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

[pinupcartoonguy]

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

In theory, I agree with what you're saying, but there are not that many people who can pull it off. McFarlane was definitely not one of them, because he couldn't write his way out of a paper bag, just like Kirby couldn't do it when he tried in the 70s. I always thought that he would've been better served by having someone else writing Spiderman and Spawn. Lee was smart enough to realize what he could do and couldn't do, although he didn't get any great writers on Wildcats either.

 

In the end, I always felt that Image was done in by the fact that their books were pretty to look at but not good reading.

 

I think they were also done in by the fact the most of the books didn't come out on a consistent basis.

[MyNameIsLegion]

Any way you look at it, these two should be the 1st two names mentioned when you want to talk about Modern age artists. It's like Kirby and Ditko in the 60's, Lee and McFarlane in the 90's period.

 

My Hulk 340 may be an Iconic piece but my all time favorite piece is my Batman 608 cover by Jim/Williams. Thanks again Scott for letting it go.

 

 

Lee/McFarlane DOES NOT = Kirby/Ditko. That's patently ridiculous. That like saying Stones/Beatles = Britney Spears/Hanna Montana. Like I said upthread- don't confuse talent with celebrity/popularity. Just because Todd enjoyed Rockstar treatment and fan fervor at San Diego Con don't mean spit. Different market, different time. There was no SDCC of that proportion and promotion when Kirby/Ditko where in their prime.

 

Liefeld's meteoric rise and equally swift fall were appropriate to his true value and influence to the medium. Todd sidestepped it by branching out into other businesses and slowly divorcing himself form the medium that made him rich. Jim Lee was the only one that rose out of the ashes of Image, came full circle, and got back to being what he was meant to be, an ARTIST. He's proved himself more than a passing fad.

 

20 years later, after Image, and 20 more years from now, the only thing anyone is going to look back on from that era of comics is Watchmen, Dark Knight, and Sandman. ALL writer driven. No one is going to be waxing nostalgic over the the first year of Spawn/Wildcats/Youngblood, or even the work they ripped off with Spidey/X-Men/X-Force. Watchmen and Sandman have been in print in some format for over 20 years, and that's not likely to stop.

[tth2]

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

In theory, I agree with what you're saying, but there are not that many people who can pull it off. McFarlane was definitely not one of them, because he couldn't write his way out of a paper bag, just like Kirby couldn't do it when he tried in the 70s. I always thought that he would've been better served by having someone else writing Spiderman and Spawn. Lee was smart enough to realize what he could do and couldn't do, although he didn't get any great writers on Wildcats either.

 

In the end, I always felt that Image was done in by the fact that their books were pretty to look at but not good reading.

 

I think they were also done in by the fact the most of the books didn't come out on a consistent basis.

True, but that probably didn't bother me because I'd stopped actually reading the damn things because the writing was so lame.

 

Does any artist's Image OA compare price-wise to the same artist's work at Marvel?

[tth2]

Any way you look at it, these two should be the 1st two names mentioned when you want to talk about Modern age artists. It's like Kirby and Ditko in the 60's, Lee and McFarlane in the 90's period.

 

My Hulk 340 may be an Iconic piece but my all time favorite piece is my Batman 608 cover by Jim/Williams. Thanks again Scott for letting it go.

 

 

Lee/McFarlane DOES NOT = Kirby/Ditko. That's patently ridiculous. That like saying Stones/Beatles = Britney Spears/Hanna Montana. Like I said upthread- don't confuse talent with celebrity/popularity. Just because Todd enjoyed Rockstar treatment and fan fervor at San Diego Con don't mean spit. Different market, different time. There was no SDCC of that proportion and promotion when Kirby/Ditko where in their prime.

Whoa, easy there, tiger! Unless you're here to intentionally pick a fight, LT wasn't necessarily saying they were as great, he was just saying that as much as the 60s are associated with Kirby/Ditko, the 90s get associated with McFarlane/Lee. It's a not a judgment on quality, it's just a statement of a commonly held perception, which I happen to totally agree with.

 

Just because someone says the 60s get associated with the Beatles and the 70s get associated with the Bee Gees doesn't mean that person is saying the Bee Gees = Beatles.

 

[Sequential T]

In the end, I always felt that Image was done in by the fact that their books were pretty to look at but not good reading.

 

Well, the company was called IMAGE for a reason. I always assumed that's why they focused so much more on the visual side of the storytelling, rather then the writing side. It was certainly "truth in advertising," back in those days, if nothing else.

[rob_react]

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

 

Only if the bidder doesn't understand how a buyers premium works.

[rob_react]

Back to the original topic (although the intervening discussion has been great in places)

 

Is this the highest price paid for OA on eBay? I've been tracking comic-related sales for several years and can't remember anything selling for this much (I haven't actually gone through the list so my memory may be faulty.)

[William Woo]

Any way you look at it, these two should be the 1st two names mentioned when you want to talk about Modern age artists. It's like Kirby and Ditko in the 60's, Lee and McFarlane in the 90's period.

 

My Hulk 340 may be an Iconic piece but my all time favorite piece is my Batman 608 cover by Jim/Williams. Thanks again Scott for letting it go.

 

 

Lee/McFarlane DOES NOT = Kirby/Ditko. That's patently ridiculous. That like saying Stones/Beatles = Britney Spears/Hanna Montana. Like I said upthread- don't confuse talent with celebrity/popularity. Just because Todd enjoyed Rockstar treatment and fan fervor at San Diego Con don't mean spit. Different market, different time. There was no SDCC of that proportion and promotion when Kirby/Ditko where in their prime.

Whoa, easy there, tiger! Unless you're here to intentionally pick a fight, LT wasn't necessarily saying they were as great, he was just saying that as much as the 60s are associated with Kirby/Ditko, the 90s get associated with McFarlane/Lee. It's a not a judgment on quality, it's just a statement of a commonly held perception, which I happen to totally agree with.

 

Just because someone says the 60s get associated with the Beatles and the 70s get associated with the Bee Gees doesn't mean that person is saying the Bee Gees = Beatles.

 

Thank you tth2, well said !!

[spider9698]

Catwalk by Frazetta sold about 10 years ago for 125K or so on ebay.

 

[rob_react]

Catwalk by Frazetta sold about 10 years ago for 125K or so on ebay.

 

But for pure comic book work, this is the top price?

[theloveforart]

 

"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."

 

Wow,

Ruben i can't believe that you actually feel that John Byrne just happened to be on a popular storyline... that must be one of the funniest comment i have read in a while.

Are we talking about the same John Byrne that pretty much took control over every single title that MARVEL had and made it that much better (his stint on the x-men is pretty much the best ART to come out of MARVEL ever, i would also like to big up Terry Austin, for me the best inker right next to Sinnot and Stone. What about what John did with Fantastic Four would you call that just riding a popular title.

John Byrne was actually an incredible artist if not the best artist back in the 75 to 85 era.

Here is something interesting for you to think about, I have 2 copies of art pages that i love hanging on my walls at work, one is a FF kirby and Joe Sinnot page, one is a John Byrne, Terry Austin x-men page, i work in a marketing department with about 25 graphic designers from different age groups that all studied at art schools ( some like comic book art and some don't), which page do you think pretty much ever one likes ( i would say 22 to 3 ) over the other???

I will give you a clue, you said that he should not even be mentioned in the same breath as Kirby.

 

Krazy Kat??? Little Nemo? or Raymond Flash Gordon??

If i ever have a longing to collect something that artistically TO ME is as fun as listening to elevator music then i will let you know.

Raul

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[cheekyj2112]

Catwalk by Frazetta sold about 10 years ago for 125K or so on ebay.

 

But for pure comic book work, this is the top price?

 

I believe the art for TMNT 1 sold on ebay a couple of years ago for $250k.

 

 

[rob_react]

Catwalk by Frazetta sold about 10 years ago for 125K or so on ebay.

 

But for pure comic book work, this is the top price?

 

I believe the art for TMNT 1 sold on ebay a couple of years ago for $250k.

 

 

Forgot about that.

[dem1138]

Catwalk by Frazetta sold about 10 years ago for 125K or so on ebay.

 

But for pure comic book work, this is the top price?

 

I believe the art for TMNT 1 sold on ebay a couple of years ago for $250k.

 

 

Forgot about that.

 

That was the entire book though.

[rob_react]

Catwalk by Frazetta sold about 10 years ago for 125K or so on ebay.

 

But for pure comic book work, this is the top price?

 

I believe the art for TMNT 1 sold on ebay a couple of years ago for $250k.

 

 

Forgot about that.

 

That was the entire book though. [/quote

 

True. Not a 1:1 comparison, so this is a different record.

 

This is the top cover, then.

[comix4fun]

Catwalk by Frazetta sold about 10 years ago for 125K or so on ebay.

 

But for pure comic book work, this is the top price?

 

I believe the art for TMNT 1 sold on ebay a couple of years ago for $250k.

 

 

Forgot about that.

 

That was the entire book though. [/quote

 

True. Not a 1:1 comparison, so this is a different record.

 

This is the top cover, then.

 

 

Break out the TMNT cover from the pages at their retail value and you have at least $100k for the cover and $150k for interiors (which is a generous interior valuation).

 

TMNT is still ahead of this one.

[spider9698]

Agree. TMNT is the winnah!!!

[Nexus]

The TMNT auction started at $250K and had one bidder, iirc. Something else that separates it from this McFarlane auction.

 

Broken out, that same buyer might very well have paid $100K just for the cover. But would anyone else come close? If it started low at auction, like the McFarlane did, I don't see it hitting six figures. Anyone could say they would bid that high (besides the one buyer), but I'll believe it when I see it. Six figures is still a rare occurrence for OA.

 

Personally, I like the TMNT cover better than the ASM #313 and I also think it's more important. But I think there would be more people willing to pony up for a McFarlane ASM cover than TMNT.

[comix4fun]

The TMNT auction started at $250K and had one bidder, iirc. Something else that separates it from this McFarlane auction.

 

Broken out, that same buyer might very well have paid $100K just for the cover. But would anyone else come close? If it started low at auction, like the McFarlane did, I don't see it hitting six figures. Anyone could say they would bid that high (besides the one buyer), but I'll believe it when I see it. Six figures is still a rare occurrence for OA.

 

Personally, I like the TMNT cover better than the ASM #313 and I also think it's more important. But I think there would be more people willing to pony up for a McFarlane ASM cover than TMNT.

 

 

However, in that vein, if you put the 313 and the TMNT on Ebay with $100k BIN's which one sells and which one doesn't?

 

At the end of the day both pieces sold. I think getting into the details of whether it was a BIN or an auction cloud that fact unnecessarily. The question was what's the most a piece of art sold for on Ebay, TMNT is the answer. We have sellers and buyers and money changing hands.

 

Like most of the private sales in this hobby it doesn't always take more than one buyer to set a price, set a market, set a value. Auction results, especially on Ebay where there is little advance notice, little payment flexibility, and extension of terms flexibility I think the end auction result is sometimes overblown in its significance as it relates to overall market value.

 

More people may like McSpidey but obviously there are TMNT fans out there who can and did pay more for that art than the 313. One's a popularity contest and the other is a FMV appraisal.

 

[Nexus]

However, in that vein, if you put the 313 and the TMNT on Ebay with $100k BIN's which one sells and which one doesn't?

 

No idea. It's not a stretch to guess that the buyer of the TMNT book would have paid $100K for the cover alone, but maybe the winner of the #313 would have paid $100K for that cover if that's what it took. All it takes is one buyer (which you said and I agree with).

 

At the end of the day both pieces sold. I think getting into the details of whether it was a BIN or an auction cloud that fact unnecessarily.

 

I disagree. There is a very important distinction between the two sales. For the #313 cover, we know there was an underbidder at $71K and several others in the $50K range. For the TMNT #1 complete book, we only know there was one buyer at $250K. In the case of the former, we have a reasonable idea of the market. The latter is an outlier.

 

The question was what's the most a piece of art sold for on Ebay, TMNT is the answer. We have sellers and buyers and money changing hands.

 

Well, not exactly apples-to-apples with TMNT #1 being the complete book. But yes, both were legit sales.

 

Like most of the private sales in this hobby it doesn't always take more than one buyer to set a price, set a market, set a value. Auction results, especially on Ebay where there is little advance notice, little payment flexibility, and extension of terms flexibility I think the end auction result is sometimes overblown in its significance as it relates to overall market value.

 

I agree that eBay is not the final word on FMV. But neither is one lone sale. A range of data points, of private and public sales, is needed to form a more complete picture.

 

More people may like McSpidey but obviously there are TMNT fans out there who can and did pay more for that art than the 313. One's a popularity contest and the other is a FMV appraisal.

 

There's *one* TMNT fan who was willing to pay more for that art than the #313. That's all we know.