint ! I just looked at more of his pieces. You are picking almost deliberately confrontational paintings! these are much more to my liking as artworks. I mean, they are "good".

Do most art experts or the public at large look at these pieces in reverence, Again to me, there are similarities. They chase whats hot.. and some gamble on what WILL be hot based on "insider info" from their advisors, dealers or friends. Another aspect fueling their high prices is that high end Art collectors can treat their collections same as real estate. They can sell a piece to buy a new one, and pay no capital gains (like a house) so long as they place the proceeds in escrow, and buy the new piece with those funds within 6 months. So many of them aren't putting any new cash into their hobby so long as they have unrealized gains to work with. We can do that too, but we have to pay the capital gains on the first sale.

my aunt and uncle start buying prints in the 70s when they were coming on strong. They had a friend advising them. They did well with a Hockney and a few others did fairly well, but not much in gains with all the rest. Then years later to add salt into the wound, they learned that their friend/advisor was buying originals! She has done VERY well. Our worlds are too similar, right? Its like your dealer friend who sells you into VGF Marvels while buying HG copies for himself.

yeah, but do we? not to nitpick, but -- knowing what you mean -- youre only saying "I know good art when I see it" because we all judge "good" for ourselves. (or we wouldn't be discussing this) : ) With abstract art in particular, the issue is one should (must?) take the artists body of work into consideration when judging a piece. But many are still not convinced theres any merit yto the "intent", and only look at the brushstrokes, or shapes or lack of same. anyway, I agree lots of "art" dense meet MY "good art" test, but the big time art of the 20th century has outlasted its critics. And even though the values are a shell game of the .01% investment portfolios (which plays a hand in it (just like comics and other collectibles) they are real and the product of the market for them. Im not defending billionaires, just trying to get in their head to say they aren't different from us except on a massive scale of assets. They play by (take advantage of) the rules big time, but worked hard, or created things now worth ungodly amounts (thru the efforts of 1000s of lesser paid employees) ... but wake up each day as a billionaire. And live accordingly. Same as us, only, again, on an exponentially higher plane of possibilities. I think there should be a limit to ones net worth! keep money from pooling at the top. But we could never set up such a system (how much would be too much?) and if it was, new loopholes would appear and be taken advantage of.

sure... but the "collect what you want" also applies to billionaires, doesn't it? we all live in our economic zones, we covet what we can just maybe afford to realistically hope to achieve/buy. So too a billionaire, spending 100M on a piece of art, is also buying into a collecting arena same as we do at our much lower price points. We spend within our limits, so do they. Theirs are far higher of course, but still pin money to them. So many here loudly exclaim not to care if they pay too much etc, because they are happy to own xxx. Hey, same for billionaires. they can lose money too, but won't go hungry either. And they enjoy their trophies too! In both our worlds the prices are divorced from merit, artistry, or intrinsic value. But collecting impels us both in the same way. To knock someone who pays 100M for a painting that you dont get is no different than looking down on someone who collects comics you dont like.

back to Banksy, I love his work. He is exceedingly clever, and his "simple" stenciled work is just perfect for his ideas. I also like that Malevich with the black and red rectangles. They are placed at a dynamic relation to each other on the canvas. But at the same time, I think more could have been done. Im sure his other works positioned the squares in more evocative or successful configurations..? in all creation of art, the artists works with "negative space". Thats the areas around the "objects"... its just as important to the whole as the subject matter. It provides the tension that holds it all together.

wow. that was quick. tumbleweeds blowing by already!

also, Im missing the comparison as to sold price. the 8.0 sold for more than the 7.5 as we would expect. If the Promise was the 7.5 and sold for more, wouldn't that be the expected headline of the story here? Promise mania for an inferior bcopy?

we're talking POP art, not PO OP art! : )

yeah. why couldn't they be covers!?

and for those who cry what a bad artist he was... gee, is the original comic panel a work of genius? Looks like just 2 different inkers on the same pencils. And if Lichtenstiens line work pales in comparison to Geilla or Colletta (not sure who here) that really wasn't what he was after. But you'd have to pull back and take it in its entirety as a work of mainstream art which made a statement about popular culture and imagery at the time, and hit home very successfully. Everybody in America was familiar with comics, but focussing on the "drama" in one panel repainted on a huge canvas -- in a gallery! -- opened peoples eyes. And that has been a hard sell here in the comics community.

the art was work for hire. DC would have had to sue. And in the early 6os publicity for comics was unheard of, and welcome attention! Marvel changed their masthead soon after to POP ART PRODUCTIONS to capitalize on the publicity. so the artists had no legal recourse. The ones that did had no reason to. end of story. And it wasn't a 165M masterpiece when first sold. Others can fill in the exact price. After that, all profits go to the art collectors, just like a 10 cent Action 1. Neither Siegel nor Shuster, nor even DC has any claim against anything paid above the first 10 cents at the newsstand.

Ugh. Here we go.

Well said!

Great stuff Rob! Medicine went drown smoothly.. Hey, now defend Lichtenstein! Lol