Amazing Spiderman 313 Cover - Hammers at $71,200 on Ebay

[dem1138]

No ill will feelings towards the guy who made the comment. I just wasn't expecting it I guess. I am somewhat new to posting here but do like these boards and don't want any issues with any other collectors over dumb sh*t. What irks me more are the people who don't like mcfarlane art,. J/K

best

Matthew

 

Matthew,

 

I meant you no ill will either and welcome to the boards. I was simply ribbing you. I meant no more harm than when you were in school and you're passing notes and the teacher catches you passing a note and reprimands you and your buddies give you a hard time because you were the one that got caught. You certainly didn't do anything outside of the norm in this hobby, you just had the misfortune of having it printed publicly. I have no idea why Chris took so much offense as he seemed to read into what I wrote much more than I intended and I certainly did not deserve his ire. As Scott Williams said, you definitely need a sense of humor on these boards. You've owned an impressive array of McFarlane art in your time and your perspective is a more than welcome addition.

 

--David

 

[comix4fun]

No ill will feelings towards the guy who made the comment. I just wasn't expecting it I guess. I am somewhat new to posting here but do like these boards and don't want any issues with any other collectors over dumb sh*t. What irks me more are the people who don't like mcfarlane art,. J/K

best

Matthew

 

Matthew,

 

I meant you no ill will either and welcome to the boards. I was simply ribbing you. I meant no more harm than when you were in school and you're passing notes and the teacher catches you passing a note and reprimands you and your buddies give you a hard time because you were the one that got caught. You certainly didn't do anything outside of the norm in this hobby, you just had the misfortune of having it printed publicly. I have no idea why Chris took so much offense as he seemed to read into what I wrote much more than I intended and I certainly did not deserve his ire. As Scott Williams said, you definitely need a sense of humor on these boards. You've owned an impressive array of McFarlane art in your time and your perspective is a more than welcome addition.

 

--David

 

David

I asked a question as to where that comment came from in your back and forth dialogue. As far as I know you and Matt aren't friends. I rib my friends and they rib me all the time. Strangers on the other hand?

 

You were the one that read more into my "ire" than was there. If you think this is me mad, or me taking offense, then you don't know me. If you don't know that I have a sense of humor then you REALLY don't know me. I stand behind what I say and when I see someone else say something I expect them to do the same. When there's a question as to inflection or motive I zero in on that and ask about it. until I get an answer. It may have been too pointed a question for your taste, but that's probably the same way Matt felt about your comment. I guess that evens the scale.

 

I just could not understand where it came from because there was nothing in the back and forth that Matthew attempted to "rib" or "embarrass" you so it seemed to come out of nowhere. So I asked the question, and followed with examples of some guys that actually deserve embarrassment in this hobby in contrast to Matt's simply making a low offer.

 

Really, there's no need to make yourself the victim here. I asked a simple question as to why you thought your "ribbing" was called for. Then you back pedaled on the comment without answering me. You've explained it to Matthew and I guess he's the only one that needs an explanation.

 

It's not anything that's going to keep me awake at night, but when my "what the hell?" detector goes off I try to get answers. You came off like you had a personal problem with Matt. You may not think that's how you came off but you did.

 

Glad you made your amends with Matt. That's all that matters.

[dem1138]

But you made an assumption before you knew the facts and that was unfair. Matt and I did a deal long ago - all is well - and though I wouldn't say we're friends, we certainly aren't enemies.

[tth2]

Just for fun, if I were to break down my guess as to how the price got that high, here's my breakdown (this is just an exercise, I know there's no way to really quantify what someone is thinking at the time or that anyone is even thinking this way in the heat of an auction)

 

Actual love for the art itself: 20%

Nostalgia: 30%

Investment: 10%

Peeing contest/Bragging rights: 15%

I can afford it/this money means nothing to me: 15%

Auction Fever: 10%

Interesting way to look at it. My own take for comic OA in general, and not just this piece, would be:

 

Actual love for the art itself: 20%

Nostalgia: 50%

Investment: 5%

Peeing contest/Bragging rights: 20%

I can afford it/this money means nothing to me: 0%

Auction Fever: 5%

 

[Mephisto]

I do indeed believe that keeping up market values is one reason to bid not to win. That said, I think there are some bidders who put in an early high bid in an effort to intimidate other potential bidders.

 

I have tried that tactic on things I didn't really care if I won. It never worked and I would never do it on anything I really want. Max bid snipe near the end all the way.

[comix4fun]

But you made an assumption before you knew the facts and that was unfair. Matt and I did a deal long ago - all is well - and though I wouldn't say we're friends, we certainly aren't enemies.

 

 

I never said you were enemies.

 

I originally thought you posted it to take a shot at Matt.

 

At first you denied it, then you posted that you did, indeed, post it to rib him about his bid.

 

How was that unfair? You meant to take a shot at him and then you did, in fact, take a shot at him. It seems I had the facts pretty straight.

 

I never said anything about you being enemies or trying to destroy Matt or anything else in that regard. Christ, you could have just said you were joking around instead of defending your comment and denying it and claiming injury over the whole matter.

 

I thought it was unfair to knock him in that way and if you meant it as a joke or in an "all in fun" sort of way the use of these little guys helps.... or even Without something to denote it as a joke or in fun, it comes off as a snide comment. Matt took it that way too it seems.

 

Reread my first post about this matter. I think you might have made a few incorrect assumptions yourself about what I commented on, why, and whether or not I thought it was the end of the universe as we know it.

 

See? The little fellas help a lot.

 

[J.Sid]

I put the 313 cover in the top 3 ASM covers he did... It's awesome!

 

Question about ranking the McFarlanes: the 316 and the Hulk 340 are both in the first tier of Todd's work... Where does the Spider-Man 1 cover fit into this all? Iconic, widely reprinted, meticulously detailed....

 

 

[dem1138]

Chris,

 

I don't think anyone else cares. Feel free to PM me if you want to discuss further. This thread isn't about you and me.

 

--David

[comix4fun]

Chris,

 

I don't think anyone else cares. Feel free to PM me if you want to discuss further. This thread isn't about you and me.

 

--David

 

 

I agree. It's not about us, has never been.

[The Troll King]

Maybe. Maybe not. Don't forget the Heritage 20% premium ... $71K is really $85K at Heritage ...

Hopefully any bidder with $71K at his disposal would`ve been mathematically adept enough to factor the BP into his bid, so that his final bid inclusive of BP would`ve been $71K.

 

You and I have always been on the same page with this.

Feels like singing to deaf people sometimes doesn't it.

 

 

Dude you look like a mow-ron or a sheep with this post. If you don't understand the original point of my post then read it again or check the follow-up explanation in my 2nd post.

 

Sometimes it feels like I'm singing to you ...

 

 

I wasn't refering to your post at all actually only tth2's. Are you outting yourself as a shill with your last sentence?

[MyNameIsLegion]

Chris,

 

I don't think anyone else cares. Feel free to PM me if you want to discuss further. This thread isn't about you and me.

 

--David

 

 

Too Late!

 

 

BTW, why, oh why do you have pics of CGC comics you sold in your CAF gallery, a gallery of SOLD art items you no longer own, AND a for sale gallery when you're not a premium member who supports CAF? You trade in Kirby, Ditko, Miller, Gibbons and can't fork over $50 bucks a year?

 

as for the stupid money spent on the McFarlane cover, is is "worth" more than the average Buscema, Kirby, Everett, Wood, etc , etc, cover? No. For the same reason Lindsay Lohan is no Liz Taylor or Maureen O'hara. don't confuse popularity for talent. McFarlane is more celebrity than artist. McFarlane enjoys a level of celebrity because he was lucky enough to stand on the shoulders of artistic giants that toiled in relative obscurity with little financial success.

[dem1138]

See what I mean, Chris? This couldn't have been sent to me via PM? I don't even know MYNAMEISLEGION.

 

You're right though, my new friend, I should be a premium member - and I just rectified that issue and renewed my membership.

 

And I LOVE McFarlane - always have -- I can absolutely identify with those that worship him because I was the same young collector who couldn't wait for each new issue of ASM that he did.

[MyNameIsLegion]

See what I mean, Chris? This couldn't have been sent to me via PM? I don't even know MYNAMEISLEGION.

 

You're right though, my new friend, I should be a premium member - and I just rectified that issue and renewed my membership.

 

And I LOVE McFarlane - always have -- I can absolutely identify with those that worship him because I was the same young collector who couldn't wait for each new issue of ASM that he did.

 

Every time you sign up for a CAF premiere membership, an angel gets his wings. I renewed mine for a third year a couple weeks ago. It's the right thing to do! (thumbs u

 

yeah, I thought Jim Lee X-Men was the shiznit back in the day too, but 20 years later, despite some nostalgia for the material, I fully realize my part in destroying the comics industry in purchasing at least 3 copies of X-Men #1 x however many covers were. Still, none of it holds a candle to Neal Adams X-Men, or Kirby FF. Just a couple of the aforementioned giants.

 

 

 

[The Troll King]

Chris,

 

I don't think anyone else cares. Feel free to PM me if you want to discuss further. This thread isn't about you and me.

 

--David

 

 

Too Late!

 

 

BTW, why, oh why do you have pics of CGC comics you sold in your CAF gallery, a gallery of SOLD art items you no longer own, AND a for sale gallery when you're not a premium member who supports CAF? You trade in Kirby, Ditko, Miller, Gibbons and can't fork over $50 bucks a year?

 

as for the stupid money spent on the McFarlane cover, is is "worth" more than the average Buscema, Kirby, Everett, Wood, etc , etc, cover? No. For the same reason Lindsay Lohan is no Liz Taylor or Maureen O'hara. don't confuse popularity for talent. McFarlane is more celebrity than artist. McFarlane enjoys a level of celebrity because he was lucky enough to stand on the shoulders of artistic giants that toiled in relative obscurity with little financial success.

 

[glendgold]

 

yeah, I thought Jim Lee X-Men was the shiznit back in the day too, but 20 years later, despite some nostalgia for the material, I fully realize my part in destroying the comics industry in purchasing at least 3 copies of X-Men #1 x however many covers were. Still, none of it holds a candle to Neal Adams X-Men, or Kirby FF. Just a couple of the aforementioned giants.

 

 

 

As a guy who collects Kirby and Ditko and doesn't care about McFarlane one way or the other, I have to -- well, not exactly disagree, but suggest we don't know yet. I've been reading a lot of collector history lately, and you can see every decade or so, there's a cry among the old guard of "Who are these children taking the place of ____________" and you can fill in the blank with the name of some genius that is perhaps in apogee at that moment. I'm sure when people collected Howard Pyle, they were grousing about this NC Wyeth clown coming in with his fancy washtones.

 

When I started collecting, I recall people feeling that real artists were Foster, Raymond, Wood and that Byrne, Miller, and their ilk would go away. Didn't happen. On the other hand, some flashy guys whose style seemed like it would keep its value did instead fizzle out.

 

While the price on the McFarlane startles me, I recognize that $71K is the price of a very good Kirby twice-up cover, or an excellent Alex Raymond Flash, or an excellent Nemo or whatnot. That suggests he currently has his fans, the same way Jeff Koons or Damien Hirst, whose aesthetics don't mesh with mine, have theirs. In another 20 or 30 years maybe we'll know more about his place in the pantheon.

 

I like a quote from Georges Franju, who was a surrealist: "What is artificial ages badly....What pleases is what is terrible, gentle and poetic." Keep that in mind when trying to figure out whether art from the 1990s is vintage or corked.

 

Glen

[stinkininkin]

yeah, I thought Jim Lee X-Men was the shiznit back in the day too, but 20 years later, despite some nostalgia for the material, I fully realize my part in destroying the comics industry in purchasing at least 3 copies of X-Men #1 x however many covers were. Still, none of it holds a candle to Neal Adams X-Men, or Kirby FF. Just a couple of the aforementioned giants.

 

 

 

As a guy who collects Kirby and Ditko and doesn't care about McFarlane one way or the other, I have to -- well, not exactly disagree, but suggest we don't know yet. I've been reading a lot of collector history lately, and you can see every decade or so, there's a cry among the old guard of "Who are these children taking the place of ____________" and you can fill in the blank with the name of some genius that is perhaps in apogee at that moment. I'm sure when people collected Howard Pyle, they were grousing about this NC Wyeth clown coming in with his fancy washtones.

 

When I started collecting, I recall people feeling that real artists were Foster, Raymond, Wood and that Byrne, Miller, and their ilk would go away. Didn't happen. On the other hand, some flashy guys whose style seemed like it would keep its value did instead fizzle out.

 

While the price on the McFarlane startles me, I recognize that $71K is the price of a very good Kirby twice-up cover, or an excellent Alex Raymond Flash, or an excellent Nemo or whatnot. That suggests he currently has his fans, the same way Jeff Koons or Damien Hirst, whose aesthetics don't mesh with mine, have theirs. In another 20 or 30 years maybe we'll know more about his place in the pantheon.

 

I like a quote from Georges Franju, who was a surrealist: "What is artificial ages badly....What pleases is what is terrible, gentle and poetic." Keep that in mind when trying to figure out whether art from the 1990s is vintage or corked.

 

Glen

 

Best post I've seen on this board in a long time. Well said Glen.

 

Scott Williams

[tth2]

I was called crazy and stupid then. No doubt reading some of the post here, it's still considered crazy today by others. But for me, that was the cover that meant a lot to me from my comic reading days.

Nothing sweeter than to prove to a bunch of people who called you crazy that they were dead wrong.

[tth2]

And I LOVE McFarlane - always have -- I can absolutely identify with those that worship him because I was the same young collector who couldn't wait for each new issue of ASM that he did.

I like McFarlane too. I guess I can understand all the negativity that he seems to generate among members of these boards, because the size of the backlash is usually proportionate to the success of the backlash target, but I think it's unfair.

 

McFarlane was HUGE in his day. In my opinion, he re-ignited Marvel in the late 80s and set it up for Marvel Zombie-mania in the early 90s. Now whether Marvel then proceeded to screw the pooch by engaging in all the multiple cover/cover gimmick excesses that have now tainted that era, the fact is that was the main person that allowed Marvel to become popular enough to try to get away with that kind of stuff.

 

Very few artists are big enough to have an entire era identified with them. Kirby was the 1960s. Byrne and Miller were the late 1970s and early 1980s. The late 1980s and early 1990s were McFarlane. Yes, there were the other 2 members of that triumvirate, Lee and Liefeld, but in my opinion they rode on McFarlane's coat tails (well, certainly Liefeld did).

 

A whole generation of comic collectors started collecting comics during this era. So it doesn't surprise me at all that McFarlane art is so highly coveted by them, anymore than it surprises me that collectors who started collecting in the 1970s really covet Sal Buscema.

[MyNameIsLegion]

yeah, I thought Jim Lee X-Men was the shiznit back in the day too, but 20 years later, despite some nostalgia for the material, I fully realize my part in destroying the comics industry in purchasing at least 3 copies of X-Men #1 x however many covers were. Still, none of it holds a candle to Neal Adams X-Men, or Kirby FF. Just a couple of the aforementioned giants.

 

 

 

As a guy who collects Kirby and Ditko and doesn't care about McFarlane one way or the other, I have to -- well, not exactly disagree, but suggest we don't know yet. I've been reading a lot of collector history lately, and you can see every decade or so, there's a cry among the old guard of "Who are these children taking the place of ____________" and you can fill in the blank with the name of some genius that is perhaps in apogee at that moment. I'm sure when people collected Howard Pyle, they were grousing about this NC Wyeth clown coming in with his fancy washtones.

 

When I started collecting, I recall people feeling that real artists were Foster, Raymond, Wood and that Byrne, Miller, and their ilk would go away. Didn't happen. On the other hand, some flashy guys whose style seemed like it would keep its value did instead fizzle out.

 

While the price on the McFarlane startles me, I recognize that $71K is the price of a very good Kirby twice-up cover, or an excellent Alex Raymond Flash, or an excellent Nemo or whatnot. That suggests he currently has his fans, the same way Jeff Koons or Damien Hirst, whose aesthetics don't mesh with mine, have theirs. In another 20 or 30 years maybe we'll know more about his place in the pantheon.

 

I like a quote from Georges Franju, who was a surrealist: "What is artificial ages badly....What pleases is what is terrible, gentle and poetic." Keep that in mind when trying to figure out whether art from the 1990s is vintage or corked.

 

Glen

 

Best post I've seen on this board in a long time. Well said Glen.

 

Scott Williams

 

 

Ditto that Scott, and I know you're biased, but despite my argument to put modern artists in the proper context of the medium's history, I STILL think X-Men #268, #274, and #275 were freaking incredible stand outs for their decade, and props to your for your hand in them!

 

Sean L.

[MyNameIsLegion]

And I LOVE McFarlane - always have -- I can absolutely identify with those that worship him because I was the same young collector who couldn't wait for each new issue of ASM that he did.

I like McFarlane too. I guess I can understand all the negativity that he seems to generate among members of these boards, because the size of the backlash is usually proportionate to the success of the backlash target, but I think it's unfair.

 

McFarlane was HUGE in his day. In my opinion, he re-ignited Marvel in the late 80s and set it up for Marvel Zombie-mania in the early 90s. Now whether Marvel then proceeded to screw the pooch by engaging in all the multiple cover/cover gimmick excesses that have now tainted that era, the fact is that was the main person that allowed Marvel to become popular enough to try to get away with that kind of stuff.

 

Very few artists are big enough to have an entire era identified with them. Kirby was the 1960s. Byrne and Miller were the late 1970s and early 1980s. The late 1980s and early 1990s were McFarlane. Yes, there were the other 2 members of that triumvirate, Lee and Liefeld, but in my opinion they rode on McFarlane's coat tails (well, certainly Liefeld did).

 

A whole generation of comic collectors started collecting comics during this era. So it doesn't surprise me at all that McFarlane art is so highly coveted by them, anymore than it surprises me that collectors who started collecting in the 1970s really covet Sal Buscema.

 

 

We'll let's not crown Todd King just yet. And if we do its not for his art, his influence maybe, in kicking off Image, which is collectively what came to dominate the early 90's, when the whole business model changed and the talent became more popular than the characters they drew. (at least for a time- Shadowhawk, Youngblood, Brigade, Union, Wildstar, Pitt, etc, etc anyone?) McFarlane drew less than a few dozen issues in his time, Kirby drew more than that in busy year. The McFarlane body of work is truthfully rather thin. As for influence, I'd say Jim Lee Clone says it all, that phrase was bandied about for over a decade. No one talked about McFarlane clones. I guess the one thing the Image artist's have going for them is scarcity- they'll never touch the output of Kiby, dillin, Swan, Buscema, et. al.