OA community--label chasers or the ultimate label chasers?

[KingOfRulers]

I have seen on numerous occassions dealers and collectors reject buying a piece for the sole fact that the artist was an "unknown" to them. In almost every instance that I was involved in, it was agreed upon that the piece in question was a quality piece but ended up being passed on because of the artist's name recognition. I exchanged emails with an OA dealer who said to me that 80% of a piece's value was the artist's name, 19% was the character/story featured and 1% was the quality of the piece. Ultimate label chaser? I BUY art that I think is quality art, regardless of who the artist is. I will hunt down piece by certain artists because almost everything the artist puts out is quality material. But that won't stop me from passing on bad pages from that great artist. A "bad page" from a "great artist" is still a no sale for me.

 

I think it is beyond ridiculous how the industry value's the name and not the art. I find that most dealers don't even care about Kirby or Ditko's art. I have found that most dealers at least just want to have the artist name in their store inventory. That's all. They really don't care about the art at all--there is not genuine love for Kirby, Ditko, Perez or Starlin art. It is pretty sad. When I first got into OA I thought that OA dealers and collectors at large would care more about the comic form and be bigger fanboys than comic collectors. I was sure wrong.

 

Am I the only one who buys art for it's quality? If it is a great Kirby piece, I will want it. If it is a bad Kirby piece I won't want it. The OA community however just wants the name. "Quality...who cares about that???"

[batman_fan]

I never consider the artist alone although I tend to search for specific artist on Ebay but when I surf through the Splash page section, artist doesn't matter at all. In fact I have several pages that i still don't know the artist on

[batman_fan]

I never consider the artist alone although I tend to search for specific artist on Ebay but when I surf through the Splash page section, artist doesn't matter at all. In fact I have several pages that i still don't know the artist on

[KLNole]

One thing I have found is that if it is great art that I like, then I don't care who the artist is, and usually the art is more affordable. I agree, there are bad Kirby pages out there, and I would not rush to buy something just for the sake of having an artist's name attached to it.

[comix4fun]

The OA community however just wants the name. "Quality...who cares about that???"

 

 

Painting with a kinda broad brush there.....dontcha think?

 

C

[delekkerste]

Several thoughts:

 

1. Yes, the artist is important, just like in any kind of artwork. It's not just about the quality of the art, but the artist's contribution to the development of the character and impact on the medium. Steve Ditko's art is not everyone's cup of tea, but he was the original Spider-Man artist and instrumental in the development of many characters (and he only worked on a limited number of issues in the grand scheme of things), so of course his work is going to be heavily sought after, even the filler pages. Personally, I despise Todd McFarlane's artwork and think the ASM issues he worked on are some of the worst ever produced. But, hey, a lot of people would disagree with me and there's no denying that TMac spawned (pun intended) a legion of imitators, so I can see why collectors would want one of his pages, no matter how lame, vs. a piece by another artist that is artistically nicer.

 

2. Artwork is not the most liquid of assets and the "name" artists and key pages are always going to be easier to resell (if need be) than nice pages by no-name or 2nd/3rd tier artists (or even by first-tier artists working on 3rd-tier titles and characters). You can build up a collection of nice artwork on the cheap if you go for nice pieces by lesser-collected/known artists, but good luck ever getting your money back. Even among those who do not necessarily plan to sell, not many people enjoy the idea of having their money trapped.

 

3. The snob factor. You're right, it's not just for rational and practical reasons why people gravitate towards name artists - there's no doubt that "look what I got!" is an enormous factor in people's buying decisions in this hobby. Heck, what is CAF all about if not to be a voyeur and/or an exhibitionist! I have no doubt that a lot of the recent surge in buying of Kirbys, Ditkos, etc. has been, shall we say, "aspirationally-driven". As in, you're nobody in this hobby unless you own something by these "name" artists, so you better get one before you get priced out! I have no doubt that some people are really reaching financial-wise for these "name" pieces, some of whose dubious quality is being overlooked amidst the current hype, and that it will end badly for them.

[Artemaria]

KOR -

 

Interesting post.

 

Without getting into Gene's analysis about how the market will soon fall (with which I tend to agree, however, it is all a matter of degree), the statement that an artist's name alone lends the majority of value to a piece is wildly over broad.

 

Even if you check just eBay, which is just one of many outlets for OA, you will see a vast disparity in the pricing of art.

 

Let's take John Byrne for example, whom many consider a top tier artist.

 

John Byrne's X-men pages fetch between $2.5K to $18K for a splash. That's not a typo - $2.5K.. Which splash went for $2.5K? I think it was the splash from X-men 125 - no X-men in it. No villains. Just a picture of the Blackbird with the "Stan Lee Presents: X-men" masthead. If the page was annointed because it was drawn by Byrne, it should have gone for the $12K to $18K that the other splashes have gone for.

 

But it didn't. That's because what's on the page counts significantly. No heroes, no villains. No $18K. Not even $3K, which is what you would pay for a typical Byrne X-men panel page. Not integral to the story.

 

Putting it in percentage costs, that's about a 85% discount on the page becaus there are no characters on it at all. Same artist. Same inker. Same book. There is no explanation for the 85% discount other than the content of the page. The page's content determined how you get a Byrne X-men splash for less than what a nice panel page costs.

 

Let's look at panel pages. Many of these pages have sold on eBay for between $2-$5K. Some people might remember the recent auction in which the page where Jean and Scott enjoy an intimate moment before the Dark Phoenix Saga went for over $8K. No Wolverine. No costumes (okay, Scott was in costume). But certainly no action (of the fighting villains type). Why $8K? Because that page was perceived by at least two people (the high bidder and the underbidder - who was sorely disappointed by the way) as being integral to the story.

 

This does not even consider Byrne's post X-men work, much of which can be found for a fraction of the cost of an X-men page. In some auctions, certain pages of his most recent work have gone for less than $100. How can that be if the artist's name is everything?

 

Shouldn't all the pages be worth the same? Of course not. The individual's estimations of weight of each of the factors in the determination of a piece's value is wildly off.

 

As everyone knows, this is just one example of many.

 

There have been hundreds of the same with every great artist - Kirby, Ditko, etc. Ditko is especially interesting, as his ASM work is astornomically expensive, but his other work (with the exception of the extraordinarily rare and personal "Mr. A" work) can be found for comparatively very very reasonable prices.

 

The other thing is, each of the great artists was unknown at some point in their careers. So how can the work of an unknown have no value if every single artist starts out there? I believe that if an artist consistently generates great work involving well known characters in a good storyline on a timely basis, that artist will become very well known very quickly. Admittedly, the stars have to align, but when they do, the artist's work generally takes off in value (recent example, Ed. Benes).

 

So, KOR, as this fairly light market analysis shows, you are not alone.

 

Best regards.

 

- A

 

 

[Claudio]

Maybe it is people like me who you are calling label chasers. I buy comic art that is from stories I like. I prefer to think of it as nostalgia. I will go after any Infinity Gauntlet or death of Superman page I can get. I don't care about the quality of the art. Heck, I don't even know what good art is. I buy the stories behind the art. I tend to buy characters I like as well.

[KLNole]

I am buying pages from an Ernie Chan World's Finest where the Sons of Superman and Batman fight it out in an Old West Town against gunfighters and Superman has lost his powers. Not exactly great art or great story but I grew up with it. Buy what you like. I was offered a Giolitti piece one time because the dealer knew I wanted a Giolitti Star Trek page, then was offended that I didn't want to pay over fair market value for a page I did not like. I think the original post was more about buying more for name recognition sake as opposed to the quality of the art.

[Mighty Hal]

What Delekkerste said. Artemaria, too. Solid, well-thought out posts.

 

I'll bet many -- or most -- of the collectors here have pieces that lack "name value". Me, I think that Rod Espinosa is criminally undervalued; heck, the guy was nominated for an Eisner and still can't get any respect. Elizabeth Watasin is another fave. I've got covers from both each of these artists and each cover cost less than the price of a concert ticket. A cheap concert ticket. For a local band. The one that normally plays at the civic center for free.

 

I've bought artwork from several of the dealers: RomitaMan, ArtGuy, Fanfare-se, Anthony Moy...others. I've only bought artwork that I've liked (no Ditko, no Kirby, no Perez, no Byrne).

 

Consequently, my collection is worth squat. But I love it.

[mister_not_so_nice]

 

Consequently, my collection is worth squat. But I love it.

 

All Hail the Golden Albatross

[Erato]

 

Consequently, my collection is worth squat. But I love it.

 

I too love my Squat Worthy collection. And I am a "name" follower. Just so happens that "name" is very underrated in my opinion and therefor quite reasonable.

 

Brian

[Rodey]

The other thing original comic art is facing is that it is just now starting to get the "real art" cred like paintings and sculptures. Once we get more outsiders interested in comic art, then I think things will change. But getting people away from the funny book concept is a bit difficult. My parents don't understand why I just spent $100 on a black and white page from a comic. "Why don't you just xerox a copy from the book and hang it up?" says my mother.

 

The VP of Marketing at Constellation Brands (the world's largest wine distrubutor) told me, "What is a great wine? Whatever you like to drink." That holds true for comic art.

 

You like Rob Lefield? Go get'em.

[doom-migration]

Hi, as others has well stated earlier, "label chasers", I don't think makes any real sense. Say for example you go to a music concert, you go because you love that band (are there others that sing or play better, then the band you go to see in concert, sure) but you go to see that band because that is who you love.

Original art is a combination of factors. Artist, action, story, the art itself.

There have been some thanos pages I have passed up because I thought Thanos looked goofy and I didn't like their rendition of thanos, and it was by a major artist. So I passed up a page that might be worth a bunch because I didn't like the art.

Now the Perez IG page I just picked up (as I talked to King already), I wanted a Perez page because he was the artist (with Lim) that drew the IG and that series is the reason I collect Thanos. SO the page I picked up is by an artist I respect, I love the images on the page, especially Thanos holding the gauntlet into the air. And I like the story the page tells.

Kind of like my Thanos Quest page, I could of traded it off for a Starlin splash that might be cooler artistically, or worth more money. But I love the story told on that page and the images of thanos (so I like the art as well), so I kept my page because of history, the artist, the story and I loved the art of the page.

Now, I also love Pat Broderick, and his work on Doom 2099. NOw will I pay 1k for a doom 2099 page, no because I think I am the only one that collects doom 2099. But I think Pat's art is just as good as any artist today, and I love the pages I got a few years ago, dirt cheap. Have they risen in value, nope, but I love the pages because of the story, and art by Pat so I will never sell them.

Like someone else stated in an earlier post, he collects characters. That is how I started, I would buy any page Dr Doom or Thanos was in that I could afford that I liked.

So I think most of us, comic art collectors collect what we love, but it is nice to see what we own jump in value(we're not an insufficiently_thoughtful_persons) and I like to share (brag?) what I have, that is part of the fun. And I love to see other's collections.

I bought my XMen page by Dave Cockrum 10 years ago dirt cheap, did I love the image, not really, but it did have doom in it and that is all I cared about, and someone told me Cockrum pages are good to get. So like some, I wanted to try to get different artist of Dr Doom, and sometimes I cannot afford all the pages I love. Especially 10 years ago when I would have a heart attack at paying $150 for a page.

Bottom line buy what you love, that way if the market bottoms out (the great pages will always be worth good money), your walls will still look cool.........DOOM!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[TupennyConan]

You've got this right in many ways KoR.

 

Here is how I approach it:

 

When looking to buy art, I begin with an artist or a character I like or perhaps a particular book that I care about for whatever reason (eg nostalgia or I owned it as a boy or I loved it as a read, etc.). After that --- once I find a piece meeting one or more of those criteria --- then I decide if I want to pursue the piece based on its artistic merits.

 

If I find a BWS Conan piece from my favorite book that is of say a field of grass & nothing more that looks like, arguendo, my 2 year old could have scribbled it upon the page, then it is very, very likely I'll pass --- unless the price is very, very reasonable; then I might re-consider --- and then pass!

 

If I find a BWS piece, 6ft x 6ft, fantastically rendered & hand painted of say, I dunno, Joe Quesada, then it is also very, very likely I'll pass.

 

But if I find a piece featuring Conan or the Surfer or Spidey, etc., by an unknown artist --- at least to me --- and I think it is outstanding --- and affordable --- then sure, I might grab it, frame it, & love it for life, proudly.

 

Finally, I could care less who knows what I own. I am not a CAF member and probably never will be. Well, never say never: I finally started posting on the boards, doing so now everyday, after years of saying: the borders of the hobby extend light years beyond those message boards.

 

 

[KingOfRulers]

I was thinking of it not so much as an artist's work compared to the same artist's work (such as the John Byrne example posted).

 

For example, lets say there are two people who walk into a store with two OA pieces for sale. Each piece is 5k. The owner wants both, but can only afford one. The first piece is one of the worst Charles Schultz Peanuts strips you've ever seen. The second piece is a beautiful 20" x 25" Dr. Strange painting by an artist you've never even heard of.

 

What I am saying is that the majority of OA label chasers I have dealt with will choose the Scultz piece, even if it is not a good Scultz piece. Why? Name recognition alone.

[mister_not_so_nice]

Well, a distinction between 'collector' , 'dealer', and 'collector/dealer' needs to be made. Collectors will go for the piece the like the most. The dealer will go for th epiece he thinks will turn the most profit/easiest to sell and the collector/dealer will tell you he absolutely "LOVES" the piece to try to gain comraderie and confidence and then flip either in two months. It all boils down to your collecting goals.

 

Mike

[doom-migration]

I agree here with Mike. I am a "collector" buy what I like, but I do like to see the value rise, but that said, my doom 2099 is framed right next to my starlin and mignola pages. Reason I collect the Infinity Gauntlet, or wanted a Perez page so bad is because I loved that series. But I understand what KOR is saying, sure there are some out there that only grab based on investment value, but I don't think there are that many of them in this hobby. Pages cost too much. Or at least for me they do.....take care...........DOOM!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

Well, a distinction between 'collector' , 'dealer', and 'collector/dealer' needs to be made. Collectors will go for the piece the like the most. The dealer will go for th epiece he thinks will turn the most profit/easiest to sell and the collector/dealer will tell you he absolutely "LOVES" the piece to try to gain comraderie and confidence and then flip either in two months. It all boils down to your collecting goals.

 

Mike

[malvin]

I was thinking of it not so much as an artist's work compared to the same artist's work (such as the John Byrne example posted).

 

For example, lets say there are two people who walk into a store with two OA pieces for sale. Each piece is 5k. The owner wants both, but can only afford one. The first piece is one of the worst Charles Schultz Peanuts strips you've ever seen. The second piece is a beautiful 20" x 25" Dr. Strange painting by an artist you've never even heard of.

 

What I am saying is that the majority of OA label chasers I have dealt with will choose the Scultz piece, even if it is not a good Scultz piece. Why? Name recognition alone.

 

I think this example isn't about label chasers, but more about valuation. The Schultz piece is worth 5K, the no namer? not so. There are ALOT of people out there that can draw. There are MANY artists that can paint a huge Dr. Strange painting, but not many will be worth 5K.

[KingOfRulers]

I was thinking of it not so much as an artist's work compared to the same artist's work (such as the John Byrne example posted).

 

For example, lets say there are two people who walk into a store with two OA pieces for sale. Each piece is 5k. The owner wants both, but can only afford one. The first piece is one of the worst Charles Schultz Peanuts strips you've ever seen. The second piece is a beautiful 20" x 25" Dr. Strange painting by an artist you've never even heard of.

 

What I am saying is that the majority of OA label chasers I have dealt with will choose the Scultz piece, even if it is not a good Scultz piece. Why? Name recognition alone.

 

I think this example isn't about label chasers, but more about valuation. The Schultz piece is worth 5K, the no namer? not so. There are ALOT of people out there that can draw. There are MANY artists that can paint a huge Dr. Strange painting, but not many will be worth 5K.

 

That's the entire point of what I am saying. People buy not because they like or do not like the particular art piece. They buy based on name recognition.