Covers vs. Splashes

[Artemaria]

 

Well, here's a question about an age old chesnut, which is better - splashes or covers?

 

Full disclosure -- I own a splash or two, but no covers. However, I'm sure that I will eventually end up with a cover or two in the course of collecting in this hobby.

 

One of the reasons that I find myself drawn to splash pages is that without the comic book logo, which generally is a pretty decent size, the actual image of the character can be much larger on a splash page. As an example, I remember reading at least one interview/blog in which John Byrne complained about the X-men 137 cover because he couldn't draw it too large as the logo had a masthead above it which promoted some contest.

 

I'm somewhat aware of the historical significance of the cover as selling point. It's my understanding that in the past, covers were painstakingly designed and executed, while the rest of the book, was somewhat less so. Again, historically, the cover would have the cover indicia - which admittedly was super cool - while the splash page would not.

 

Today, however, with no lettering on the pages at all, I think the difference is much smaller between the two. With the exception of cost.

 

Here's an example:

 

cover - 4.5K

 

http://www.splashpageart.com/GalleryPiece.asp?GSub=573&GCat=0&Piece=13565&Style=Text

 

splash page - 2K

 

http://www.splashpageart.com/GalleryPiece.asp?GSub=749&GCat=0&Piece=13572&Style=Text

 

Now, this is only one current example, and there are a great many others. freom what I understand, this is a fine dealer, and Leisten is an excellent inker. Further, everyone has a right to charge what they wish for any work they create.

 

However, my question is simple, is one of these images really two and a quarter times better than the other? And, if so, could someone explain why?

 

And if there are other reasons why there is a discrepancy between the perceptions of covers and splash pages, I'd love to hear them.

 

Thanks in advance for your comments.

 

- A

 

 

[OldGuy]

In the example you've shown I can't think of any reason other then "status" to own the cover over the splash. I'd much rather have the splash in this case.

[comix4fun]

Well, here's a question about an age old chesnut, which is better - splashes or covers?

This is a great question and one that makes for a great discussion whenever it pops up.

 

I'm somewhat aware of the historical significance of the cover as selling point. It's my understanding that in the past, covers were painstakingly designed and executed, while the rest of the book, was somewhat less so. Again, historically, the cover would have the cover indicia - which admittedly was super cool - while the splash page would not.

 

This is not the case for all books. Take silver age comics for one example. Tales to Astonish and Tales of Suspense recycled the title and logo on long runs of those books and they were nothing more than stats on the original art if you were luck enough to get the stats with the artwork.

 

Compare that to interior (especially Title) splashes....in most, if not all cases, the title and logo and lettering were all lettered directly onto the board. For books like TOS and TTA that had split character stories (Hulk/Giant Man or Subby/Iron Man) instead of a cover that was split with smallish images of the characters and a statted logo you had a full size image of the character of your choice with hand lettering.

 

If you were an Iron Man Fan (or just a fan of the title)...Would you rather this image:

 

or for 5-10 times as much cost...this image

 

 

Obviously in this case we are comparing Colan to Kirby....but all things being equal the title splashes in the silver age had a lot to offer. It is no contest for me when I look at it this way. Regardless of street value I almost always prefer silver age title splash art over covers depending on the particular issue.

 

Today, however, with no lettering on the pages at all, I think the difference is much smaller between the two. With the exception of cost.

 

Here's an example:

 

cover - 4.5K

 

http://www.splashpageart.com/GalleryPiece.asp?GSub=573&GCat=0&Piece=13565&Style=Text

 

splash page - 2K

 

http://www.splashpageart.com/GalleryPiece.asp?GSub=749&GCat=0&Piece=13572&Style=Text

 

Now, this is only one current example, and there are a great many others. freom what I understand, this is a fine dealer, and Leisten is an excellent inker. Further, everyone has a right to charge what they wish for any work they create.

 

However, my question is simple, is one of these images really two and a quarter times better than the other? And, if so, could someone explain why?

 

One image is not better than the other....I just think that there is a premium placed on covers simply because it is the image more people remember. The more people that remember an image will be more potential buyers for the piece and the more potential buyers equates to a larger demand and a higher justifiable price.

 

The pieces are pretty much equal.. as soon as people starting saying "hey did you see that great page 3 splash?" instead of "hey did you see that cover?" they will have similar asking prices.

 

IMHO...

 

Chris

 

[thehumantorch]

I would take a cover over a splash any day. Even better, pick them both up.

[Artemaria]

Chris -

 

Thanks for your comments, which I find really interesting and informative.

 

I know the person who owns that splash and have seen it in real life. It blew me away. I mean it is really spectacular. The cover, while it is nice and it is Kirby, does absolutely nothing for me.

 

But then we have human torch's answer. . . .

 

[Artemaria]

I would take a cover over a splash any day. Even better, pick them both up.

 

Would that I could. But in this finite income world that I happen to be living in, I can't so I won't.

 

But more interesting to me is why? Why would you take a cover over a splash any day, if the images are comparable? Status? Value? Appreciation? All of the above? None of the above?

 

Why?

 

- A

[comix4fun]

Chris -

 

Thanks for your comments, which I find really interesting and informative.

 

I know the person who owns that splash and have seen it in real life. It blew me away. I mean it is really spectacular. The cover, while it is nice and it is Kirby, does absolutely nothing for me.

 

 

He may have bought it from me years ago....can't remember if I sold it outright or traded it to Burkey for something.

 

It's a stunner in person...silver aged size but it seemed so much larger.

 

C

[MutantKeys]

"which is better - splashes or covers? "

 

I like both

[comix4fun]

"which is better - splashes or covers? "

 

I like both

 

[NelsonAI]

 

With prices of covers skyrocketing, splash pages often offer more value.

 

In other eras, comic cover designers specifically laid out prelims for other artists to follow. Infantino, Romita Sr., Kane, Cockrum, and Severin come to mind. Covers from the modern era are typically generic pin up poses without any backgrounds done by a different artist months in advance with little knowledge of the storyline for that month. Splash pages being part of the interior art truly reflect the story. I find myself buying more splash pages these days.

 

However, I would suspect if price were not an issue, the cover usually wins since there is something to be said about framing a nice shiny glossy comic book along with the original art. Snob appeal? Wait until people begin framing the original cover art with a CGC high grade comic.

 

Cheers!

N

 

[mister_not_so_nice]

Snob appeal? Wait until people begin framing the original cover art with a CGC high grade comic.

 

Cheers!

N

 

Talk about OVERKILL

 

Not mine, BTW

[Mighty Hal]

If you find the artwork you want and can only afford the splash, grab it. Dollar-wise, the splash is almost always the less expensive item at time of purchase. At time of resale, assuming that you ever choose to sell the piece, I wonder which will show the most appreciation. I don't think there's ever been a study on this but I'd like to know.

 

There are some fantastic splashes out there, absolutely. But it's most often the cover that shows up in print or on the internet, in reviews, in retrospectives, just about everywhere, and its the cover artwork that I tend to remember. For example, I remember the cover to ASM #39 vividly and I just can't remember the splash at all. Of course, if you should show the splash to me again, I'd probably remember it just fine.

 

But, if the budget allows, I prefer to buy a cover to a splash.

 

 

 

[westform]

I feel strongly both ways.... I guess I'm a little different than most though. I prefer silver age splashes to covers, but my true nostalgia and love is bronze age, and there I prefer covers to splashes. Maybe with the bronze age it's because I don't like the indicia at the bottom or that I just find most of the covers to be more iconic, action packed and superior to the splashes. With the silver age I have very little if any nostalgia for the covers as I mostly read these issues as reprints anyway and of course the price savings can be trememdous when just looking for big graphic images when you compare covers to splashes. I mean you can buy a great silver age splash for 15 to 30k, but comparable covers seem to be in the 50 to 100k range... But, I've also sold many twice up covers and splashes to buy more bronze age covers.... so there you go....

[westform]

I don't know, looks kinda cool. But, having said that I frame my art alone without the comic.... I like the way it looks solo,... kinda like art!? But, also that way I can hang more on the wall without all those comics taking up space. DF

 

Snob appeal? Wait until people begin framing the original cover art with a CGC high grade comic.

 

Cheers!

N

 

Talk about OVERKILL

 

Not mine, BTW

[thehumantorch]

I would take a cover over a splash any day. Even better, pick them both up.

 

Would that I could. But in this finite income world that I happen to be living in, I can't so I won't.

 

But more interesting to me is why? Why would you take a cover over a splash any day, if the images are comparable? Status? Value? Appreciation? All of the above? None of the above?

 

Why?

 

- A

 

Don't get me wrong, I only own a couple of splashes and no covers, so I won't be picking up any expensive covers any time soon.

 

To me the cover is the iconic image of the particular issue. What makes Golden Age comic valuable, aside from the popularity of the character or the villian? The cover. Why is Startling Comics 49 more expensive than the surrounding issues? The cover. There are many expensive Golden Age or Atomic Age comics with little of note except for a fantastic cover. Even Silver Age comics with beautiful covers are worth more or sell quicker in relation to other issues of similar age. For example the cover of FF72 is so beautiful the comic seems to be more expensive.

 

Also a comic may have several splashes and many interior pages but only one published cover, so the cover is actually 'rarer' to my thinking. The fact that I own a couple of splashes and no covers indicates that the cost of cover art is prohibitive to me so there is certainly value when purchasing a splash page.

 

Also I think that often, especially during the Golden Age, the best artists were assigned to the covers (I love Schomburg) and probably spent more time on the covers.

 

Sorry for being so wordy, I do love comics and original art and this is an interesting thread. Thanks for starting it.

[comicartfan]

For example the cover of FF72 is so beautiful the comic seems to be more expensive

 

I have had the pleasure of seeing the original art...

[brandolsn]

Well, here's a question about an age old chesnut, which is better - splashes or covers?

Sometimes I want a piece that represents a great issue or story arc, and a cover doesn't always do that, especially if it's stock - but a splash may do the job perfectly. Other times I just want a great cover by an artist or from a series, and story isn't a factor.

[brandolsn]

I'm somewhat aware of the historical significance of the cover as selling point. It's my understanding that in the past, covers were painstakingly designed and executed, while the rest of the book, was somewhat less so. Again, historically, the cover would have the cover indicia - which admittedly was super cool - while the splash page would not.

Your post made me think of this modern cover example when the artist (Ethan Van Sciver) did a beautiful original - and the published version did it no justice.

 

 

 

[batman_fan]

I absolutely love covers but face the same issue most do on money so the bulk of my collection is splashes. I have found splash pages to be much more affordable and still incredible images (look at my artlink in my sig line). I have only two covers which I love, but I paid quite a bit for both.

[Mephisto]

I would rather have a splash because they are cheaper.

I mostly only collect covers and splashes, I don't really have a preference. However, I am a snob when it comes to whether or not something is a published piece. I usually stay away from panel pages but I would make exceptions for more top line titles and artists, or if a page is at least 1/2 splash. I used to have a lot of cheap panel pages and they honestly left me unfulfilled looking at them so I tend to stay away.

 

With the Land cover/splash used if I had to choose and the prices were exactly the same I would still take the splash page because I find that image more appealing.