Giant-Size X-Men #1 Original Art burned? 1 1

[Bronty]

 

That said, I think we do give a lot of bonus points to the creators of yore like Kirby for their groundbreaking originality and their large body of work. But, again, doesn't that really speak to their place in history as much as the actual aesthetics of the art? I would argue that it does.

 

Oh absolutely. We give them all kinds of bonus points just for being in the right place at the right time.

 

But here's the thing. They were in the right place at the right time!

 

I would argue the same has happened at times in many other fields. Fine art, music, etc.

[Nexus]

OK, so a pic of the #180 page is making the rounds. I don't care what anyone says...that thing is awesome. And dare I say...important! Looks so much better in pen/ink. This is going to go for a mint. I'm jealous!

[suspense39]

I agree with your points though. Originality left the station 20 years ago on the established characters. If I was going to buy modern art it would be well regarded contemporary indies as opposed to dec or marvel. Stories being told for the first time not the 45th time.

 

I'm pretty much in the same camp

[tth2]

Originality left the station 20 years ago on the established characters.

Further back than that. In my opinion, the last new original artist in comics was Alex Ross (and of course his style wasn`t really original or new, only in the medium of comic art).

[bluechip]

One very legitimate reason that a piece of art can hit people is that they see it and think -- wow, that's the original art to the first comic book appearance of a superhero known in almost every household in the world.

 

You do touch upon one motivation which resides with a small sector of the hobby, which some collectors may call "Status" - - the bragging rights to say, "there's only one that exists and I own it!" and in their eyes they become the envy of their peers eyes and it makes them feel a certain way call it an ego boost or what have you.

 

Of course the majority of collectors just buy for themselves (after all, who can afford just to buy to be a braggart), but you'll see a few of these people even on sites like CAF who used to try to boost views of their gallery with a "look at me!" agenda more so than a "hey, I just wanna share" intention of camaraderie.

 

Then there's what/who I think are referred to as the "black hole collectors" who buy and stash away without ever wanting to draw attention to themselves, their purchases and collection. That's in part, circling back to part of the original posting's subject, why some art might have a "where is it now?" status, where the owners simply don't want to be known and some pieces do exist, but are privately held.

 

I agree that "status" figures in the value of a piece of art with a first appearance, but to clarify I should add that you don't need to care whether you have bragging rights. Or at least, I would say, that bragging rights motivations shouldn't be seen as limited to things that are not based solely on aesthetics. Many millions have been made by people who appealed to collectors' bragging rights re a piece that is purely about aesthetics.

 

If comic art were purely about aesthetics then why would people gravitate toward line art pieces which don't have the complete (color) image? Isn't it about often about sacrificing some of the aesthetic value for the bragging rights value in the fact that this is what the famous artist originally created?

 

But I see comic art primarily as a means of telling a story and hoping that story resonates with people. The first appearance of Wolverine is an example of art and story that resonated spectacularly well with people. So I am very impressed when I see it and I consider it a neat thing to have, not just as a piece of art visually but as an example of when story and character development, character design (give that to Romita, Sr.) scripting and art all came together in a highly effective way.

 

 

[bluechip]

So, if we have have a thread of 'favourite Kirby inkers', someone like Vinnie Colletta would rank low on the preference scale.

 

As such, collectors are bringing aesthetics into the equation . . .

 

I agree with that, although I think Colletta did some great work on Kirby's pencils in Thor and I think people tend to overlook that because they hate Colletta for all the times he did a terrible job on Thor (not to mention erasing backgrounds, etc.) Nowhere, in my opinion, did Colletta ruin Kirby's work more than he did on his brief and apocalyptically bad run on Fantastic Four, in which he rendered pages so badly that if I were buying purely on aesthetics I would prefer a decent Ayers Sgt. Fury page. But Colletta's work on FF happened to include some of the best stories from the entire run, with great battle sequences, etc. So the prices on his FF work do not dip as much as one might expect. (That, plus the fact that FF art has been hoarded by a few and made even more scarce than it would be)

 

As yet, there's been nobody doing the same with Kirby's Thor pages, which I would call some of the most undervalued out there because of how cool the pages often are and how much appreciation the character has gotten in the past few years. All it would take is a couple guys hoarding Thor kirby's and soon people would be saying "you know, Colletta didn't really destroy these pages, after all."

 

[drdroom]

So, if we have have a thread of 'favourite Kirby inkers', someone like Vinnie Colletta would rank low on the preference scale.

 

As such, collectors are bringing aesthetics into the equation . . .

 

I agree with that, although I think Colletta did some great work on Kirby's pencils in Thor and I think people tend to overlook that because they hate Colletta for all the times he did a terrible job on Thor (not to mention erasing backgrounds, etc.) Nowhere, in my opinion, did Colletta ruin Kirby's work more than he did on his brief and apocalyptically bad run on Fantastic Four, in which he rendered pages so badly that if I were buying purely on aesthetics I would prefer a decent Ayers Sgt. Fury page. But Colletta's work on FF happened to include some of the best stories from the entire run, with great battle sequences, etc. So the prices on his FF work do not dip as much as one might expect. (That, plus the fact that FF art has been hoarded by a few and made even more scarce than it would be)

 

As yet, there's been nobody doing the same with Kirby's Thor pages, which I would call some of the most undervalued out there because of how cool the pages often are and how much appreciation the character has gotten in the past few years. All it would take is a couple guys hoarding Thor kirby's and soon people would be saying "you know, Colletta didn't really destroy these pages, after all."

 

Coincidentally I was just looking at some old Thor's last night (128,131). Man, it was even worse than I remembered. Colletta burned those pages to the ground.

[bluechip]

So, if we have have a thread of 'favourite Kirby inkers', someone like Vinnie Colletta would rank low on the preference scale.

 

As such, collectors are bringing aesthetics into the equation . . .

 

I agree with that, although I think Colletta did some great work on Kirby's pencils in Thor and I think people tend to overlook that because they hate Colletta for all the times he did a terrible job on Thor (not to mention erasing backgrounds, etc.) Nowhere, in my opinion, did Colletta ruin Kirby's work more than he did on his brief and apocalyptically bad run on Fantastic Four, in which he rendered pages so badly that if I were buying purely on aesthetics I would prefer a decent Ayers Sgt. Fury page. But Colletta's work on FF happened to include some of the best stories from the entire run, with great battle sequences, etc. So the prices on his FF work do not dip as much as one might expect. (That, plus the fact that FF art has been hoarded by a few and made even more scarce than it would be)

 

As yet, there's been nobody doing the same with Kirby's Thor pages, which I would call some of the most undervalued out there because of how cool the pages often are and how much appreciation the character has gotten in the past few years. All it would take is a couple guys hoarding Thor kirby's and soon people would be saying "you know, Colletta didn't really destroy these pages, after all."

 

Coincidentally I was just looking at some old Thor's last night (128,131). Man, it was even worse than I remembered. Colletta burned those pages to the ground.

 

Hence my use o the phrase "some great work"

 

Sinnott's Kirbys were universally great.

Ayers always good.

Giacoia underrated and often good

Shores usually good

Royer always good

 

Colletta often bad but "sometimes" good (on Thor only; always bad on FF)

 

 

[drdroom]

So, if we have have a thread of 'favourite Kirby inkers', someone like Vinnie Colletta would rank low on the preference scale.

 

As such, collectors are bringing aesthetics into the equation . . .

 

I agree with that, although I think Colletta did some great work on Kirby's pencils in Thor and I think people tend to overlook that because they hate Colletta for all the times he did a terrible job on Thor (not to mention erasing backgrounds, etc.) Nowhere, in my opinion, did Colletta ruin Kirby's work more than he did on his brief and apocalyptically bad run on Fantastic Four, in which he rendered pages so badly that if I were buying purely on aesthetics I would prefer a decent Ayers Sgt. Fury page. But Colletta's work on FF happened to include some of the best stories from the entire run, with great battle sequences, etc. So the prices on his FF work do not dip as much as one might expect. (That, plus the fact that FF art has been hoarded by a few and made even more scarce than it would be)

 

As yet, there's been nobody doing the same with Kirby's Thor pages, which I would call some of the most undervalued out there because of how cool the pages often are and how much appreciation the character has gotten in the past few years. All it would take is a couple guys hoarding Thor kirby's and soon people would be saying "you know, Colletta didn't really destroy these pages, after all."

 

Coincidentally I was just looking at some old Thor's last night (128,131). Man, it was even worse than I remembered. Colletta burned those pages to the ground.

 

Hence my use o the phrase "some great work"

 

Sinnott's Kirbys were universally great.

Ayers always good.

Giacoia underrated and often good

Shores usually good

Royer always good

 

Colletta often bad but "sometimes" good (on Thor only; always bad on FF)

 

 

Matter of taste (though secretly I am objectively correct ). Here's mine:

Sinnott: good to start, ascending to great

Ayers: hugely overrated, dulls the edge of Kirby's drawing relentlessly

Giacoia: highly rated by almost everyone I know, and rightly so.

Stone: underrated and sometimes as good as Sinnott

Shores: wildly wrong but sometimes appealing

Wood: very good but a touch overrated

Heck: very good

Ditko: good

Royer: virtually perfect

Kirby: great in '40s thru '60s, perhaps a little rusty thereafter

Berry: good to very good

Thibodeaux: heavy handed but underrated I think, in view of what he was working with

Reinman: not very good

Roussos: pretty bad

Colletta: mainly terrible, occasionally rising to bad (perhaps with the help of assistants)

 

Sorry for wandering off topic... I promise not to get into a feud over any of these positions (at least not on this thread).

[Koa]

There are a number of modern artists who can draw circles around the guys whose work was featured in the Heritage auction today.

 

Funny you should mention this fact. I was reading the ASM "Brand New Day" TPB the other day and said to myself, "You know, [penciller] Steve McNiven is really quite good, and I'm really enjoying his cinematic storytelling ability". There's no question in my mind that, side by side, you'd have to say his artwork is technically more advanced and aesthetically nicer than many Spidey artists of yore.

 

I'm sure there are other factors, but all of which goes back to the fact that it was the historic stories of old that impacted me in my impressionable youthful years and, without that, they're just pretty pictures. I mean, look at the work of a Lee Bermejo or Simone Bianchi and compare their work of the artists of yesterday - you'd have to say that they were more technically advanced, polished, etc., but they're working on drawing stories of long-established characters where, in all likelihood, the best and most memorable stories have already been told. Which is why the art from an interesting newer series like Fables or The Walking Dead might pique my interest, but I really don't care about buying any post-2000 art from ASM, X-Men, Daredevil, etc. no matter how nicely its drawn. Aesthetics only matter to me within the context of something I'm interested in for nostalgic or historical/collectible reasons.

 

 

The artists you mentioned and comics in general are done in a much more objective fashion. Their symbols are less universal than the ones used in the past.

 

I think the artwork that really sticks with us is subjective, regardless of style.

 

 

 

Edited February 23, 2014 by KingKoa

[batman_fan]

So, if we have have a thread of 'favourite Kirby inkers', someone like Vinnie Colletta would rank low on the preference scale.

 

As such, collectors are bringing aesthetics into the equation . . .

 

I agree with that, although I think Colletta did some great work on Kirby's pencils in Thor and I think people tend to overlook that because they hate Colletta for all the times he did a terrible job on Thor (not to mention erasing backgrounds, etc.) Nowhere, in my opinion, did Colletta ruin Kirby's work more than he did on his brief and apocalyptically bad run on Fantastic Four, in which he rendered pages so badly that if I were buying purely on aesthetics I would prefer a decent Ayers Sgt. Fury page. But Colletta's work on FF happened to include some of the best stories from the entire run, with great battle sequences, etc. So the prices on his FF work do not dip as much as one might expect. (That, plus the fact that FF art has been hoarded by a few and made even more scarce than it would be)

 

As yet, there's been nobody doing the same with Kirby's Thor pages, which I would call some of the most undervalued out there because of how cool the pages often are and how much appreciation the character has gotten in the past few years. All it would take is a couple guys hoarding Thor kirby's and soon people would be saying "you know, Colletta didn't really destroy these pages, after all."

 

Coincidentally I was just looking at some old Thor's last night (128,131). Man, it was even worse than I remembered. Colletta burned those pages to the ground.

 

Hence my use o the phrase "some great work"

 

Sinnott's Kirbys were universally great.

Ayers always good.

Giacoia underrated and often good

Shores usually good

Royer always good

 

Colletta often bad but "sometimes" good (on Thor only; always bad on FF)

 

 

Matter of taste (though secretly I am objectively correct ). Here's mine:

Sinnott: good to start, ascending to great

Ayers: hugely overrated, dulls the edge of Kirby's drawing relentlessly

Giacoia: highly rated by almost everyone I know, and rightly so.

Stone: underrated and sometimes as good as Sinnott

Shores: wildly wrong but sometimes appealing

Wood: very good but a touch overrated

Heck: very good

Ditko: good

Royer: virtually perfect

Kirby: great in '40s thru '60s, perhaps a little rusty thereafter

Berry: good to very good

Thibodeaux: heavy handed but underrated I think, in view of what he was working with

Reinman: not very good

Roussos: pretty bad

Colletta: mainly terrible, occasionally rising to bad (perhaps with the help of assistants)

 

Sorry for wandering off topic... I promise not to get into a feud over any of these positions (at least not on this thread).

 

Can't agree more with you on the highlighted inker above.

[bluechip]

So, if we have have a thread of 'favourite Kirby inkers', someone like Vinnie Colletta would rank low on the preference scale.

 

As such, collectors are bringing aesthetics into the equation . . .

 

I agree with that, although I think Colletta did some great work on Kirby's pencils in Thor and I think people tend to overlook that because they hate Colletta for all the times he did a terrible job on Thor (not to mention erasing backgrounds, etc.) Nowhere, in my opinion, did Colletta ruin Kirby's work more than he did on his brief and apocalyptically bad run on Fantastic Four, in which he rendered pages so badly that if I were buying purely on aesthetics I would prefer a decent Ayers Sgt. Fury page. But Colletta's work on FF happened to include some of the best stories from the entire run, with great battle sequences, etc. So the prices on his FF work do not dip as much as one might expect. (That, plus the fact that FF art has been hoarded by a few and made even more scarce than it would be)

 

As yet, there's been nobody doing the same with Kirby's Thor pages, which I would call some of the most undervalued out there because of how cool the pages often are and how much appreciation the character has gotten in the past few years. All it would take is a couple guys hoarding Thor kirby's and soon people would be saying "you know, Colletta didn't really destroy these pages, after all."

 

Coincidentally I was just looking at some old Thor's last night (128,131). Man, it was even worse than I remembered. Colletta burned those pages to the ground.

 

Hence my use o the phrase "some great work"

 

Sinnott's Kirbys were universally great.

Ayers always good.

Giacoia underrated and often good

Shores usually good

Royer always good

 

Colletta often bad but "sometimes" good (on Thor only; always bad on FF)

 

 

Matter of taste (though secretly I am objectively correct ). Here's mine:

Sinnott: good to start, ascending to great

Ayers: hugely overrated, dulls the edge of Kirby's drawing relentlessly

Giacoia: highly rated by almost everyone I know, and rightly so.

Stone: underrated and sometimes as good as Sinnott

Shores: wildly wrong but sometimes appealing

Wood: very good but a touch overrated

Heck: very good

Ditko: good

Royer: virtually perfect

Kirby: great in '40s thru '60s, perhaps a little rusty thereafter

Berry: good to very good

Thibodeaux: heavy handed but underrated I think, in view of what he was working with

Reinman: not very good

Roussos: pretty bad

Colletta: mainly terrible, occasionally rising to bad (perhaps with the help of assistants)

 

Sorry for wandering off topic... I promise not to get into a feud over any of these positions (at least not on this thread).

 

Can't agree more with you on the highlighted inker above.

 

I believe I remember hearing that Royer was Kirby's favorite inker, because he simply stuck as close as possible to what Jack drew. Sinnott sometimes fancied things up. Agree that Giacoia on Kirby is underrated but I would say more so on Captain America than on FF. Stone I also liked more than most. Ayers I like more than most because that was my point of entry into the FF reprints and I associate it with discovering (some of) the comic's initial glory days

 

[drdroom]

So, if we have have a thread of 'favourite Kirby inkers', someone like Vinnie Colletta would rank low on the preference scale.

 

As such, collectors are bringing aesthetics into the equation . . .

 

I agree with that, although I think Colletta did some great work on Kirby's pencils in Thor and I think people tend to overlook that because they hate Colletta for all the times he did a terrible job on Thor (not to mention erasing backgrounds, etc.) Nowhere, in my opinion, did Colletta ruin Kirby's work more than he did on his brief and apocalyptically bad run on Fantastic Four, in which he rendered pages so badly that if I were buying purely on aesthetics I would prefer a decent Ayers Sgt. Fury page. But Colletta's work on FF happened to include some of the best stories from the entire run, with great battle sequences, etc. So the prices on his FF work do not dip as much as one might expect. (That, plus the fact that FF art has been hoarded by a few and made even more scarce than it would be)

 

As yet, there's been nobody doing the same with Kirby's Thor pages, which I would call some of the most undervalued out there because of how cool the pages often are and how much appreciation the character has gotten in the past few years. All it would take is a couple guys hoarding Thor kirby's and soon people would be saying "you know, Colletta didn't really destroy these pages, after all."

 

Coincidentally I was just looking at some old Thor's last night (128,131). Man, it was even worse than I remembered. Colletta burned those pages to the ground.

 

Hence my use o the phrase "some great work"

 

Sinnott's Kirbys were universally great.

Ayers always good.

Giacoia underrated and often good

Shores usually good

Royer always good

 

Colletta often bad but "sometimes" good (on Thor only; always bad on FF)

 

 

Matter of taste (though secretly I am objectively correct ). Here's mine:

Sinnott: good to start, ascending to great

Ayers: hugely overrated, dulls the edge of Kirby's drawing relentlessly

Giacoia: highly rated by almost everyone I know, and rightly so.

Stone: underrated and sometimes as good as Sinnott

Shores: wildly wrong but sometimes appealing

Wood: very good but a touch overrated

Heck: very good

Ditko: good

Royer: virtually perfect

Kirby: great in '40s thru '60s, perhaps a little rusty thereafter

Berry: good to very good

Thibodeaux: heavy handed but underrated I think, in view of what he was working with

Reinman: not very good

Roussos: pretty bad

Colletta: mainly terrible, occasionally rising to bad (perhaps with the help of assistants)

 

Sorry for wandering off topic... I promise not to get into a feud over any of these positions (at least not on this thread).

 

Can't agree more with you on the highlighted inker above.

 

I believe I remember hearing that Royer was Kirby's favorite inker, because he simply stuck as close as possible to what Jack drew. Sinnott sometimes fancied things up. Agree that Giacoia on Kirby is underrated but I would say more so on Captain America than on FF. Stone I also liked more than most. Ayers I like more than most because that was my point of entry into the FF reprints and I associate it with discovering (some of) the comic's initial glory days

 

If we all think Giacoia is underrated then who is left to underrate him?

[robert frey]

what did you think of klein and everett on thor?

[suspense39]

I like Everett on almost everything......although he kind of makes it his own

[kav]

what did you think of klein and everett on thor?

 

i love klein on anything especially swan. and as for coletta, no one's art suffered more than swan's by his inking. utterly horrendous. also destructive to swan was blaisdell, clairemont, and pretty much all of the later bronze age inkers. those pages should be taken out and shot. all of them.

[drdroom]

I agree with Suspense39- Everett is always fun to look at even though he doesn't really serve Kirby well. I like having a bit of him but he wouldn't be my first choice to replace Colletta. Of who was available at the time I'd like Sinnott, Stone, Heck, Giacoia or Klein, roughly in that order.

[lb jefferies]

For me Kirby's best inkers were Everett, Sinnott, and Royer in that order.

[bluechip]

So, if we have have a thread of 'favourite Kirby inkers', someone like Vinnie Colletta would rank low on the preference scale.

 

As such, collectors are bringing aesthetics into the equation . . .

 

I agree with that, although I think Colletta did some great work on Kirby's pencils in Thor and I think people tend to overlook that because they hate Colletta for all the times he did a terrible job on Thor (not to mention erasing backgrounds, etc.) Nowhere, in my opinion, did Colletta ruin Kirby's work more than he did on his brief and apocalyptically bad run on Fantastic Four, in which he rendered pages so badly that if I were buying purely on aesthetics I would prefer a decent Ayers Sgt. Fury page. But Colletta's work on FF happened to include some of the best stories from the entire run, with great battle sequences, etc. So the prices on his FF work do not dip as much as one might expect. (That, plus the fact that FF art has been hoarded by a few and made even more scarce than it would be)

 

As yet, there's been nobody doing the same with Kirby's Thor pages, which I would call some of the most undervalued out there because of how cool the pages often are and how much appreciation the character has gotten in the past few years. All it would take is a couple guys hoarding Thor kirby's and soon people would be saying "you know, Colletta didn't really destroy these pages, after all."

 

Coincidentally I was just looking at some old Thor's last night (128,131). Man, it was even worse than I remembered. Colletta burned those pages to the ground.

 

Hence my use o the phrase "some great work"

 

Sinnott's Kirbys were universally great.

Ayers always good.

Giacoia underrated and often good

Shores usually good

Royer always good

 

Colletta often bad but "sometimes" good (on Thor only; always bad on FF)

 

 

Matter of taste (though secretly I am objectively correct ). Here's mine:

Sinnott: good to start, ascending to great

Ayers: hugely overrated, dulls the edge of Kirby's drawing relentlessly

Giacoia: highly rated by almost everyone I know, and rightly so.

Stone: underrated and sometimes as good as Sinnott

Shores: wildly wrong but sometimes appealing

Wood: very good but a touch overrated

Heck: very good

Ditko: good

Royer: virtually perfect

Kirby: great in '40s thru '60s, perhaps a little rusty thereafter

Berry: good to very good

Thibodeaux: heavy handed but underrated I think, in view of what he was working with

Reinman: not very good

Roussos: pretty bad

Colletta: mainly terrible, occasionally rising to bad (perhaps with the help of assistants)

 

Sorry for wandering off topic... I promise not to get into a feud over any of these positions (at least not on this thread).

 

Can't agree more with you on the highlighted inker above.

 

I believe I remember hearing that Royer was Kirby's favorite inker, because he simply stuck as close as possible to what Jack drew. Sinnott sometimes fancied things up. Agree that Giacoia on Kirby is underrated but I would say more so on Captain America than on FF. Stone I also liked more than most. Ayers I like more than most because that was my point of entry into the FF reprints and I associate it with discovering (some of) the comic's initial glory days

 

If we all think Giacoia is underrated then who is left to underrate him?

 

Evidently the people buying his art Perhaps I should have said "undervalued relative to other inkers of lesser quality"

 

[benz]

a very historic piece of OA. i don't appreciate the art given that there is a lot of changes from then to the Wolverine now. still a very historic piece of OA that will bring a 6 figure amount easily.