Frazetta painting on Ebay

[spider9698]

I saw Steven Spielberg at the Norman Rockwell museum last summer (he is a major collector and benefactor). I asked him if he was tired of owning the cover to Mad 1 and that I was happy to buy it off him. He laughed and said, "No."

Cant blame me for trying.

S

[buyatari]

Does anyone know of a sale over 250k?

 

Meaning $ price and which painting was sold or is this all just guesses?

[spider9698]

Yes, AllStar brokered two sales last year, one of which was reported to be over $250K. Contact them for the details.

S

[comix4fun]

Why don't celebrities buy comic-related art? It's simple... it has no cache with their jet-setting friends. They'd much rather show off a Warhol or Picasso than some unknown artist who scratched some pen and ink on a stained piece of paper, or a guy who did fantasy artwork. Could you seriously see a top-tier celebrity putting Death Dealer on his/her wall?

 

 

Seeing as that particular painting was pursued quite vigorously by Schwartzenegger and Lucas...yes I could.

 

Could I see Frazetta selling it? No.

 

C

[comix4fun]

Does anyone know of a sale over 250k?

 

Meaning $ price and which painting was sold or is this all just guesses?

 

 

Aside from the All Star sales there were the people that have offered Frank the cash directly and been shot down.

 

I think that counts as indicators of minimum value when people are standng there with cash in hand.

 

C

[tth2]

Even if it was, do you really think you would know?

 

Yes, when it ends up on Dave Mandel's or Eric Roberts' CAF site instead.

 

 

And I think it`s pretty clear that Brian Singer and Zak Snyder, among others, were extremely influenced by comics and sci-fi/fantasy.

 

You can use such fanboy logic sometimes. For 99.99% of people, being influenced means having read the source material, maybe through a TPB or buying the comics off the rack as a teenager. If you want to get really crazy, maybe they even went through a "bagging and boarding" phase. It's a quantum leap of a stretch to get into the whole world of CGC slabs and original art and hanging out on websites like this. :doh:

 

Anyway, were these guys influenced by Famous Monsters of Filmland, Mad Magazine and EC Comics or were they influenced by Chris Claremont's X-Men, Frank Miller's Daredevil, Alan Moore's Watchmen, etc.? Do all paths lead to Frazetta? Have all the AF #15s and great Spidey original art gone into Sam Raimi's and Tobey Maguire's collections over the past 5 years? As far as I can tell, whenever a really nice OA page or comic book comes up for auction, it invariably ends up in the hands of one of the "usual suspects" - it doesn't disappear into a celebrity's black hole collection. And could you blame them? If you were Zack Snyder or Tobey Maguire, would you be hanging out here or exploiting your Hollywood superstardom in the usual hedonistic ways?

I`m not saying that these particular guys will or have (they only came to mind because I know they like comics), and I understand you feel the need to rein in some of the speculation that goes on here about celebs and rich guys buying art from our own little genre. But it always amazes me how you are able to state with such absolute certainty that NO ART that is comics or sci-fi/fantasy related will ever be bought by any celeb. Remind me again who owned the OA to X-Men #1? And TOS #39?

 

It`s like you`re a believer of the old Groucho Marx joke that you`d never want to join a club that would let you in, and so since you aspire to be one of these celebs or rich guys and therefore have them up on a pedestal, you`re really scared to find out that they`d deign to sully their hands with the same kind of art that you collect.

[delekkerste]

I`m not saying that these particular guys will or have (they only came to mind because I know they like comics), and I understand you feel the need to rein in some of the speculation that goes on here about celebs and rich guys buying art from our own little genre. But it always amazes me how you are able to state with such absolute certainty that NO ART that is comics or sci-fi/fantasy related will ever be bought by any celeb. Remind me again who owned the OA to X-Men #1? And TOS #39?

 

I have never said that "NO ART" (or comics, for that matter) will ever be bought by any celeb. The only time I use the words "never" or "always" is when I'm talking about speculative asset bubbles which "never" go on forever and "always" end in tears for the True Believers. :yeahok: I'm sure I could easily rattle off a dozen celebrity owners off the top of my head. However, the empirical evidence clearly shows that they are not just a driving force in the hobby. All the pieces pretty much end up in the collections you think they're going to end up in, so if they are out there, they're getting blown out of the water by a few BSDs and a bunch of pikers who are obsessed with this stuff.

 

We all know that Spielberg owns the Mad #1 cover and Kirk Hammett used to own the X-Men #1 cover and I think Ice-T owns a Punisher cover, etc., but this is pretty much ancient history by now. I mean, Spielberg bought the Mad cover 22 years ago! Does anybody think he still goes around actively buying up comic art? Were any of these guys really ever serious collectors of comic book art, as opposed to buyers when the occasional opportunity presented itself? I know Kirk owns a bunch of Famous Monsters covers, but he dumped the X-Men #1 art and I seriously doubt he rolled any of that cash back into comics. These guys have endless options about how to spend their time and money and at their present ages and levels of success, I just don't believe it's likely that many/any of the oft-cited names are still at all active (if they ever really were beyond a one-off purchase or two). It seems as though most anecdotes you hear of celebrity ownership are examples of purchases made long ago (1970s-90s). I bet even a lot of rich celebs would blanch at today's high-end comic and OA prices - not that they couldn't afford it, but they, like most people who aren't obsessed 24/7 with this stuff, probably just wouldn't "get it".

 

Anyway, I hope tonight's Action #1 6.0 auction, which was publicized internationally and in all forms of media nationally, greatly dispelled the myth of the Hollywood super-buyer. If there was any auction for these mythical celebrity buyers to come out in force for, surely it would have been for one of the most coveted, highest profile, highest dollar, most publicized books ever, no? At best, only one Hollywood player showed up to play hardball, because the runner-up (at a much lower price than almost anyone predicted) was a relative small fry from Florida (and, I'm not holding my breath that the winner was a Hollywood type anyway).

 

 

It`s like you`re a believer of the old Groucho Marx joke that you`d never want to join a club that would let you in, and so since you aspire to be one of these celebs or rich guys and therefore have them up on a pedestal, you`re really scared to find out that they`d deign to sully their hands with the same kind of art that you collect.

 

This is just your imagination gone wild - I don't put these people up on a pedestal and I certainly don't see our hobby as something that sullies anyone's hands. I am not even trying to rein in speculation, as you said, or impose my market views on anyone. I just think there is a lot of wishful thinking, faulty logic, hype and other things being said that just cries out for some kind of response. It's the exact same thing when people start those asinine oil/gasoline price gouging threads - I just can't help but correct these horribly flawed misconceptions by presenting the facts. It has nothing to do with me putting oilmen up on a pedestal or any other ludicrous presumption.

[westform]

Gene; the problem here is that you are putting forth this hypothesis that by it's very nature cannot be disproved. (or proved) Celebs by their very nature and in their own best interest's are usually going to act behind the scenes. Spielberg is not going to be waving a bidding placard at the next Heritage auction. So, without first hand knowledge it's hard to refute what you are saying... but by the same token it is hard for you to prove what you are saying either. You haven't convinced me. Yes, celebs have many options for spending their money, but I don't see any reason why a few wouldn't want to own comic/illo. art. A lot of it looks pretty cool on the wall, and might even impress their friends. (They are most likely not having the Duke and Duchess over for tea, but instead hanging with their entourage or other peeps who are likewise infected with our popular culture) Ok, granted they are never going to actively participate in these discussions... (that would be krazy). But, Heritage and others put together pretty slick buying opportunities for upper end folks who would never have to 'network' to get choice material. And, as a p.s. you may think (with no real basis) that Spielberg no longer buys, but Lucas is still very much an active participant....just ask any of the artists who create Star Wars material. He has first right of refusal and more often than not exercises it. He affects that market like no other player... believe me, as one who trys to collect Star Wars art, it is veeeery hard to get the good stuff.

[delekkerste]

Dan, you're right that there is no smoking gun, but wouldn't you say that the empirical evidence is leaning my way? I have no doubt that there are a number of Hollywood/celeb types who may own a little bit here and there or who may even be active, small-time collectors. Heck, on one of my visits to Metropolis Collectibles last year, I met a fairly well-known movie producer there. However, it's clear that these guys are fringe players at best. Bottom line, all the best comics and OA still end up going to the same established collections, are they not?

 

As for Lucas buying up Star Wars art, that makes perfect sense. That's his business, his life work, his legacy. I could see him buying up this stuff until the day he dies for posterity (whether passing it down to heirs or opening a museum or donating it to the Smithsonian or whatever). I think that is a completely different set of circumstances from what I was describing elsewhere. Now, if you tell me you're competing with Lucas for Bronze Age covers or Doc Savage paintings, that would be a different story.

[westform]

Yes, I would definately agree that MOST of the better pieces get placed with the usual suspects. But, my figure for most would be about 70%. There are still a pretty good amount of pieces that don't seem to resurface. Whether they are being held by more of the same collectors or Big Gun Celeb types, I don't know. I do hold out that there is a possibility that the hobby could grow amongst the hip types in the culture as the subject matter becomes more and more ingrained. Or, it could not. It's just impossible to say.

 

And, I agree that Lucas is a 'special' case. But, he is still there, you can't negate him and his effect in the marketplace. There are others out there who are deriving their livelihood and making their life's work the creation and exploitation of comic book subject matter. What if one or more of the producers or director's in hollywood get the collecting bug, and that interest spreads outward to their entourage? Probably already happening. And, while it is true that right now the hobby seems fairly self contained; there is the possibility for real expansion. Who knows where it will all end up.

 

 

[stinkininkin]

Gene; the problem here is that you are putting forth this hypothesis that by it's very nature cannot be disproved. (or proved) Celebs by their very nature and in their own best interest's are usually going to act behind the scenes. Spielberg is not going to be waving a bidding placard at the next Heritage auction. So, without first hand knowledge it's hard to refute what you are saying... but by the same token it is hard for you to prove what you are saying either. You haven't convinced me. Yes, celebs have many options for spending their money, but I don't see any reason why a few wouldn't want to own comic/illo. art. A lot of it looks pretty cool on the wall, and might even impress their friends. (They are most likely not having the Duke and Duchess over for tea, but instead hanging with their entourage or other peeps who are likewise infected with our popular culture) Ok, granted they are never going to actively participate in these discussions... (that would be krazy). But, Heritage and others put together pretty slick buying opportunities for upper end folks who would never have to 'network' to get choice material. And, as a p.s. you may think (with no real basis) that Spielberg no longer buys, but Lucas is still very much an active participant....just ask any of the artists who create Star Wars material. He has first right of refusal and more often than not exercises it. He affects that market like no other player... believe me, as one who trys to collect Star Wars art, it is veeeery hard to get the good stuff.

 

Quick aside for Dan. I don't collect Star Wars art specifically, but would love to add an Ian McCaig Star Wars concept piece to my collection. I believe he mostly works digital now, but didn't he used to work using traditional materials on Episodes 1 and 2? If so, is this stuff "out there" or is this the type of stuff that Lucas has a monopoly on? You can send me a private message if you prefer...

 

Scott Williams

 

[Monster's Coll]

Gene,

 

I mean no offense, but-

 

While I have always found your posts entertaining, I think your ever constant bear-stance in reference to anything $ related, lessens the value of your statements - to some. And is very annoying to others. There is no question that you know what you are talking about, for the most part, but as has been discussed before, not every 'rule' of business 'always' applies to comics or comic art.

 

To add a few facts (as I have found through my experience) to this discussion, instead of just more speculation, there are many celebs (in this context) that are involved on some level in comic art collecting, as well as comic books. Are they a driving force in the marketplace? That is a matter of perspective. I would say it's about 50/50 in my experience. There are celebs that ARE driving forces in certain artists' work -currently-, such as Wrightson (among others). Then there are celebs that collect all over the place. While they love the stuff, a particular piece would have to 'hit' them in order for them to pull the trigger. With price not neccessarily being an issue. That being said, a purchase in that sense, should be 'thrown out' of FMV for any given artist, just like a ridiculously 'low sale' should, -IMHO-. Neither is neccessarily a good indicator of where the market is 'at' as a whole and only gives the 'KRAZYS' of the world a platform to stand on.

 

1 sale, one collector or one artists' work, does not make an entire market.

 

I found it interesting that you pointed out the sales prices of the Elvgren's in thursday's Heritage auction "bombed big-time" *in your opinion*, as though it was an indicator of either the Elvgren market correcting or Illustration art or both? In your own post you point out how you were in fact the underbidder on what you felt was the best example offered and the only 'fresh' piece, which in turn you caused to sell for a "respectable" amount. This is the very reason the others did not sell 'as well'. All of the others were paintings that were being resold. Since the buyers of those paintings were now out of the equation - IE: the 'Top of the Market' on any one of those given pieces, in such a short period of time since their previous sale; wouldn't one presume that upon resale in a no reserve auction, that the pieces are going to sell to the previous underbidder and the price it hammers at is going to be supported by the 2nd underbidder from it's previous sale? *Assuming, as is the case with the painting you bid on, a new bidder, you in that case, did not get involved.*

 

Let's take the first of the 4 paintings that were 'resales' (as i'm not going to bother doing this on all of them):

 

Making Friends previous sale: $32,500 hammer

http://fineart.ha.com/common/view_item.php?Sale_No=628&Lot_No=23454&src=pr

 

Making Friends current sale: $26,000 hammer

http://comics.ha.com/common/view_item.php?Sale_No=7005&Lot_No=87142&src=pr

 

If we take the top bid out of the equation on the 1st sale, as that person is the owner on the 2nd sale, we are down to $30,000 as the MOST that the underbidder was willing to pay the 1st time around. The underbidder to him apparantly was at $25,000 this time around. How is it an indicator that the market has 'bombed' in this equation? There is literally 1 bid separating the 1st an 2nd underbidders in 'value' from the 1st time this auctioned to this last time.

 

Seems to me it follows suit exactly the way it should.

 

I think when you make statements like 'bombed big-time', Gene, you undermine the value of any statements you make, -IMHO-. I know you have insight, but the constant drum beating of 'doom and gloom' and making statements that the layman will simply believe as 'fact', because of your 'status' on these boards, is unneccessary and strikes me as being disingenuous. Much in the same way as KRAZY'S statements do.

 

I just wish that someone with your obvious knowledge would try to add something from time to time, instead of constantly looking to subtract. (thumbs u

[westform]

Hi Scott; I am no expert on Star Wars art... far from it. I'm just relating first hand opinion. While I don't know every artists medium and success with regards to selling to Lucas, I have personally contacted more than several artists about buying particular pieces of artwork. Every time the response was the same; Lucas had first right of refusal... Lucas exercised that right and purchased. There are a couple of other collectors of SW art (Han Park and John Higashi) who would be the guys to ask about specific artists and pieces, but it is not a level playing field to say the least.....

[Mephisto]

Hi Scott; I am no expert on Star Wars art... far from it. I'm just relating first hand opinion. While I don't know every artists medium and success with regards to selling to Lucas, I have personally contacted more than several artists about buying particular pieces of artwork. Every time the response was the same; Lucas had first right of refusal... Lucas exercised that right and purchased. There are a couple of other collectors of SW art (Han Park and John Higashi) who would be the guys to ask about specific artists and pieces, but it is not a level playing field to say the least.....

 

George and Steven also get first crack on Indiana Jones pieces.

[comicartcom]

I`m not saying that these particular guys will or have (they only came to mind because I know they like comics), and I understand you feel the need to rein in some of the speculation that goes on here about celebs and rich guys buying art from our own little genre. But it always amazes me how you are able to state with such absolute certainty that NO ART that is comics or sci-fi/fantasy related will ever be bought by any celeb. Remind me again who owned the OA to X-Men #1? And TOS #39?

 

I have never said that "NO ART" (or comics, for that matter) will ever be bought by any celeb. The only time I use the words "never" or "always" is when I'm talking about speculative asset bubbles which "never" go on forever and "always" end in tears for the True Believers. :yeahok: I'm sure I could easily rattle off a dozen celebrity owners off the top of my head. However, the empirical evidence clearly shows that they are not just a driving force in the hobby. All the pieces pretty much end up in the collections you think they're going to end up in, so if they are out there, they're getting blown out of the water by a few BSDs and a bunch of pikers who are obsessed with this stuff.

 

We all know that Spielberg owns the Mad #1 cover and Kirk Hammett used to own the X-Men #1 cover and I think Ice-T owns a Punisher cover, etc., but this is pretty much ancient history by now. I mean, Spielberg bought the Mad cover 22 years ago! Does anybody think he still goes around actively buying up comic art? Were any of these guys really ever serious collectors of comic book art, as opposed to buyers when the occasional opportunity presented itself? I know Kirk owns a bunch of Famous Monsters covers, but he dumped the X-Men #1 art and I seriously doubt he rolled any of that cash back into comics. These guys have endless options about how to spend their time and money and at their present ages and levels of success, I just don't believe it's likely that many/any of the oft-cited names are still at all active (if they ever really were beyond a one-off purchase or two). It seems as though most anecdotes you hear of celebrity ownership are examples of purchases made long ago (1970s-90s). I bet even a lot of rich celebs would blanch at today's high-end comic and OA prices - not that they couldn't afford it, but they, like most people who aren't obsessed 24/7 with this stuff, probably just wouldn't "get it".

 

Anyway, I hope tonight's Action #1 6.0 auction, which was publicized internationally and in all forms of media nationally, greatly dispelled the myth of the Hollywood super-buyer. If there was any auction for these mythical celebrity buyers to come out in force for, surely it would have been for one of the most coveted, highest profile, highest dollar, most publicized books ever, no? At best, only one Hollywood player showed up to play hardball, because the runner-up (at a much lower price than almost anyone predicted) was a relative small fry from Florida (and, I'm not holding my breath that the winner was a Hollywood type anyway).

 

 

It`s like you`re a believer of the old Groucho Marx joke that you`d never want to join a club that would let you in, and so since you aspire to be one of these celebs or rich guys and therefore have them up on a pedestal, you`re really scared to find out that they`d deign to sully their hands with the same kind of art that you collect.

 

This is just your imagination gone wild - I don't put these people up on a pedestal and I certainly don't see our hobby as something that sullies anyone's hands. I am not even trying to rein in speculation, as you said, or impose my market views on anyone. I just think there is a lot of wishful thinking, faulty logic, hype and other things being said that just cries out for some kind of response. It's the exact same thing when people start those asinine oil/gasoline price gouging threads - I just can't help but correct these horribly flawed misconceptions by presenting the facts. It has nothing to do with me putting oilmen up on a pedestal or any other ludicrous presumption.

 

I agree with everyone that he says in this post. Speculation that Hollywood types etc are involved in bidding on these items is only speculation.

 

Guys like Kirk Hammett collected comics (mostly horror) and movie posters before ever becoming the Metalica guitarist.. (PS: I sold him many of the famous Monsters covers, and a couple Frazetta paintings). Being successful only helped him to expand his buying interests and today he owns one of the best collections of horror posters in the world.

 

Spielberg.. his interests were always there, but are limited in this hobby. His buying habits had alot more to do with being a client of Russ Cochran for cartoon cells and an interest in MAD than as a comic fan.

 

George Lucas was a different story. Always a major comics fan, he collected Flash Gordon art by Alex Raymond for a long time (He was also a silent partner in Ed Summer's Supersnipe Comic Shoppe that was a major comic store in the 70s-80s). However I am not aware that he ever collected comic books per se.

 

I'm sure that if you melt them down to a % of the population at large that are collectors, that you will find successful Hollywood people like them, or successful Wall Streeters like Eric Roberts do not make up an extraordinarily large percentage of comics collectors..

[J.Sid]

Gene,

 

I just wish that someone with your obvious knowledge would try to add something from time to time, instead of constantly looking to subtract. (thumbs u

 

Gene is the Rush Limbaugh of this message board. You know what he's going to say before he's clicked "submit" on his post.

 

And like Rush, Gene is often shown to NOT practice what he preaches.

[delekkerste]

I just wish that someone with your obvious knowledge would try to add something from time to time, instead of constantly looking to subtract. (thumbs u

 

Ken,

 

The same arguments could be made the other way about the Krazy Krowd who only ever try to keep the hype going. Regarding your characterization that I am "constantly looking to subtract", if you mean subtract from the hype and hyperbole, sure. All I ever try to do is inject a dose of realism into a forum in which it is often lacking. I just try to call 'em like I see 'em and 'em if they can't handle what a bit player like me has to say.

 

While there certainly are differences between the business world and our hobby, as Tim (tth2) has said, human psychology is the one constant across both time and space - and that has always been the foundation of what I base my observations on in any market, whether it's stocks or paintings or pork bellies or comic art. There were plenty of people criticizing those who warned about the epic asset and credit bubble and look how quickly it all unraveled. Everyone looks like a genius...until prices stop going up.

 

Your Elvgren market analysis is severely flawed. Look at the date of the first sale you highlighted - 2006. That piece would easily have doubled by the time the market peaked in 2008, so the ensuing decline to March 2009 truly is epic in scale. Sorry to lay waste to your thesis, but the highest priced lot in the June 2008 auction was also a re-sale and it sold for more than 5x as much as it did when it also sold in 2006, in case you don't believe the above. No way would that painting now sell for the runner-up bid in this market. Also, "Sailor Girl" was not the only fresh to the market piece - "Aw Come-On". a prime piece from 1953, was also new to the market and sold for a paltry $26K. Again, that's probably less than half of its summer 2008 valuation! No matter how you try to spin it, it's a CRASH by any other name.

 

I never said that Elvgren was the entire market. But, there was plenty of evidence of weakness elsewhere. Why even try to deny it at this point? 99.9999% of asset prices in the world have weakened since last summer. I could print out a laundry list of disappointing prices and auctions - I even started a thread in The Water Cooler about it last year, but by now, everyone with their eyes open has gotten the message so the point has been made.

 

If people with vested interests get angry at what I say, so be it. I'm in this hobby because I actually really love the art. I've never tried to make a dime off of it. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if I've lost money on my collection overall - but, it's money I can afford to lose. I've made some really good friends in this hobby, but if any of them can't handle what a minor player like me has to say, then I don't need them as friends. I do know, both from public statements and from many, many private messages I have received from Board members over the years, that there are a lot of people who enjoy what I have to say and find it useful. And if some people disagree with me, troll me like KrazyKat, or if I've ruffled some feathers along the way, I guess that's just natural too.

 

Gene

[Jesusjon]

I enjoy what Gene has to say, and find it useful, and I'm willing to say so publicly. I feel like he just tries to keep things in perspective.

 

There are a lot of savvy folks in this hobby, and on this board. Best thing to do is take it all in and form ones own takeaways.

[delekkerste]

And like Rush, Gene is often shown to NOT practice what he preaches.

 

1. "Buy what you like with discretionary income you can afford to lose." That's basically my point of view in a nutshell.

 

2. No, I'm not sanguine about the sustainability of high prices.

 

3. Yes, I'm still buying.

 

Points #2 and #3 are not contradictory if you've read point #1.

[AvengersFan]

I don't usually wade into these discussions...but here goes. Gene is right and I think it's good that someone is saying it. The "buy what you like with income you can afford to lose" is really just the best advice anyone could give on these boards. Especially for people just entering the hobby or younger collectors. Most people are smart and "get it" but I know way to many people are still thinking that comic art is an investment that "can't lose" and I think that's absolutely nuts. Its a fun hobby, but a fringe hobby. I am still buying, and always a little more than I think I should be, because you know, it's fun, but it's money that I can afford to lose. I buy for nostalgia, not investment. OK back to the sidelines with me.