Grail on the 'Bay

[MONSTER]

I'm assuming the wink means he's joking...no offense to the poster, but it would be a little odd for someone who lists his holy grail as the Jack of Hearts #1 cover art to be buying the X-Men #1 splash.

 

Sorry I thought the winks would cover the fact that I was joking.

[EvilAsh]

I'm assuming the wink means he's joking...no offense to the poster, but it would be a little odd for someone who lists his holy grail as the Jack of Hearts #1 cover art to be buying the X-Men #1 splash.

 

Sorry I thought the winks would cover the fact that I was joking.

 

I'm just gullible

[Mister Trent]

I appreciate what your saying, Reinman had a very unsympathetic line, quite crude really, He is up there along with Bell as a bit of a hack inker, but this is pure nostalgia and early examples such as this and issue 2 and Avengers 2 & 3 have become highly desirable. If I could afford it I would buy this like a shot and his Avengers 1 splash too (;-)

 

Clem

 

Regarding the X-MEN . . . as I grew up during the Silver Age of Marvel, my own recollection is that the (original line-up) X-MEN was never one of Marvel's strongest titles. Later on, it limped-along on reprint material . . . until the book was re-invented with a new team of mutant membership.

 

X-MEN #s 67 through to 93 were reprint books (27 comic-books . . . almost a third of the title's output).

 

I wonder if many collectors are just jumping on the (revitalised) X-MEN bandwagon, by way of holding the origin story in awe?

 

I hold Jack Kirby in high regard, but he was spread thinly around . . . and wasn't always serviced by the best of inkers.

 

I have a 1960s Paul Reinman cover in one of my CAF Galleries. On his own (pencils and inks), Reinman's art is not too bad on my cover . . . but partnered with Kirby, he just doesn't click. Same with George Bell (Roussos), as you say.

 

From a historical point of view, I can see that a page of art from an origin story is going to appeal to the majority . . . that's the 'collector' mentality, I guess. But from an aesthetics point of view . . . I like to see the artist's best work (early story art doesn't necessarily equate to best work, does it?).

 

Historical first appearance aside, I'd derive more pleasure looking at a Jack Kirby/Chic Stone X-MEN page over any 'important' Reinman-inked origin story art.

 

But that's just me!

 

[delekkerste]

I wonder if many collectors are just jumping on the (revitalised) X-MEN bandwagon, by way of holding the origin story in awe?

 

But that's just me!

 

It's not just you. Aesthetically, this page is pretty mediocre (and I'm being charitable at that, you can practically go on all day pointing out things that aren't great about it), but content-wise, it's a major milestone even taking the relative unpopularity of the first X-Men team into consideration. Again, this is a big reason why I think comic OA will always remain a niche hobby - clearly nostalgia and knowledge of the comics canon (which takes years to develop) play a huge role in determining prices. It's not just enough to know characters, artists and judge aesthetic quality.

 

The funny thing about the X-Men #1 OA is that it was held in such low regard for such a long time, with the Reinman-inked Kirby art being unspectacular, the actual pages being somewhat ho-hum and the perception that this was not the X-Men team that people fell in love with. It didn't help that Parrino (?) had it advertised for a million bucks (or was it $750-800k? It's been some years now and I don't remember) and everybody let out a giant collective yawn. The art could have had been had from Kirk (if you could pin him down between tours and projects) for well less than half that amount but nobody cared for the longest time (except a friend of mine who was trying to buy the art from Kirk, and Bill W. who snagged it seeing how the market had eventually more than caught up with Kirk's selling price, above factors or no).

 

Anyway, to make a long story short, a few years ago this art was not held in the same regard that it is today. Perhaps in a more sober market people will be more critical of artistic quality (like they were about Impressionists and post-Impressionists before the new/dumb money flooded the fine art market) and care again that this is the boring old X-Men that no one liked (no Jean Grey on the page, to boot), but in a mania/bubble, it's enough to have a name artist, a good spin and a fat price tag, and the market will take care of everything else.

 

Cynically yours,

Gene

[spider9698]

Well, I just got into Chicago and read the thread and saw the link. VERY interesting. I made a play for the splash when the whole book was first being broken apart about a year ago. The seller told me he had an offer of $350K (cash/trade) that he was considering. I find it odd that he had it posted on ebay with a $50K starting bid. Although, he did sell the cover to Avengers 1 recently and I have talked to the new owner.

 

[clemso]

Of the early Kirby inkers, Ayers and Stone stand out as my favourite. However Sinnott's early inking examples on Jim 83 and FF 5 demonstrate that he was one of the best on Kirby even then. I wonder why he was not offered more work earlier on?

 

X-Men was definitely one of the lower tier characters in the Marvel stable and yes, X-Men's popularity now is a deciding factor. I have nostalgia for all these early versions of the Marvel characters having grown up on British reprints in the Might World of Marvel, Spider-man weekly and older comics such as Fantastic which featured the Kirby X-men stories.

 

I prefer Kirby's work on Thor, Cap, and FF. But I guess if I had the riches. I would be buying Kirby examples for Thor, Cap, FF, Avengers & X-Men as well as Ditko Dr Strange and Spider-Man and Wood on DD.

[clemso]

Well, I just got into Chicago and read the thread and saw the link. VERY interesting. I made a play for the splash when the whole book was first being broken apart about a year ago. The seller told me he had an offer of $350K (cash/trade) that he was considering. I find it odd that he had it posted on ebay with a $50K starting bid. Although, he did sell the cover to Avengers 1 recently and I have talked to the new owner.

 

Do you mean the Splash to Avengers 1 spider?

[dem1138]

I think it's important to have another perspective here. It seems that a lot of original art collectors have backgrounds in math and science and try to bring that rational perspective to the collecting of art. But art is not an a = b way of thinking and there is never an absolute or correct answer -- there is only opinion. Art lends itself to being perceived differently by each viewer. This is certainly not the case in math and science.

 

Why this is worth noting is because the original art to X-Men #1 is a great example of this distinction. Nostalgia aside, as Gene already put that discussion to bed, some people may find the crudeness or lack of clean lines rather appealing.

 

As a young collector of comics, I always sought out early appearances of characters - not because they were worth more, but because I loved to see how they originally appeared - before they were polished by conceptual development and artistic improvement. As an OA collector, I find the exact same things appealing.

 

I think another good example is Hari's page from the first appearance of Moon Knight. In one of the panels, Moon Knight is kicking one of his enemies in one of the most poorly drawn panels I've ever seen done professionally. However, for that very same reason, I love it -- and Hari probably loves it even more. There is a certain charm about it that is just very appealing -- but either it's "for you" or it's "not for you." And it really only matters for Hari - since he's the one who owns it -- and paid "good money" for it.

 

Same thing here with the original art to X-Men #1. I love the fact that everyone is so crudely drawn and unpolished -- in fact, I would probably enjoy it less if it the characters were already polished and finished products. The appeal of knowing that the characters had not developed further would be totally lost.

 

Do I think Ditko and Sinnott were far superior inkers on Kirby? Absolutely, but that doesn't mean I don't absolutely love the art from FF #1 and all of the other first appearances of Marvel characters. One of the most enjoyable parts of looking through the original art to AF #15 was seeing Ditko trying to figure out how to draw Spider-Man through the story.

 

It's art - so everyone's perception matters only to them.

 

And I think the reason the OA community gave a collective sigh at the OA to X-Men #1 being for sale had much more to do with the number of people who could afford it than the number of people interested in owning it. Just because the 3 people that could afford a million dollars for it - or less than half that if they could get ahold of Hammett -- certainly does not represent the rest of us -- who would have loved to have owned it -- but were in no position to be able to do so.

 

It's art -- it's not meant to be a commodity -- it just is because we live in a capitalist economic society. It doesn't matter if 100 people think it's terrible or have "low regard" for it. It only matters when at least one person looks at it -- and it makes them feel something that nothing else in the rational world makes them feel. That's why art is so special.

 

 

[spider9698]

Yes, sorry about that!

[clemso]

I agree with a lot of what your saying David. There was a OA page from JIM 84 that i saw where Thor is seen by the world for the first time, They don't know what to make of this guy flying around with a Hammer. It was a thrilling feeling. It had not dawn on me before looking at that OA that Thor had fought the Stone Men from Saturn alone (with out any human witness') in JIM 83. I would never have thought of that with out without observing the page in that isolated fashion. Now go and rush to your Essentials/Masterworks to check it out!

 

Clem...

[delekkerste]

I made a play for the splash when the whole book was first being broken apart about a year ago. The seller told me he had an offer of $350K (cash/trade) that he was considering. I find it odd that he had it posted on ebay with a $50K starting bid.

 

$350K for just the splash? That's krazy. How much did he pay for the entire book? I heard that Kirk was looking for $350K for it and my friend was trying to negotiate lower. :doh:

 

The $50K starting bid was a "reserve not met" level. Still, I find it hard to believe that anyone would pony up $350K for this, especially a year ago, unless you're using "I'll trade you two $500,000 cats for your $1,000,000 dog" math.

[delekkerste]

It's art -- it's not meant to be a commodity -- it just is because we live in a capitalist economic society. It doesn't matter if 100 people think it's terrible or have "low regard" for it. It only matters when at least one person looks at it -- and it makes them feel something that nothing else in the rational world makes them feel. That's why art is so special.

 

You, my friend, have drunk the Kool-Aid.

[dem1138]

It's art -- it's not meant to be a commodity -- it just is because we live in a capitalist economic society. It doesn't matter if 100 people think it's terrible or have "low regard" for it. It only matters when at least one person looks at it -- and it makes them feel something that nothing else in the rational world makes them feel. That's why art is so special.

 

You, my friend, have drunk the Kool-Aid.

 

Really? Again, I'm not saying it isn't a commodity, I'm saying that it has become one. True artists create because they have to - not because they expect to make money from it. The money, hopefully, comes later -- but rarely does at all. Kirby drew to keep from starving. He produced the output he did because he was a "depression era kid" who had a true fear of being poor and hungry.

The market made his art a commodity - he didn't. The same story is true for the majority of artists who are lucky to even make a living at it.

[dem1138]

I made a play for the splash when the whole book was first being broken apart about a year ago. The seller told me he had an offer of $350K (cash/trade) that he was considering. I find it odd that he had it posted on ebay with a $50K starting bid.

 

$350K for just the splash? That's krazy. How much did he pay for the entire book? I heard that Kirk was looking for $350K for it and my friend was trying to negotiate lower. :doh:

 

It doesn't seem like it was the right move to try to negotiate. If the seller (Hammett) is so difficult to get ahold of (which I'm sure he is) and clearly doesn't need the money (therefore he has no need to really sell and the buyer has no leverage to negotiate) - it would seem that the most sensible tactic would have been to just do the deal at asking since there was no guarantee of getting a second shot. I've found with sellers like this that you really only get one shot -- there's no negotiation and you either pay the asking or lose your shot.

 

 

 

[namisgr]

I made a play for the splash when the whole book was first being broken apart about a year ago. The seller told me he had an offer of $350K (cash/trade) that he was considering. I find it odd that he had it posted on ebay with a $50K starting bid.

 

$350K for just the splash? That's krazy. How much did he pay for the entire book? I heard that Kirk was looking for $350K for it and my friend was trying to negotiate lower. :doh:

 

The $50K starting bid was a "reserve not met" level. Still, I find it hard to believe that anyone would pony up $350K for this, especially a year ago, unless you're using "I'll trade you two $500,000 cats for your $1,000,000 dog" math.

 

The entire book was being shopped a decade ago by Parrino for this going price:

 

 

[clemso]

Just for clarity how much did Kirk buy X-Men 1 for and how much did he sell it for? if anyone knows that is.

 

Clem.

[NelsonAI]

Wasn't the entire interior pages for sale at SDCC for $500K circa 2000?

Cheers!

N

[comix4fun]

Wasn't the entire interior pages for sale at SDCC for $500K circa 2000?

Cheers!

N

 

 

 

Sold for A LOT less.....twice.

 

C

[NelsonAI]

Thanks for the info Chris.

I remember seeing the art displayed in a glass display case at SDCC. My memory gets fuzzier as I get older. Of course everyone was asking what happened to the cover.

 

Cheers!

N

 

 

[comix4fun]

Thanks for the info Chris.

I remember seeing the art displayed in a glass display case at SDCC. My memory gets fuzzier as I get older. Of course everyone was asking what happened to the cover.

 

Cheers!

N

 

 

 

That $700k asking price dropped by about 2/3rds when it really did sell that first time. I know that's a fact. I had tried to put together something when it was sold recently and the number bounced around was not that much more than the sale price.

 

C