2004 prices vs. today's prices

[tth2]

I'm with Felix, it's clearly a swipe of X-Men 136. Even the tilt of Cyclop's/Superman's head is the same.

[tth2]

In my opinion, the legends, if I had to pick only 2 from each decade (and kinda listing the decade where their most popular body of work resides) are:

 

60's = Jack Kirby and Steve Ditko ('tho I'd like to add Wally Wood, Carmine Infantino, Gil Kane, Murphy Anderson, Jim Steranko and the varied EC artists)

 

70's = Neal Adams and Barry Windsor Smith (I also put Jim Starlin in high regard here too)

 

80's = John Byrne and Frank Miller (I would add specific titles by certain artists only here like Keith Giffen "Legion of Super-Heroes"; Marshall Rodgers "Detective" and "Dr Strange"; George Perez "Avengers" and "Teen Titans"; Walt Simonson "Thor"; Alan Moore (yes, I include writers as artists) "Swamp Thing"; Dave Gibbons "Watchmen"; Paul Smith "X-Men" and "Dr. Strange"

 

90's = Todd McFarlane and Jim Lee (although Jim Lee's art started out kinda run of the mill and has gotten better with Batman "Hush" so later in his career)

In general I would agree with your picks, although for the 70s I think Wrightson has to be part of your honorable mentions, and for the 80s Bolland (although perhaps he's a case of someone who's become more popular with collectors now than at the time.

 

Definitely don't agree that Jim Lee started run of the mill. I liked him a lot right from the beginning of his run on Uncanny X-Men, and I think a lot of other collectors did too.

[comicartfan]

I'm with Felix, it's clearly a swipe of X-Men 136. Even the tilt of Cyclop's/Superman's head is the same.

 

When I see them side by side, it's almost an exact replica. But then I found this and I think the matter is settled.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[theloveforart]

"Actually , Perez gave an interview in Wizard Magazine about famous covers and he actually swiped the image from Batman 156."

 

HAHAHAHA.... are u serious Perez actually said that... That was a total Byrne swipe.

[Galactus]

Yes you are also correct in saying that a lot of Crisis is not currently relevent as continuity has been played with over the last 10 years, but for the first 15 odd years, Crisis was a must read and c'mon you know how important a storyline is when everyone refers to it for many years to come, even if it is just in terms of saying "Post Crisis/Pre Crisis"

 

Yes, agreed, very important to our generation of comics fans. But going forward? Harder to say. Even Barry Allen Flash is back. Will this mean anything for 2024 prices? By then, I would guess that the value in the CRISIS covers will have more to do with George Perez (and how his body of work is viewed) than with any effect on DC continuity or even nostalgia. As a Perez fan, I'm optimistic that his art, especially his best art, will still be appreciated by future comics fans.

 

 

Looking ahead it is always hard to predict what will happen, but i believe that both Perez and Byrne have reached a point in terms of volume and quality of work, that ensures that they are looked upon in future years as being some of the very best talent to have come out of the late 70's to late 80's. Given the breadth of their work in terms of characters and publishing companies, i believe that both artists are a safe bet as being recognised and appreciated by the younger generation.

 

Just curious...what do you think of guys like McFarlane, Lee, Keown? Will their work continue to be collected with the same fervor as the generation that grew up with them? Will future collectors continue to pay the same amount for a Lee as a Kirby (of equal importance)?

 

I have no idea. There are artists whose work has stood the test of time (Foster, Kirby, Wood, Frazetta, Steranko, et al). Whose best work will always be collected so long as there is an OA hobby. I don't rule out later artists from joining their ranks. But, right now, I don't see any CRISIS cover in the same league as a top Kirby, value-wise.

 

I believe that McFarlane and Lee will probably be collectible for some time to come, not only because the kids of the 90's who read their stuff (not us older folks), are coming into their disposable income phase and will be carrying forward the torch that slightly older collectors have up until this point carried, probably for the next decade. I think that McFarlane and Lee where lucky enough that their popularity in part was due to them working on the two biggest books of the 70's through to now (X-Men and Spidey). Keown on the other hand, i cant see prospering for the same time period as the others as his work centered primarily on the Hulk and whilst at that time the Hulk was popular and garnered many new readers, i personaly cant see that time will be kind to artists whose works have not been in the public spotlight for extended periods of time.

 

Looking towards your second point, only time will tell who joins the ranks of Kirby, but i would cast a question on the likes of Steranko. Whilst IMO, his art personified a period of psychedelic history, i really don't see many newer collectors asking about his work, in the same way that i see them talking about Neal Adams or Barry Smith.

[Galactus]

Picasso's works from the 1960s and 70s are worth a fraction of what his best pieces go for, but they still go for millions, so clear evidence that the rising tide lifts all boats.

 

As OA follows the same general market dynamics, I would expect that if OA continues to appreciate, then the value of Kirby top tier and lower tier works would both appreciate. Now, whether the ratios will stay fairly constant or will widen (or compress), I haven't the foggiest.

 

I disagree only to extend that Picasso has a massive following but only produced a very small body of work. With Kirby we are talking about 10,000 pages that with the passage of time and the dwindling of Kirby nostalgia related purchases (30+ years time), will probably result in only the better 1000 (?) pieces highly priced and sought after, and the lesser known and unknown characters being for all intents and purposes worth infinitely less.

 

I have no idea on the spread of pricing between the best Picasso and the worst, but i can't believe it approaches the spread currently in effect on the Best Kirby over and the worse, and that is from a current standpoint of nostalgia playing a large part in our pricing of covers. In 30 years time i see this spread being huge.

[Galactus]

In my opinion, the legends, if I had to pick only 2 from each decade (and kinda listing the decade where their most popular body of work resides) are:

 

60's = Jack Kirby and Steve Ditko ('tho I'd like to add Wally Wood, Carmine Infantino, Gil Kane, Murphy Anderson, Jim Steranko and the varied EC artists)

 

70's = Neal Adams and Barry Windsor Smith (I also put Jim Starlin in high regard here too)

 

80's = John Byrne and Frank Miller (I would add specific titles by certain artists only here like Keith Giffen "Legion of Super-Heroes"; Marshall Rodgers "Detective" and "Dr Strange"; George Perez "Avengers" and "Teen Titans"; Walt Simonson "Thor"; Alan Moore (yes, I include writers as artists) "Swamp Thing"; Dave Gibbons "Watchmen"; Paul Smith "X-Men" and "Dr. Strange"

 

90's = Todd McFarlane and Jim Lee (although Jim Lee's art started out kinda run of the mill and has gotten better with Batman "Hush" so later in his career)

In general I would agree with your picks, although for the 70s I think Wrightson has to be part of your honorable mentions, and for the 80s Bolland (although perhaps he's a case of someone who's become more popular with collectors now than at the time.

 

Definitely don't agree that Jim Lee started run of the mill. I liked him a lot right from the beginning of his run on Uncanny X-Men, and I think a lot of other collectors did too.

 

I agree with both AKA Rick and the ammendments that tth2 mentioned, and would probably just add Romita Snr into the additional 60's artists.

[Claudio]

Picasso's works from the 1960s and 70s are worth a fraction of what his best pieces go for, but they still go for millions, so clear evidence that the rising tide lifts all boats.

 

As OA follows the same general market dynamics, I would expect that if OA continues to appreciate, then the value of Kirby top tier and lower tier works would both appreciate. Now, whether the ratios will stay fairly constant or will widen (or compress), I haven't the foggiest.

 

I disagree only to extend that Picasso has a massive following but only produced a very small body of work. With Kirby we are talking about 10,000 pages that with the passage of time and the dwindling of Kirby nostalgia related purchases (30+ years time), will probably result in only the better 1000 (?) pieces highly priced and sought after, and the lesser known and unknown characters being for all intents and purposes worth infinitely less.

 

I have no idea on the spread of pricing between the best Picasso and the worst, but i can't believe it approaches the spread currently in effect on the Best Kirby over and the worse, and that is from a current standpoint of nostalgia playing a large part in our pricing of covers. In 30 years time i see this spread being huge.

 

 

Picasso was probably the most prolific artist ever.

Picasso's paintings rank among the most expensive artwork in the world, establishing a price record with $104 million sale of "Garson a la pipe" in 2004. He produced over 13 thousand paintings and designs, 100,000 prints and engravings, 34 thousand book illustrations and 300 sculptures, becoming the most prolific artist ever.

[comicartcom]

Picasso has a massive following but only produced a very small body of work.

 

say what???

 

you have to either be kidding, or you just don't know much about Picasso

 

he was one of the most prolific of all 20th century artists having produced many thousands of pieces of art in both 2-dimensional and 3-dimensional works (mostly 2-dimensional of course)

 

there was even a period in 1930 (may be 1931) when, being dismissive of art critics and the business end of art, he proclaimed that he was going to "create 1000 masterpieces in 30 days". He actually produced nearly 100 items per day for that month, most of them being works on paper with quite a high number of them being minimalist. Incredibly, the art world at that time pronounced him to be successful in accomplishing his proclamation. This even though he was in reality parodying the art world.

 

 

[Galactus]

You are correct, i know nothing of the quantity of artwork he produced, but i presumed (wrongly) that as a painter he couldn't produce a piece of art as quickly as Kirby did an average page. Obviously the figure of 13,000 paintings is news to me, and i must say absolutely astounding.

[comicartcom]

You are correct, i know nothing of the quantity of artwork he produced, but i presumed (wrongly) that as a painter he couldn't produce a piece of art as quickly as Kirby did an average page. Obviously the figure of 13,000 paintings is news to me, and i must say absolutely astounding.

 

and the 13,000 is low.. by some estimates, he has done some 30,000 pieces

 

[J.Sid]

Pieta covers

 

And there are dozens of others....

[bocaratondefense]

Picasso will never be as good as Jack Kirby

 

 

 

[adamstrange]

Are we saying that either Byrne or Perez based their cover on the Pieta? Hopefully it's some other piece because I don't see it as very close at all. The LB Cole and the Batman cover are much close inspirations.

 

 

 

[Weird Paper]

Picasso will never be as good as Jack Kirby

 

 

Ice cream is not as good as kayaking. Batman is not as good as George Washington. Shoes are not as good as puppies.

[tth2]

Picasso's works from the 1960s and 70s are worth a fraction of what his best pieces go for, but they still go for millions, so clear evidence that the rising tide lifts all boats.

 

As OA follows the same general market dynamics, I would expect that if OA continues to appreciate, then the value of Kirby top tier and lower tier works would both appreciate. Now, whether the ratios will stay fairly constant or will widen (or compress), I haven't the foggiest.

 

I disagree only to extend that Picasso has a massive following but only produced a very small body of work. With Kirby we are talking about 10,000 pages that with the passage of time and the dwindling of Kirby nostalgia related purchases (30+ years time), will probably result in only the better 1000 (?) pieces highly priced and sought after, and the lesser known and unknown characters being for all intents and purposes worth infinitely less.

 

I have no idea on the spread of pricing between the best Picasso and the worst, but i can't believe it approaches the spread currently in effect on the Best Kirby over and the worse, and that is from a current standpoint of nostalgia playing a large part in our pricing of covers. In 30 years time i see this spread being huge.

 

 

Picasso was probably the most prolific artist ever.

Picasso's paintings rank among the most expensive artwork in the world, establishing a price record with $104 million sale of "Garson a la pipe" in 2004. He produced over 13 thousand paintings and designs, 100,000 prints and engravings, 34 thousand book illustrations and 300 sculptures, becoming the most prolific artist ever.

Yup. Picasso had the good fortune of being one of the few artists of his era who became extremely popular while he was still alive, and thus also became one of the few artists of his era who actually generated quite a bit of wealth for himself, and not just for his heirs and the people who bought his works.

 

So he was very incentivized to crank out a lot of pieces as he directly benefited.

[CollectingFool]

Ice cream is not as good as kayaking.

 

I know what you were getting at but this is a bad example. In any context Ice Cream kicks Kayaking's .

 

[Weird Paper]

Ice cream is not as good as kayaking.

 

I know what you were getting at but this is a bad example. In any context Ice Cream kicks Kayaking's .

A good four hours of Class 3+ kayaking will make you feel more like a man than a half gallon of Cherry Garcia.

[comix4fun]

Ice cream is not as good as kayaking.

 

I know what you were getting at but this is a bad example. In any context Ice Cream kicks Kayaking's .

 

 

He made up for it by saying puppies were better than shoes. Which is like saying total radiant bliss is better than root canal. Not exactly going out on a limb there, but he had to make up for the ice cream/kayaking debacle.

[Claudio]

Ice cream is not as good as kayaking.

 

I know what you were getting at but this is a bad example. In any context Ice Cream kicks Kayaking's .

A good four hours of Class 3+ kayaking will make you feel more like a man than a half gallon of Cherry Garcia.

+1 (at least I think so since I have only rafted 3+ rapids)