X-Men #1 Jack Kirby 1963 Original Art 2008 Sales History

[CollectingFool]

Great work, especially, artistically, what you did with the backgrounds.

 

That's how you can tell he's really a fan. He knows the importance of Kirby Krackle.

 

 

[adamstrange]

But, you have to admit, its kinda weird for artists to be mashed together against their will in the creation of their art.

"Art" has been created this way for the last few millennia so it's not surprising that comics would often be done via collaboration.

[Nexus]

Good read on Colletta:

 

http://comicscomicsmag.com/2010/08/whats-wrong-with-this-picture-2.html

 

Well here we are in 2010 and there is a new book called The Thin Black Line: Perspectives on Vince Colletta, Comics’ Most Controversial Inker, by Robert L. Bryant, Jr. One hundred and twenty-eight pages full of decent black-and-white reproductions of Colletta-inked artwork, a good bit of Kirby pencils, and some very astute before-and-after comparisons.

 

For the uninitiated: In the wondrous world of superhero, etc., comic books there were and are pencillers and inkers. The pencillers drew the story in pencil, rendering to greater or lesser degrees. The inkers would then draw on top of those pencils in ink, thus preparing the page for photography. Inkers overlaid their own drawing style on whomever they were working over. Some inkers faithfully executed, in ink, the intentions of the penciller; others rendered those intentions in their own style. And still others just drew what they viewed as most essential and moved on as quickly as possible. Inking is no mean feat.

 

Anyhow, Vince Colletta (1923-1991) was a nearly life-long toiler in the comic-book trade, moving through multiple publishers during his long tenure. He drew some fine romance books, but most famously inked the bulk of Jack Kirby’s long run on Thor. And therein lies the controversy. Colletta usually drew with a thin line closest in feel to, say, Hal Foster, while Kirby’s artwork was far more about broad strokes and high-finish sheen. So over Kirby’s dynamism Colletta laid down a sketchy, hatch-driven line. So there’s that, which is a matter of taste. Me, I like his approach. He gives Thor an old-timey feel that I enjoy, and ties it nicely to Foster, who both men worshiped. He grounds Kirby’s art with grit in a way not entirely dissimilar to how someone like Mort Meskin did in the 1950s. But there’s a second issue. As fandom rose in the 1970s, Kirby’s personal xeroxes of his pencils began to emerge, and it quickly became apparent that Colletta was omitting figures, buildings, and all sorts of details from Kirby’s art. Compositions were clearly made wonky and in some cases misread all together. And the rumor was that this was common for him. Under tremendous financial and editorial pressure to keep the pages flying out of his studio, Colletta inked what he wanted to ink and erased the rest, sometimes embarrassing the penciller with the finished product. Well, that’s a trickier thing. And that is where Bryant’s book really excels.

 

After a brief biography, the bulk of the book is taken up with pencil-to-ink comparisons. Bryant is a sober, fair guide to this stuff and provides the best analysis I’ve seen of where the problems might lie. He also nicely demonstrates Colletta’s talents as a draftsman, highlighting a beautiful Gil Kane job, among others. What works so well about this short volume is that Bryant does not appear to wish either deification or demonization on Colletta, and does not treat Kirby as untouchable either.

 

As Bryant explains, the controversy itself is interesting as a sociological study. The fact is, for a lot of fans Kirby served as an abstract father figure, and so reactions to any perceived desecration of his artwork can spiral into a virulent kind of hatred. There are certainly aesthetic issues (what is inking? What is the inker’s responsibility?) here, but I don’t think there are moral issues, as is often the implication. There’s nothing morally offensive about what Colletta did. Colletta was a highly competent production man: He got the books in on time, and kept the presses rolling, and in doing so he sometimes did a disservice to the artist he was inking (in the comic-book business that was more the rule than the exception. More “faithful” guys like Joe Sinnott, who inked The Fantastic Four, were unusual). When that artist happened to be Jack Kirby it’s a damn shame. Kirby was great. But Kirby knew the game and entered into it willingly. And he also knew that guys like Colletta, were, like him, doing a job. Kirby happened to transcend the job, while Colletta did not, but nevertheless, when Kirby sent off those pencils, he was done. He had no choice, and that in itself is sad, but it was a condition of doing business at the time. It’s not remotely comparable to how Kirby was compensated as an artist, or any of those issues. It’s simply unfortunate that market conditions conspired against both men. It should also be noted that when Kirby went to D.C. and began work on his “Fourth World” stories he demanded and received control over who would ink his work. So, he was clearly aware of the difference.

 

Right up front, Bryant says his book is not a full biography, so I don’t blame him for keeping it focused. Overall it’s a good study, if sometimes a little meandering, but it’s the only one I can think of that really dissects the oddities of an antiquated production process.

 

Bryant’s stated limitations also made me realize what I’d like to know more about: namely the context of all of this. Colletta is said to have had numerous assistants. Who were they? How many? What did they do, exactly? And more importantly, what did they see? There’s a fair amount of discussion here of Colletta the raconteur. He apparently shot a lot of photos in his Manhattan studio for publication and for “model’s portfolios.” Where are those photos? What I’m getting at is: Colletta, who refused to be interviewed by the press and had no interest in fandom, clearly existed in a broader publishing milieu. It might’ve been C-grade pulp or men’s mags, or… well, I don’t know. But I’d like to know more about that. This was a guy who produced, who published. Kirby was one part of that. What were the other parts? How did they impact him? And what can we extrapolate from Colletta’s experiences to better understand the art and industry?

 

Further Reading:

 

There is so much mess stirred up about Colletta on the glorious internet, that an anonymous blog popped up that sought to defend Colletta (and, uh, post photos of attractive women? That’s comics for you.) and attack Kirby biographer Mark Evanier. An odd thing, but taken out of context very useful for looking at a ton of Colletta art. Eddie Campbell has the most nuanced take on Colletta, though it spawned a nasty comments section best left unread. And then there is Colletta’s infamous retirement letter and phone call, both of which seem more or less an emotionally fair reaction to a lifetime in the comics biz. Except for the part about Jim Shooter. That’s kinda creepy.

[tth2]

Interesting article.

[adamstrange]

Interesting article.

 

Agreed. I especially liked the links like this one that takes you to Eddie Campbell making the best case for Vince's inks in the 60s (I happen to agree with his assessment).

 

http://eddiecampbell.blogspot.com/2007/05/vincent-colletta-my-favourite-1960s.html

[AKA Rick]

It will be interesting to see, after 5 years since the 2008 Heritage Auctions of the X-Men #1 pages, how much the pages have increased in marketplace value.

 

Up for auction in the Heritage May 17, 2013 session is X-Men #1 page #12, which I think is currently around the closing sales price from 2008, at around $14,000, which was resold a year later in 2009 on Heritage for $19,000.

 

I am guessing this sells for $24,000-28,000 as pure speculation in this auction since it is the 1st appearance issue of Magneto, and this page only has Magneto (and on only one panel), and no X-Men, but it is after all a page from X-Men #1.

[suspense39]

I believe Josh over at Clink has (or had) pages 18, 19, 21-23. Don't know if they are for sale or if they have been sold.

 

I remember a page from issue 1 in the marketplace, and I seem to remember it sold for 70,000 or so. The sold listing was up there for while,,,,,I don't remember what page. Josh would probably have that info

[suspense39]

http://www.comiclink.com/itemdetail.asp?back=%2Fsearch%2Easp%3Fwhere%3Dsell%26title%3DX%2Bmen%26x%3D26%26y%3D5%26ItemType%3DCA&id=940920

 

72,000

[dem1138]

http://www.comiclink.com/itemdetail.asp?back=%2Fsearch%2Easp%3Fwhere%3Dsell%26title%3DX%2Bmen%26x%3D26%26y%3D5%26ItemType%3DCA&id=940920

 

72,000

 

This wasn't a cash sale.

[suspense39]

Was it partial trade? I have no idea about the details of that transaction.

[AKA Rick]

So, I guess we can add X-Men #1 Page #21 (or was it Page #27) selling for $72,000 ?

 

When looking at the prices back in 2008, for such an iconic book as X-Men #1 featuring the 1st appearance of arguably Marvel's most popular super-hero team, the prices seem relatively low (yeah, still expensive and out of most of us common collector's price ranges of affordability), compared to what CGC'ed Comic Book for X-Men #1 were selling for (using the logic of preference, would you rather have a one-of-a-kind unique page from X-Men #1, or one of several and many that exists of the X-Men #1 comic book, including high grades CGC'ed ones).

 

If this were Fantastic Four, Avengers, or Spider-Man, 1st appearance #1 Issue Art, I'd had thought the rates would be 10x as high as what the X-Men sold for, even 5 years ago. I think there was or is a bias against the actual rendering, even 'tho it's Jack Kirby, the inking work was sub-par by his standards I'm guessing.

 

Still, it's probably one of the better buying opportunities, available for anyone/everyone via Heritage (so not a closed door private sale) back in 2008. I think in part, in my opinion part of why they pages went for lower than I expected is because at any given auction, multiple pages were offered, so the bids of people vying for any X-Men #1 page were then split amongst the varied available pages, so the seller probably short changed themselves by not patiently slowly releasing one page at a time with longer intervals of less predictability instead of flooding the marketplace, is my speculation.

 

Regardless, this is 2013, so it would be interesting to see what these pages would command now, given I'm assuming most found homes in individual collections (i.e., not one buyer owns all of the pages as before) so the marketplace may be way different today.

 

A friend of mine was guessing that the X-Men #1 Page #12 would sell for over $100,000 on Heritage, just based on the fact it's a #1 issue page and what people are paying for other Kirby pieces as well as more modern artwork by McFarlane, Miller and others. My estimate and guess based upon the history of the page selling for $14k, then $19k, and the lower quality of characters (Magneto on one panel) on the page has me thinking again, more of the $24-28k range, but I could be way off.

 

It's interesting if not exciting to see such an important piece of artwork available for auction 'tho... I guess we'll find out next week!

 

 

Updated X-Men #1 Sales Prices from the May Heratage Auction in 2009:

 

Cover -

X-Men #1 Page #1 -

X-Men #1 Page #2 -

X-Men #1 Page #3 @ $17k

X-Men #1 Page #4 @ $17k

X-Men #1 Page #5 @ $25k

X-Men #1 Page #6 @ $29k

X-Men #1 Page #7 @ $33k

X-Men #1 Page #8 @ $26k

X-Men #1 Page #9 @ $16k

X-Men #1 Page #10 @ $20k

X-Men #1 Page #11 @ $54k

X-Men #1 Page #12 @ $14k - apparently re-sold for $19,120 in May /09

X-Men #1 Page #13 @ $14k

X-Men #1 Page #14 @ $10k... apparently re-sold for $17k in the Feb '09 auction

X-Men #1 Page #16 @ $19k

X-Men #1 Page #17 @ $13k

X-Men #1 Page #18 -

X-Men #1 Page #19 -

X-Men #1 Page #20 @ $31k - apparently re-sold for $28,680 in May '09

[COMICLINK]

There was no trade involved in the sale of that page. The buyer sold items worth $72K at auction and it was a prearranged amount that he needed to do, so the monetary amount was not subjective as it would have been with a trade, but fixed at $72K. So, it was similar to a time payment deal at $72K.

[suspense39]

Great to know, thanks

[AKA Rick]

The X-men #1 page #12 sold for $14k in 2008, then a year later in 2009 it sold for $19k, so that's about a 35% profit in on year, and now in 2013, four years later, sold for $31k, a nice profit of $12k, an over 60% return on investment.

[dem1138]

The X-men #1 page #12 sold for $14k in 2008, then a year later in 2009 it sold for $19k, so that's about a 35% profit in on year, and now in 2013, four years later, sold for $31k, a nice profit of $12k, an over 60% return on investment.

 

You need to recalculate this subtracting at least 19.5% from each sale.

Unfortunately for sellers, Heritage does not give them the gross amount of the final hammer price.

[buttock]

That's assuming the seller was giving the full 19.5% to Heritage, at which point they'd possibly be giving the 10% off the final hammer price also. Which, in the case of a piece like this, may be a big assumption.

[delekkerste]

You need to recalculate this subtracting at least 19.5% from each sale.

 

Which would bring down his return since 2009 to 36.8%. He probably would have made 3x as much in the S&P 500 (including reinvested dividends) and paid a lower cap gains tax rate.

 

Buying art at auction is kind of like buying a new car - as soon as you take possession, you're really about 20% in the hole. Sometimes you get bailed out by the market. Sometimes you don't. I highlighted the sale of the Krazy Kat Sunday that just resold on Heritage in another thread - the piece sold for about $6K more vs. 2 years ago, but the seller probably took a $6K loss after Heritage's cut plus the cost of a new framing job.

 

Everybody likes to point out the big winners. The fact is, though, that there are a lot of pieces that resell at losses in large part due to storage and transaction costs. It is quite a formidable hurdle.