How fussy (or not fussy) are you about "defects"?

[Murray Clack]

When it comes to collecting OA, how fussy or particular are you when it comes to having "defects" on the page?

 

Now, I say "defects" because I can't think of a more appropriate word.

 

There are collectors out there who refuse to buy a page of art because it will have such defects like "blue lines", "white out", "paste ups", "pencil guidelines", "zip tones" etc. I have heard these collectors won't even consider buying a page if it has nothing more than pen and ink on it.

 

What's your take on it?

 

I, for one, LOVE it when such techniques are used. To me, the above mentioned practices are the blood, sweat, and tears that an artist will put into a page in order to bring it alive. It is these techniques that have inspired me to create "production pages" to go along with the original art. Take a look at my collection to see what I mean: http://www.comicartfans.com/GalleryDetail.asp?GCat=7684

 

Now, obviously, if a pages was nothing BUT photostats with no original elements to it all all, then I will pass on it. But I have pages, where, in order to correct a mistake, a panel may a blank piece of heavy paper adhered on top and then redrawn. I have a Paul Gulacy page where in one panel a character out of three was NOT supposed to be there, and that character was "blanked out" with a blank adhesive, and the backgrounds redrawn leaving the other two characters intact.

 

I also have pages where white-out was used to correct inking mistakes, or used as a special effect line rain or snowfall. I have a lot of pages with the original blueline art as well as blueline notes from the editor asking for corrections.

 

Would I prefer if I had pages that were void of these "distractions" and were nothing BUT pen and ink? ! I am of the mindset if you can only appreciate the original black and white art that is free from such blemishes or distractions, you might as well save a few bucks and simply go pick up the Black and White "Essentials" or "Showcase" trade paper backs.

 

How accepting or not are you when it comes to these techniques?

[Weird Paper]

I don't worry about condition unless it's something like water damage or really bad fading (or marker "purpling). But considering that every piece of OA is (supposed to be) one-of-a-kind, I'll even overlook those things if I like the piece enough.

 

My CAF Gallery

 

[CollectingFool]

I've seen people freak out if you don't handle their artwork like a newborn baby. They worry about everything from finger indentations to corner bumps to your hand touching the ink. I've seen the other extreme too, art thrown on the floor and people practically walking on it (or their kids).

 

I personally don't mind the everyday stuff. Smudges in borders, pencil marks, editors writing in the borders, it's all normal. I don't handle the artwork with kid gloves either. If a piece I really like has some sort of defect that bothers me, I use that defect to negotiate a better price and then take it to a conservator to see what they can do about it.

 

If there were a 1 - 10 scale where 1 was throwing it on the ground with your animals and kids running around and 10 is getting upset if people don't pick up your page by the edges and are careful not to put too much pressure on the paper, I'd say I'm at about a 4 or at most a 5.

 

[MyNameIsLegion]

aside form the obvious (water damage, etc) I simply can't stand stats of entire panels, I don't care if it has art underneath or not (especially if peeking underneath it's obvious the art underneath is covered in aged, brown glue) If you're buying "original" art, then how much of the page is not "original" should be factored in.

[OAFan-migration]

Interesting points, one and all.

 

The question I have is concerning "water damage." I know that for a time there certain pieces used water-based adhesives to affix title stats and other stats to the artwork.

 

Is there a fear that the art will not last as a result of this exposure to water? What can be done to mitigate this damage? Also, if this damage is not readily apparent to the naked eye (i.e. it's under the affixed stat) and the risk has been arrested, is it still a big deal?

 

[Spider-Variant]

I actually get a refreshing calmness from OA knowing that the condition for a given piece is the best there is. Unlike comics, where you can upgrade from a 9.6 to a 9.8, I love the fact that the piece can not be improved.

 

So, the defects are fine. I actually love little pencilled words in the borders, as they give the piece more history. White out is fine. I don't have any water damaged OA, but that would probably bother me a little.

 

 

[CollectingFool]

Is there a fear that the art will not last as a result of this exposure to water? What can be done to mitigate this damage?

 

Part of the problem is that water damage is very difficult to fix if it can be fixed. It warps the paper and sets stains deep into it. Even when it can be fixed its more expensive than fixing surface condition issues.

 

 

 

[heartened]

This is a moving target for me, as nostalgia also plays into it. In other words, I will lower my "condition standards" somewhat depending on how much I want the piece. But, in general, I won't buy pieces with water damage, "important" stats (as in, an important part of the image, or a large part of the image, is a stat), reworked/redrawn art, re-inked art, extensive use of marker (which fades), or significant (not artistic) white out (especially if caked on). I also don't like when the art is in two pieces, such as an original and a published version. For most of the above problems, for me the real concern is uneven aging, where part of the paper tans slightly over time while the rest (stat, white-out) remains the original color, making for a worse overall "eye-appeal" as time goes by.

 

Those are my personal thoughts, for right or wrong. All subjective. Can't convince me otherwise, so don't try!

 

[Eric Seffinga]

I tend to get touchy from time to time, but it's usually on a per piece and artist basis.

I don't buy marker pieces because of the fading.

 

However there are artists whose work I love and it doesn't even factor in when I see it. Duncan Fegredo's Enigma art is a mess of all the things that turn most snooty collector's stomachs, but to me, many of those pages are unintentionally astounding. The sheer amount of thought and re-work that went into them to get them to the point that they were published is nuts in some cases. They almost appear like collages, and take on an altogether different kind of beauty as an original piece of art because of it.

 

Then there are artists like Ashley Wood that intentionally use multiple sheets of paper, tape, whiteout, damaged paper, etc in their work and it is reproduced to retain as much of the tactile damaged beauty and feel of the original as possible. His work often has a no-apologies approach. Look through his art books and you'll see the whiteout. He takes pride in showing you the originals, and not some doctored, re-contrasted/corrected version of them.

 

-e.

[CollectingFool]

Those are my personal thoughts, for right or wrong. All subjective. Can't convince me otherwise, so don't try!

 

You're absolutely WRONG!

 

 

[Jeffro.]

For most of the above problems, for me the real concern is uneven aging, where part of the paper tans slightly over time while the rest (stat, white-out) remains the original color, making for a worse overall "eye-appeal" as time goes by.

 

This is probably the same for me. I've seen some really ugly covers that exhibit characteristics mentioned above.

[Claudio]

I'm fussy.

 

I hate stats but if they are part of the creative process, I can deal with it. I just uploaded a piece with all kinds of stats. I feel this one is ok because it was very integral in telling the backstory:

 

http://cafurl.com?i=15237

 

I hate it when a stat is used just to make the same panel in a sequence. I also hate it if patches are redrawn. I bought this example a while ago and it has bugged me ever since:

 

http://cafurl.com?i=15238

 

As far as whiteout goes, I can deal with it but too much becomes a distraction.

 

Notes and such are an added bonus.

 

I guess I am just learning that there are lots of art out there and I can pick and choose whatever appeals to my eye the most and that has made me more fussy.

[AKA Rick]

To me, any defect would be an "aftermarket" alteration.

 

I don't mind stats or blank panels if that's what was used in the production of the comic.

 

I don't mind corner edge clipping or hole punches at the top, if that's what the artist or publisher used with the art.

 

I don't mind penciled notes on the sides, blue lines within the art, white out on the artwork, or any other markings done by the artist or publisher.

 

I don't mind an autograph, signature or even remarked sketch, so long at it is in the borders and outside of the artwork.

 

 

What I don't really care for are:

 

1) When a dealer/seller writes the sales price on the page, whether on the front or the back, whether in pencil or in ink. Or when they stamp their name on the back of the art in the middle (I fear that ink may bleed through in the future, so would rather they carefully stamp the back corner/edge if they have to do it at all) - I'd treat comic book art like comic books - - you never see dealers write on the comic or stamp/alter the books, so why do it to original art?

 

2) When there is physical defect to the art piece, whether in the art or the page itself. So, any water damage, smudging, bending, creasing, tears, etc. - - or attempts to correct flaws such as tape, retouches, new word balloons, etc. Water damage or any sort of mold are the worst. Fading is also a problem.

 

3) When word balloons are missing (with or without the brown glue stains) from the art (and BTW - I do enjoy art of yesteryear when the writers "art" was included)

 

4) Any modifications to the art, including a signature/autograph within the artwork itself (I prefer autographs in the margins outside of the art), and especially personalization signatures. I also don't collect published art which has been colored, nor penciled artwork which has been inked, in the aftermarket (after it has been published), as I prefer the art in as close to the original state "as is"

 

...but those are just my preferences.

[lb jefferies]

4) Any modifications to the art, including a signature/autograph within the artwork itself (I prefer autographs in the margins outside of the art), and especially personalization signatures.

 

I have to say I'm in the same camp with signatures - although these are one of a kind pieces and a signature inside the border of the art would in no way prevent me from buying the art. In fact I couldn't imagine this piece - with its signature placement - any other way now:

 

http://www.comicartfans.com/GalleryPiece.asp?Piece=471316&GSub=85641

 

Cheers,

 

Simon

 

[Shemp]

If there were a 1 - 10 scale where 1 was throwing it on the ground with your animals and kids running around and 10 is getting upset if people don't pick up your page by the edges and are careful not to put too much pressure on the paper, I'd say I'm at about a 4 or at most a 5.

 

I'm not fussy at all. I'm probably a 3 on this scale. Tanning, stats, whiteout, personalized art, art that has been colored, and even water damage doesn't bother me (I do own some water damaged pages), the only things that bother me are really bad fading and when stats are added to a piece when originally there were none.

[CollectingFool]

the only things that bother me are really bad fading and when stats are added to a piece when originally there were none.

 

Hmm... what do you mean? There are times that the "stats" that are used to make a cover look like it's supposed to (title stats, blurbs, etc) are all done separately from the original art. I will always opt to recreate the title stats for a cover as to me most covers look empty without them. The art is designed to have some empty space in the top third for that purpose.

 

There are times though that non-cover pieces have stats put on them to make them more marketable. As long as it's not done to mislead I think the owner of the art should make it look however pleases them.

 

 

[AKA Rick]

I like the idea of adding (or replacing missing) word balloons and any logos or stats to match what the original published piece appears as, but not to put it onto the original art itself, but to use a clear overlay, so it can be displayed with the added treatments without compromising the original artwork itself.

[Shemp]

the only things that bother me are really bad fading and when stats are added to a piece when originally there were none.

 

Hmm... what do you mean? There are times that the "stats" that are used to make a cover look like it's supposed to (title stats, blurbs, etc) are all done separately from the original art. I will always opt to recreate the title stats for a cover as to me most covers look empty without them. The art is designed to have some empty space in the top third for that purpose.

 

There are times though that non-cover pieces have stats put on them to make them more marketable. As long as it's not done to mislead I think the owner of the art should make it look however pleases them.

 

 

I mean exactly that. Adding title stats, blurbs, etc to art when they weren't there in the first place. If done on a overlay, great no problem, but when added to the actual art board it bothers me.

 

For example this cover. Originally it didn't have title or the horizontal graphic that runs along the left side, it was pure art edge to edge. Someone then decided to make it look more like the cover by gluing the title and graphic directly on the art, the fact that they did that bothers me. By the way I own this cover, so don't think I'm picking on someone's else piece.

[Shemp]

the only things that bother me are really bad fading and when stats are added to a piece when originally there were none.

 

I think the owner of the art should make it look however pleases them.

 

 

Totally agree with you, didn't say they couldn't. Just pointed out that it bothers me, didn't say that its wrong or ruins the art, just that it bothers me when its done.

[CollectingFool]

If done on a overlay, great no problem, but when added to the actual art board it bothers me.

 

OK, just wasn't clear on what you meant. There's tons of stuff being done to art these days in the name of "restoration" and I wasn't sure.

 

Personally, I don't like overlays. A lot of times I think that is more of an eye-sore than not having the stats. I think there are plenty of ways to attach something to the original that doesnt' affect the surface of the art or is completely reversible. Not easy to discuss without being able to show examples but needless to say it's obvious it's not original and it doesn't damage the art. I usually go that route.