Hold onto your hats for the May Heritage auction....

[Bronty]

will try to sell twice-up as the most important factor (usually when there's not much else to sell). .

 

ha! well put

[stinkininkin]

 

 

It interesting to me that you say that you pay for the art, not the size. I don't believe most old time collectors would agree with you.

 

Are we now in a period of collecting where size doesn't matter? Is it ALL about the image on the paper?

 

I've always maintained that it's the image that draws you to the art in the first place. But after finally purchasing a twice up cover or two, I have to admit that the size adds an extra dimension of wow factor that keeps your gaze transfixed on the artwork a bit longer. I do think that good twice up art, all other things being fairly equal, deserves a premium.

 

So you weren't really joking?

 

All things being equal, I'd agree with you. If two pieces are of equal quality, then the bigger one is worth more. Large art is impressive, no doubt. But image is still more important. I'd take a smaller A piece over a bigger B piece. There are guys who will try to sell twice-up as the most important factor (usually when there's not much else to sell). Who will try to convince others that the twice-up B piece should be worth as much, if not more, than the smaller A piece. I see you don't mean that, so again, I agree with you.

 

I've actually been more swayed by size going in the other direction. I always thought (and still do) that Frazetta Canaveral plate art is some of his absolute finest. But when I saw one of the originals for the first time, it's smaller size was a real turnoff relative to the price. The art isn't any less spectacular, but the dimensions did not match up with the power of the art. If those images had just been standard size 11x17 or thereabouts, I'd be a potential buyer for sure. But because they're not, I've continued to stay on the sidelines.

 

Scott Williams

[Bronty]

how big are they scott? I've never seen a canaveral original. 8 by 11 or whatever?

 

 

[bocaratondefense]

 

 

It interesting to me that you say that you pay for the art, not the size. I don't believe most old time collectors would agree with you.

 

Are we now in a period of collecting where size doesn't matter? Is it ALL about the image on the paper?

 

I've always maintained that it's the image that draws you to the art in the first place. But after finally purchasing a twice up cover or two, I have to admit that the size adds an extra dimension of wow factor that keeps your gaze transfixed on the artwork a bit longer. I do think that good twice up art, all other things being fairly equal, deserves a premium.

 

 

Can you think of any twice up art that would come close to the price of the DK splash?

 

 

[Pirate]

who were the seller and buyer?

[CollectingFool]

Personally, while twice-up is nice, I pay for the art, not the size.

 

I know a lot of people think they are buying it for the "art". To me, "the art" means the actual image on the page. I think only a small percentage of the money spent on this stuff has anything to do with the art itself. The majority is nostalgia, perceived historic significance and resale value. In some cases more than half the price is also "because I can so F--- you" which I think makes up the majority of the price on the DKR piece.

 

 

[comix4fun]

Personally, while twice-up is nice, I pay for the art, not the size.

 

I know a lot of people think they are buying it for the "art". To me, "the art" means the actual image on the page. I think only a small percentage of the money spent on this stuff has anything to do with the art itself. The majority is nostalgia, perceived historic significance and resale value. In some cases more than half the price is also "because I can so F--- you" which I think makes up the majority of the price on the DKR piece.

 

 

 

 

 

So you are saying Mel Brooks bought it?

 

[Nexus]

Personally, while twice-up is nice, I pay for the art, not the size.

 

I know a lot of people think they are buying it for the "art". To me, "the art" means the actual image on the page. I think only a small percentage of the money spent on this stuff has anything to do with the art itself. The majority is nostalgia, perceived historic significance and resale value. In some cases more than half the price is also "because I can so F--- you" which I think makes up the majority of the price on the DKR piece.

 

 

When I say "the art", I mean what the image represents to me. In most cases, that's nostalgia. Artistic merit, historical significance, potential resale value are all considerations, but minor compared to nostalgia. I'd guess and say the DKR splash was a similarly emotional buy (what isn't in this hobby?)...just at an entirely different level than what we're used to seeing.

 

Anyway, that's also why size, big or small, is also a minor consideration to me.

[glenbru]

 

 

It interesting to me that you say that you pay for the art, not the size. I don't believe most old time collectors would agree with you.

 

Are we now in a period of collecting where size doesn't matter? Is it ALL about the image on the paper?

 

I've always maintained that it's the image that draws you to the art in the first place. But after finally purchasing a twice up cover or two, I have to admit that the size adds an extra dimension of wow factor that keeps your gaze transfixed on the artwork a bit longer. I do think that good twice up art, all other things being fairly equal, deserves a premium.

 

 

Can you think of any twice up art that would come close to the price of the DK splash?

 

 

 

Sure...

 

AF 15 cover

Quite a few of the better asm covers by Ditko

Avengers 4

X men 1

FF 1, 4 and 5

JIM 83

Hulk 1

 

I'm sure I'm leaving a few out, but you get the idea.

[Nexus]

 

 

It interesting to me that you say that you pay for the art, not the size. I don't believe most old time collectors would agree with you.

 

Are we now in a period of collecting where size doesn't matter? Is it ALL about the image on the paper?

 

I've always maintained that it's the image that draws you to the art in the first place. But after finally purchasing a twice up cover or two, I have to admit that the size adds an extra dimension of wow factor that keeps your gaze transfixed on the artwork a bit longer. I do think that good twice up art, all other things being fairly equal, deserves a premium.

 

 

Can you think of any twice up art that would come close to the price of the DK splash?

 

 

 

Sure...

 

AF 15 cover

Quite a few of the better asm covers by Ditko

Avengers 4

X men 1

FF 1, 4 and 5

JIM 83

Hulk 1

 

I'm sure I'm leaving a few out, but you get the idea.

 

Heh...not really going out on a limb, there:P Those will sell for whatever they'll sell for, for reasons other than the fact that they're twice-up.

[glenbru]

Well, I do think those pieces I listed deserve to sell for quite a bit more than the DKR splash. But in all honesty, I don't know that they actually would. And that's just plain crazy to me.

 

But I wouldn't have been a buyer on the DKR splash at 50k, unless I though I could flip it.

[comix4fun]

 

But I wouldn't have been a buyer on the DKR splash at 50k, unless I though I could flip it.

 

 

 

That probably applies to most art in our hobby. Maybe not "flip it", but sell it later and recoup cost and/or profit on the piece.

 

Sort of like saying that you wouldn't buy an apple just for fruit appreciation's sake. At the end of the day it's food.

[bocaratondefense]

We were fortunate to be able to see the DK splash play out in an open auction. Even if those historical SA Marvel covers turn up, the really important pieces have historically been exchanged privately.

[glenbru]

As far as I know, none of the covers I mentioned have ever traded hands, privately (spoken of in whispers) or otherwise.

 

Sure would like to see them pop out though. Just to gaze at a hi res scan on Heritage or CAF would be nice.

[glenbru]

Personally, while twice-up is nice, I pay for the art, not the size.

 

I know a lot of people think they are buying it for the "art". To me, "the art" means the actual image on the page. I think only a small percentage of the money spent on this stuff has anything to do with the art itself. The majority is nostalgia, perceived historic significance and resale value. In some cases more than half the price is also "because I can so F--- you" which I think makes up the majority of the price on the DKR piece.

 

 

 

What you say makes a lot of sense, Ruben.

 

In speaking with someone who was at the auction, the bidding stalled at the 130k range for a time. It's as if one of the parties decided they might not go much further, and then said f-- it--it's not about the money it's about the piece. After that the bidding kept going up at quite a clip until the end. Definitely a f u schmeckle swinging factor at play here.

[Bronty]

As far as I know, none of the covers I mentioned have ever traded hands, privately (spoken of in whispers) or otherwise.

 

Sure would like to see them pop out though. Just to gaze at a hi res scan on Heritage or CAF would be nice.

 

do we know for sure if those covers you listed exist? I presume they do just wondering if we as a community know for a fact

[Nexus]

What you say makes a lot of sense, Ruben.

 

In speaking with someone who was at the auction, the bidding stalled at the 130k range for a time. It's as if one of the parties decided they might not go much further, and then said f-- it--it's not about the money it's about the piece. After that the bidding kept going up at quite a clip until the end. Definitely a f u schmeckle swinging factor at play here.

 

There were a couple of lulls in the bidding, but I'd bet that both parties were prepared to go well beyond that. Maybe one guy was getting a drink of water at $130K. Or trying to get the other guy's hopes up. Who knows. I just don't think anyone decided to go from mid-100K to almost half-a-mil on a whim. It's not like they found out at the last second the art was twice-up:P

 

Back to twice-up...you say old-timers are into twice-up...I would say that they're into twice-up because the art they like happens to be twice-up. I doubt if any of them would look any more favorably on Todd McFarlane if that art was twice-up. We all like what we like, twice-up or not.

 

Selling or buying art based on its size is akin to the "fresh to market" phenomenon to me. When sellers are touting size or "fresh to market" as the main selling point, what does that say about the art? As well, when buying something because it's twice-up or "fresh to market", what exactly is one buying?

[Bronty]

well felix bad large art is just bad art. but when all other factors are equal, the size is a nice extra. Its very simple really and I'm sure you know what I'm driving at.

 

If I were into Todd I'd rather have the ASM 316 cover be large than small. That being said I'd rather have 316 at (virtually) any size than say 309

[Bronty]

What you say makes a lot of sense, Ruben.

 

In speaking with someone who was at the auction, the bidding stalled at the 130k range for a time. It's as if one of the parties decided they might not go much further, and then said f-- it--it's not about the money it's about the piece. After that the bidding kept going up at quite a clip until the end. Definitely a f u schmeckle swinging factor at play here.

 

There were a couple of lulls in the bidding

 

I found those made it more exciting. I kept expecting the bidding to stop at the lulls but she just kept on going!

[glenbru]

As far as I know, none of the covers I mentioned have ever traded hands, privately (spoken of in whispers) or otherwise.

 

Sure would like to see them pop out though. Just to gaze at a hi res scan on Heritage or CAF would be nice.

 

do we know for sure if those covers you listed exist? I presume they do just wondering if we as a community know for a fact

 

 

We don't know for sure if any of them exist. Sure, they did at one time. But no one in the collecting community has seen them as far as I know. They may have been destroyed or are well buried in someone's hidden collection.