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

[clemso]

I do agree with Felix that I thought the two bidders at 20 feedback and 26 feedback were possibly thrill bidding or shill bidding just based on the bidding history. However, I did find out today that one of those bidders was legitimate. Once it hit past 58k, he was out.

 

I can confirm that I've been offered more money for my ASM 316 than what was realized last night for the 313. The sale of the 313 just reinforces in my mind that I can never sell my 316 cover because the cost of replacing it is just ridiculous now.

 

Love him or loathe him, the Mcfarlane art market isn't going anywhere because there seems to be enough well-heeled buyers who legitimately drive this market.

 

 

Wow, just looked at your 316 cover, awesome, i bet you don't think you over paid now.

[CollectingFool]

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.

 

I haven't been collecting OA that long but to me they are the true artists of the medium. Throw in Herriman and McCay too. Even above Kirby and Ditko. Byrne and Miller shouldn't be mentioned in the same breath. You want to know who the REAL artists are? Try to imagine what the market for an artist would be if nostalgia wasn't a big part of the formula. I don't think anyone buying Krazy Kat, Little Nemo or Raymond Flash Gordon right now fondly remembers running to the newsstand to buy the latest newspaper. They have survived because the art can stand on it's own without nostalgia proping it up. Without (for the most part) modern pop culture creating new fans of the characters.

 

I don't think we'll ever be able to find out if Kirby or Ditko would have fared as well. Their creations have become such a part of our consciousness there may always be some level of nostalgia tied to their artwork. Byrne and Miller? They happened to be the artists on popular storylines and the people who remember their art fondly are now the driving force of the economy. They didn't lay the foundation for an industry. They didn't create the universe everyone else gets to play in. Give me the "old masters" anyday.

[Bronty]

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.

 

are you kidding? there were lots of mcfarlane clones or rather artists "inspired" by him. I remember having those conversations back in the day

 

Tim,

 

good point about his domination of the decade. That's something that can't be taken from him.

[jjonahjameson1]

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.

 

Well, I'd say a lot of folks talked about McFarlane clones during the timeframe mentioned throughout the course of your discussion, and off the top of my head, the following McFarlane clones come to mind:

 

-Rob Liefeld

-Erik Larsen (started as McFarlane clone immediately following Todd's departure from ASM, and later changed his style to more closely resemble Kirby)

-Marat Michaels

-Stephen Platt

 

There were lots more, but their names escape me.

A few other notable changes initated by Todd are still being followed by other artists to this day:

 

-huge Spidey eyes

-funky, twisted webbing

-extremely long, flowing capes

-more 'Spider-like' poses

 

Furthermore, I think Todd pencilled and inked ASM on a bi-weekly schedule for two summers (alas, my memory fades and I could be wrong about this point)

 

Regarding the comparison of Todds' output to others, well, honestly, I'd rather have a few good McFarlane years (or Lee, Miller, Byrne, etc) than 10 years of a mediocre artist (not citing anyone specifically here).

 

[tth2]

Byrne and Miller? They happened to be the artists on popular storylines

Boy, I would not agree with that at all. They made the books popular, they weren`t just along for the ride.

 

Yes, the new X-Men were more popular than the old X-Men (which ain`t saying a whole lot), and I loved the Dave Cockrum run and I loved Claremont`s writing throughout. But it was Byrne`s art that catapaulted the title into mega-stardom. After Byrne went on the book, it seemed to go overnight from a fairly popular book to the hottest book in the land, and until McFarlane took over on Spider-Man, in my opinion X-Men was the top Marvel book (how`s that for taking us full circle in this thread?).

 

As for Miller, Daredevil was a 4th tier title when he took over. After Miller took over, everybody in the hobby and industry was buzzing about it, and my guess is that the main demographic for the title shifted overnight from kids to college students.

[dem1138]

tth2 has it correct - those artists made those books.

 

And though it may be hard for newer collectors to realize, McFarlane was THE artist of that era. Image would not have been Image without him. Jim Lee was one of the stronger artists in that crew, but McFarlane really led the pack out of Marvel. It's a pretty impressive story because Marvel was paying McFarlane extremely well but he still insisted on blazing his own trail.

 

Has anyone read that Image biography? Is it a good read?

[tth2]

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?)

Who reveres McFarlane for his Image work over his Spiderman and Hulk run at Marvel, or who bids up his Marvel work because he was the founder of Image?

 

His Marvel work is mega-popular because it was seminal in many collectors` initial collecting experience. Heck, I`d been collecting for a good 15 years before he came on the scene, and had NEVER been a Hulk or Spiderman fan, but I started buying those titles regularly after I noticed his art. Of course with Hulk there was the excellent Peter David writing, but first and foremost it was McFarlane`s art that even got me to notice those titles.

 

It was McFarlane`s popularity that allowed Marvel to start publishing Spiderman TWICE a month for a while. This hadn`t happened since, what, Whiz or Capt Marvel Adventures at the height of the GA?

 

McFarlane drew less than a few dozen issues in his time, Kirby drew more than that in busy year.

Totally different circumstances. Thanks to the rise of creator rights in comics, McFarlane didn`t NEED to be so prolific. But it`s an unfair comparison for any artist because even workhorses like the Buscema brothers never had the output that Kirby did.

 

Plus, it`s not like the other darling of SA collectors, Steve Ditko, had a huge body of work at Marvel either.

 

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.

So what? If we measured artists based on productivity, then Steranko and Windsor-Smith would be nobodies.

[Galactus]

tth2 has it correct - those artists made those books.

 

And though it may be hard for newer collectors to realize, McFarlane was THE artist of that era. Image would not have been Image without him. Jim Lee was one of the stronger artists in that crew, but McFarlane really led the pack out of Marvel. It's a pretty impressive story because Marvel was paying McFarlane extremely well but he still insisted on blazing his own trail.

 

Has anyone read that Image biography? Is it a good read?

 

I have a slightly different take on this, in the sense that all the Image founders had a following, some more so than others as well as some unique to just their work. From what i saw firsthand and discussed, with both shop owners and other collectors at the time, it was Jim Lee first and foremost that made Image a publisher that brought people to its fold and then McFarlane, a close but inevitable second.

 

 

[batman_fan]

tth2 has it correct - those artists made those books.

 

And though it may be hard for newer collectors to realize, McFarlane was THE artist of that era. Image would not have been Image without him. Jim Lee was one of the stronger artists in that crew, but McFarlane really led the pack out of Marvel. It's a pretty impressive story because Marvel was paying McFarlane extremely well but he still insisted on blazing his own trail.

 

Has anyone read that Image biography? Is it a good read?

 

I couldn't agree more. John Byrne, love him or hate him, but acknowledge the amount and quality of his work. Just look at the cover he did for the Superman re-launch during the 1980's. I would LOVE to own the original cover art to this book. Absolutely LOVE to own it. McFarlane's run on Spiderman was amazing for me. I remember actually looking forward to Spiderman to come out each month and just marveling at how nice the cover art was. I can't say I have experienced that excitement with any other title since then.

 

 

[dem1138]

tth2 has it correct - those artists made those books.

 

And though it may be hard for newer collectors to realize, McFarlane was THE artist of that era. Image would not have been Image without him. Jim Lee was one of the stronger artists in that crew, but McFarlane really led the pack out of Marvel. It's a pretty impressive story because Marvel was paying McFarlane extremely well but he still insisted on blazing his own trail.

 

Has anyone read that Image biography? Is it a good read?

 

I have a slightly different take on this, in the sense that all the Image founders had a following, some more so than others as well as some unique to just their work. From what i saw firsthand and discussed, with both shop owners and other collectors at the time, it was Jim Lee first and foremost that made Image a publisher that brought people to its fold and then McFarlane, a close but inevitable second.

 

 

That's a really interesting perspective, thanks for sharing. My opinion was based on how me and my comic friends felt and from the impression I got from going to local cons and reading the magazines. We liked Jim Lee, but he always came second to McFarlane. I bought every Hulk and every ASM he did (along with Invasion -- so you know I'm a true fan!) but I only bought a few issues of X-Men because Jim Lee was on it. McFarlane, from my recollections, was the revolutionary - his style and the prolific nature of his work in that short time was really what made him the best (to me).

[pinupcartoonguy]

tth2 has it correct - those artists made those books.

 

And though it may be hard for newer collectors to realize, McFarlane was THE artist of that era. Image would not have been Image without him. Jim Lee was one of the stronger artists in that crew, but McFarlane really led the pack out of Marvel. It's a pretty impressive story because Marvel was paying McFarlane extremely well but he still insisted on blazing his own trail.

 

Has anyone read that Image biography? Is it a good read?

 

I couldn't agree more. John Byrne, love him or hate him, but acknowledge the amount and quality of his work. Just look at the cover he did for the Superman re-launch during the 1980's. I would LOVE to own the original cover art to this book. Absolutely LOVE to own it. McFarlane's run on Spiderman was amazing for me. I remember actually looking forward to Spiderman to come out each month and just marveling at how nice the cover art was. I can't say I have experienced that excitement with any other title since then.

 

 

You have been 15 since then

[Comic Art Con]

Well said Ken.

 

Dan

[Galactus]

tth2 has it correct - those artists made those books.

 

And though it may be hard for newer collectors to realize, McFarlane was THE artist of that era. Image would not have been Image without him. Jim Lee was one of the stronger artists in that crew, but McFarlane really led the pack out of Marvel. It's a pretty impressive story because Marvel was paying McFarlane extremely well but he still insisted on blazing his own trail.

 

Has anyone read that Image biography? Is it a good read?

 

I have a slightly different take on this, in the sense that all the Image founders had a following, some more so than others as well as some unique to just their work. From what i saw firsthand and discussed, with both shop owners and other collectors at the time, it was Jim Lee first and foremost that made Image a publisher that brought people to its fold and then McFarlane, a close but inevitable second.

 

 

That's a really interesting perspective, thanks for sharing. My opinion was based on how me and my comic friends felt and from the impression I got from going to local cons and reading the magazines. We liked Jim Lee, but he always came second to McFarlane. I bought every Hulk and every ASM he did (along with Invasion -- so you know I'm a true fan!) but I only bought a few issues of X-Men because Jim Lee was on it. McFarlane, from my recollections, was the revolutionary - his style and the prolific nature of his work in that short time was really what made him the best (to me).

 

I would probably agree with you that McFarlane was much more of a revolutionary in terms of art style to Lee, but then again a lot of people who grew up reading more Lee type mainstream art in the 70's and early 80's from the likes of Adams to Perez, really appreciated Lee's art style over the more modern style that McFarlane developed.

 

Overall i think the Image creators all brought something to the table in terms of fan appreciation.

 

[Claudio]

tth2 has it correct - those artists made those books.

 

And though it may be hard for newer collectors to realize, McFarlane was THE artist of that era. Image would not have been Image without him. Jim Lee was one of the stronger artists in that crew, but McFarlane really led the pack out of Marvel. It's a pretty impressive story because Marvel was paying McFarlane extremely well but he still insisted on blazing his own trail.

 

Has anyone read that Image biography? Is it a good read?

 

I have a slightly different take on this, in the sense that all the Image founders had a following, some more so than others as well as some unique to just their work. From what i saw firsthand and discussed, with both shop owners and other collectors at the time, it was Jim Lee first and foremost that made Image a publisher that brought people to its fold and then McFarlane, a close but inevitable second.

 

 

That's a really interesting perspective, thanks for sharing. My opinion was based on how me and my comic friends felt and from the impression I got from going to local cons and reading the magazines. We liked Jim Lee, but he always came second to McFarlane. I bought every Hulk and every ASM he did (along with Invasion -- so you know I'm a true fan!) but I only bought a few issues of X-Men because Jim Lee was on it. McFarlane, from my recollections, was the revolutionary - his style and the prolific nature of his work in that short time was really what made him the best (to me).

 

I think you were in the majority. Probably the vast majority of people would admit it was McFarlane who was the "man" at Image. I don't think it was even close.

[rman444]

 

I have a slightly different take on this, in the sense that all the Image founders had a following, some more so than others as well as some unique to just their work. From what i saw firsthand and discussed, with both shop owners and other collectors at the time, it was Jim Lee first and foremost that made Image a publisher that brought people to its fold and then McFarlane, a close but inevitable second.

 

 

+1

 

And I love Mcfarlane, too!

 

 

[stinkininkin]

tth2 has it correct - those artists made those books.

 

And though it may be hard for newer collectors to realize, McFarlane was THE artist of that era. Image would not have been Image without him. Jim Lee was one of the stronger artists in that crew, but McFarlane really led the pack out of Marvel. It's a pretty impressive story because Marvel was paying McFarlane extremely well but he still insisted on blazing his own trail.

 

Has anyone read that Image biography? Is it a good read?

 

I have a slightly different take on this, in the sense that all the Image founders had a following, some more so than others as well as some unique to just their work. From what i saw firsthand and discussed, with both shop owners and other collectors at the time, it was Jim Lee first and foremost that made Image a publisher that brought people to its fold and then McFarlane, a close but inevitable second.

 

 

 

 

That's a really interesting perspective, thanks for sharing. My opinion was based on how me and my comic friends felt and from the impression I got from going to local cons and reading the magazines. We liked Jim Lee, but he always came second to McFarlane. I bought every Hulk and every ASM he did (along with Invasion -- so you know I'm a true fan!) but I only bought a few issues of X-Men because Jim Lee was on it. McFarlane, from my recollections, was the revolutionary - his style and the prolific nature of his work in that short time was really what made him the best (to me).

 

I think you were in the majority. Probably the vast majority of people would admit it was McFarlane who was the "man" at Image. I don't think it was even close.

 

For what it's worth, my perspective from the inside was that it WAS close. Both of these guys were just huge back then, and love their work or hate it, there is no denying it. The passion of the fans at conventions and signings was surreal and unreal and a once in a lifetime thing to experience. Having said that, I think that McFarlane probably was in the top position. He was a singular creator who wrote, penciled and inked his own work, while Jim shared the spotlight and creative direction with his writers and inker(s). I think the McFarlane model counts for a lot. I've always admired the creators who had a singular vision and did the hard work of executing it all themselves. I'm not saying collaborations can't create great comics, I'm just saying I am personally more impressed when an artist is so talented that he can take on multiple tasks and create something that people will talk about for decades and beyond such as what it happening on this board today.

 

Scott Williams

[dem1138]

Scott,

 

Please share more! You offer such a unique perspective...

 

--David

 

[Claudio]

Maybe I misread Galactus' post. He said that Jim Lee broght people to Image's fold. That could be true. I think I focused on the part where he said the creators had a following and I assumed that he meant Jim Lee's following brought more customers and fans to Image. I would dispute that highly.

[cheekyj2112]

 

 

For what it's worth, my perspective from the inside was that it WAS close. Both of these guys were just huge back then, and love their work or hate it, there is no denying it. The passion of the fans at conventions and signings was surreal and unreal and a once in a lifetime thing to experience. Having said that, I think that McFarlane probably was in the top position. He was a singular creator who wrote, penciled and inked his own work, while Jim shared the spotlight and creative direction with his writers and inker(s). I think the McFarlane model counts for a lot. I've always admired the creators who had a singular vision and did the hard work of executing it all themselves. I'm not saying collaborations can't create great comics, I'm just saying I am personally more impressed when an artist is so talented that he can take on multiple tasks and create something that people will talk about for decades and beyond such as what it happening on this board today.

 

Scott Williams

 

Scott

 

I find your take intereresting as I noticed many of my own favourite creators were largely one man storytellers - Frank Miller, Matt Wagner, Dave Sim etc. I enjoyed Mcfarlane's work on Amazing Spidey quite a bit and looked forward to it. When I heard he was moving onto a new Spidey title I was duly caught up in the hype. Until I read it. I thought the writing was just risible and I vividly recall friends who worked in comic shops repeating some of the lines and falling about laughing. Many of the Image titles seemed to have no editorial/quality control so between that and the ridiculous gimmick/novelty covers I decided that I had fallen out of love with comics and stopped collecting for the next few years. Having spoken to other collectors I see that my experience was not isolated. In the UK I've met a number of collectors dipping back in after having dropped out in the early 90's, disenchanted with the trends in comics and in particular Image.

Just my experience of course.

[dem1138]

I think it's interesting to note that Miller/McFarlane et al brought me into comics and kept me there through my youth, it was Bendis, a writer, that brought me back in over the last several years. Bruce Jones started on Hulk and Bendis was blowing readers away on Daredevil and that's what really drew me back in. There was definitely a modern renaissance of quality writing over the last several years, though that seems to have dropped off over the last two years.