Nov Heritage auction

[alxjhnsn]

I agree with you Hari. I really think it was a small group to whom those particular pages met a lot.

 

I think an investor would not have driven them quite so high because it would limit the return down the road.

[bluechip]

X-Men #137 page - $65,725

 

John Byrne responding to this sale:

 

That's more than three complete issues, pencils, inks, -script, that the buyer could have commissioned me to do. Original. Just for him/her.

 

Byrne then responds to this comment:

 

"I don't see a problem with this at all. It just proves the John Byrne is one of the great comic book artists, and will go down in history as such. What is wrong with that?"

 

Is that really what it proves, tho? Recently, a Frank Miller page from DKR sold for close to half a million dollars. Should we infer from this that Frank is seven and a half times greater than I? That his contribution to the field is that much greater than mine?

 

Similarly, the price tag on my page is in the same stratospheric regions as prices I see for Jack Kirby originals. Is my place on the comicbook Olympus equal to Jack's?

 

 

Obviously rhetorical questions by John Byrne, but I do appreciate John's take on the comic art hobby.

 

 

 

 

If a buyer wants to spend five figures on a page of his art, it's only natural that Byrne would prefer the buyer give the money to him and have Byrne create something unique for them. But, unless that page created "just for them" went on to become something that resonated with millions of fans and served as the basis for a blockbuster movie plot, it's unlikely the page(s) would ever be worth as much to anyone else. Byrne's observations tend to presume that the art is being judged and sold based on the quality and stature of the artis, and not on the art's place in the cultural landscape.

[bocaratondefense]

That is exactly right. That is likely directed at his fans on that forum who enjoy commissions. I am sure John Byrne is smart enough to recognize that demand is not the same for his unpublished commissions as it is for the published page leading to the death of Phoenix.

 

If you look at the responses on that thread, many of the posters on that forum say essentially the same thing:

 

 

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

It's a very nice page, but sheesh for that kind of money I can think of other JB pages I would rather have -- to say nothing of the possibilty of new artwork.

 

 

 

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

I really want a commissioned comic. Really

 

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

You should get that amount for each and every page you draw JB! :-)

[SuperBird]

gag. puke.

[comix4fun]

 

You should get that amount for each and every page you draw JB! :-)

 

 

 

 

 

 

If that guy wasn't being facetious ( a ban-able offense), it really reminds me of the Tebow/Jesus skit from last week's show.

"easy there...leave some room for the Holy Ghost."

[AKA Rick]

I'll agree here with it not being the same, having John Byrne art from Uncanny X-Men #137 of 1980 compared to having John Byrne draw 3 full issues of anything 2011. From an aesthetic standpoint, to me is sort of like comparing:

 

The Kelly LeBrock of 1985 yesteryear

 

http://soulcookie.tumblr.com/post/98689075/kelly-lebrock-in-weird-science-1985-via-bohemea

 

VS

 

The Kelly LeBrock of 2008 today

 

http://www.celeperson_without_enough_empathyy.com/category/kelly_lebrock/

 

So, I'm sure back in 1985 when she was at her hottest, a guy like Hugh Hefner would pay millions for a photo spread of Kelly for Playboy, and there would be guys willing to pay tens of thousands for a night with her. I'm not so confident the market would bear the same dollars for her today unfortunately, as the sizzle, luster and aesthetics are not the same.

 

I use that analogy in the case of John Byrne art, as I beleive many may agree, the pinnacle of his artistry was in the 1980's, and although the material he produces today is good, it's not as great as that of yesteryear.

 

There's a limited amount of the classic original John Byrne material, none which can be replicated, and that's why it commands the values that they do, in my opinion.

 

 

3 customs issues? I think of that as paying for three x 20 pages of something I don't want very badly. Not enticing.

 

To some, that might actually be a very interesting idea.

 

Lets say Byrne was kicked off a Marvel/DC book that they buyer loved- there is a possibility to have 3 more full issues of that run of books to see how things would have progressed under Byrne's hand

[AKA Rick]

I'll agree that prices probably won't drop. It's a supposed down economy, yet prices seem fairly strong for key pieces like Byrne X-Men.

 

I'd disagree about the "Later artists" not carrying the same nostalgic weight, from the perspective of how every generation thinks their music is better than the music of today, so for every art collector who thinks Byrne is awesome and someone of today like Finch or Cassaday is a hack, there's other older collectors who think Ditko is awesome and Byrne is a hack. I think nostalgia transcends generations, so just like fashion and everything else, there's going to be a time of reflection, appreciation and renewed interest.

 

The only thing I don't think happens when it comes to the "old" vs "new" is with the investment strategies of collectibles. You look at comics from the 1960's when it was 1980, they were 20 years old, but still valueable then and more so now. You look at comic books from the 1990's today 20 years later, and most are in the quarter bins. Same with trading cards. It seemed there were too many speculators in the market in the 1990's onward. Luckily, with Original Art, they're one of a kind collectibles, so don't really ever have issues with aging or over production.

 

 

BTW....I would not expect the prices of pages from your run on X-men to drop anytime soon...at least not until the people that collected the book when they were kids get older and die off in 40-50 years or so. The collecting bug + a little nostalgia is a huge driving force for many people to empty their wallets (including myself!). Later artists (or the latest 'hot' artist) will never carry the same nostalgic weight...[/i]

[pinupcartoonguy]

Re the "Later artists," I don't think they'll carry the same nostalgic weight. The thing is, nostalgia attaches to stuff we read as kids. Tweens and teens read Byrne X-Men, and those kids are the ones who have money today and are plopping down the big bucks. Tween and teens no longer read comics (last time I was in a comic book store, it was nearly empty, and those who were there were way into their 30), so I don't think nostalgia will attach as strongly if at all.

 

 

I'll agree that prices probably won't drop. It's a supposed down economy, yet prices seem fairly strong for key pieces like Byrne X-Men.

 

I'd disagree about the "Later artists" not carrying the same nostalgic weight, from the perspective of how every generation thinks their music is better than the music of today, so for every art collector who thinks Byrne is awesome and someone of today like Finch or Cassaday is a hack, there's other older collectors who think Ditko is awesome and Byrne is a hack. I think nostalgia transcends generations, so just like fashion and everything else, there's going to be a time of reflection, appreciation and renewed interest.

 

The only thing I don't think happens when it comes to the "old" vs "new" is with the investment strategies of collectibles. You look at comics from the 1960's when it was 1980, they were 20 years old, but still valueable then and more so now. You look at comic books from the 1990's today 20 years later, and most are in the quarter bins. Same with trading cards. It seemed there were too many speculators in the market in the 1990's onward. Luckily, with Original Art, they're one of a kind collectibles, so don't really ever have issues with aging or over production.

 

 

BTW....I would not expect the prices of pages from your run on X-men to drop anytime soon...at least not until the people that collected the book when they were kids get older and die off in 40-50 years or so. The collecting bug + a little nostalgia is a huge driving force for many people to empty their wallets (including myself!). Later artists (or the latest 'hot' artist) will never carry the same nostalgic weight...[/i]

[tth2]

I don't know why artists seem to persist on this fantasy that just because we liked their art on a particular issue during a particular time in the hobby (and in our youth, most typically), that we'd even consider buying something from the same artist drawn today. Artists, I can understand, always feel like they are improving their craft and skill, but time and again there is an obvious disconnect between what an artist feels is his "best" work and what the hobby considers as such.

Great point. I DO believe that a lot of comic and other commercial art artists do delude themselves that their art is prized for itself, and therefore a commission piece should be just as valuable as a published piece. The reality is that in this particular field, publication means everything and therefore in general published work, especially from an artist's prime period, will always be much more valuable than any commissioned, non-published work.

 

As for the other rhetorical questions, they are just that. You can't compare prices realized on Kirby vs. Miller vs. Byrne without comparing/contrasting the collector base as well, which is oftentimes vastly different. Yes, in the hobby overall (and as historry might put it), Kirby is more "important" and therefore perhaps more valuable than the other two, but to the individual collector all that matters little if they happened to not like Kirby's style.

You also have to compare the importance of each piece. The DK splash from Miller was a major piece from arguably his most major work. I don't know if a comparable Kirby work has come up for auction. Certainly the price for a major piece from Kirby's most major work, such as the cover for AF 15, FF 1, JIM 83 or X-Men 1, among others, would dwarf what any Miller piece could achieve.

 

[heartened]

I don't know why artists seem to persist on this fantasy that just because we liked their art on a particular issue during a particular time in the hobby (and in our youth, most typically), that we'd even consider buying something from the same artist drawn today. Artists, I can understand, always feel like they are improving their craft and skill, but time and again there is an obvious disconnect between what an artist feels is his "best" work and what the hobby considers as such.

Great point. I DO believe that a lot of comic and other commercial art artists do delude themselves that their art is prized for itself, and therefore a commission piece should be just as valuable as a published piece. The reality is that in this particular field, publication means everything and therefore in general published work, especially from an artist's prime period, will always be much more valuable than any commissioned, non-published work.

 

As for the other rhetorical questions, they are just that. You can't compare prices realized on Kirby vs. Miller vs. Byrne without comparing/contrasting the collector base as well, which is oftentimes vastly different. Yes, in the hobby overall (and as historry might put it), Kirby is more "important" and therefore perhaps more valuable than the other two, but to the individual collector all that matters little if they happened to not like Kirby's style.

You also have to compare the importance of each piece. The DK splash from Miller was a major piece from arguably his most major work. I don't know if a comparable Kirby work has come up for auction. Certainly the price for a major piece from Kirby's most major work, such as the cover for AF 15, FF 1, JIM 83 or X-Men 1, among others, would dwarf what any Miller piece could achieve.

 

Your final comment is excellent. We must compare apples to apples. A comparable Kirby piece has not hit the market.

 

[delekkerste]

You also have to compare the importance of each piece. The DK splash from Miller was a major piece from arguably his most major work. I don't know if a comparable Kirby work has come up for auction. Certainly the price for a major piece from Kirby's most major work, such as the cover for AF 15, FF 1, JIM 83 or X-Men 1, among others, would dwarf what any Miller piece could achieve.

 

You know, that last statement is probably true, but I'm not 100% convinced. I mean, it's entirely possible that the DKR splash sale at $448K was just a ludicrous aberration, such that if a better DKR splash or the cover to issue #2 came up for auction they might actually sell for less. On the other hand, maybe the same bidders go crazy again and a better DKR splash (of which there are several, IMO) or the #2 cover might sell for $500-$700K. Can anyone say with certainty that the JIM #83 cover would sell for more than that? Maybe, but I bet a lot more people are inclined to think so because that DKR splash sold for $448K (so, naturally, the JIM 83 cover must be worth more, right?) Prior to that sale (and the AF 15 9.6 sale), I bet a lot of people would have slapped smaller valuations onto those covers than they would now. Heck, it wasn't so long ago that the WSF #29 cover @ $380K looked to be the ceiling for anything short of something like a key SA Marvel #1 cover.

 

Anyway, the real question I have is, is there any Marvel splash out there that would sell for more than the DKR splash ($448K)? Neither the X-Men #1 or #2 splashes which sold in the past few years got anything even remotely close to that price. Neither did the classic FF 51 splash. I don't know of any Marvel splash that has cracked the $200K barrier, much less the $300K or $400K ones.

[Bronty]

I don't think FF51 is even in the conversation. OK its a classic but you know what, there are a lot of classics.

 

Xmen 1 splash I think was a real good buy for someone though.

 

You're absolutely right that the DKR page went for such a high price that there might not be another splash short of AF15 (which isn't available) that could beat it. So if the apples we are comparing are splashes, Miller might win.

 

But, if the apples we are comparing are covers, I can't see anything beating a key SA kirby cover like AF15 or ff1 or even JIM 83. That would one heckuva auction to watch . The competition would be absolutely ferocious.

[pkveronese]

 

Case in point is that DKR page that went for 21.5. Clearly more than one of the DKR buyers who will spend whatever it takes saw that page and said THAT IS MINE (since there was no bidding war) and so it dropped to a "soft" price. But what happens next will be interesting. As Felix noted, it's very likely that that same page shows up on Burkeys site with an asking of 40K. And its very likely that a buyer that missed the auction sees that page and thinks, "well, if similar quality DKR pages have sold for 30K+, I'll negotiate with Burkey down to 35K and take that page." And suddenly, that's a 35K page, so even though it wasn't a THAT IS MINE page, it eventually gets absorbed into the market as such.

 

Or it doesn't. It's the Wild West so there really are no hard and fast rules.

 

Excellent prediction - one that's actually come true on a lower end DKR page (one that would probably be a 9-10k page on Heritage).

 

http://www.romitaman.com/Featured.asp?Piece=13118

[delekkerste]

I don't think FF51 is even in the conversation. OK its a classic but you know what, there are a lot of classics.

 

If we're talking theoretically about what should be the most valuable splashes, you may be right, but if we're talking about actual sales of splashes known to exist, I believe the FF 51 splash some years ago is still among the biggest splash page sales out there, even after the rash of big $$$ sales the past couple of years.

[medusanyc]

i must be the only one but the calvin and hobbes thing is the most exciting thing in the auction to me

 

[Nexus]

i must be the only one but the calvin and hobbes thing is the most exciting thing in the auction to me

 

You aren't the only one. It's been discussed in the other thread. The C&H is the star of the show so far to me as well, for rarity alone if nothing else. Heritage should market it beyond the comic art crowd-- it has real crossover potential. Although I suspect the winner will still end up being one of the usual OA suspects.

[Galactus]

Interesting that the February Auction at this point in time seems very weak for art, by comparison to the November Auction and yet the reverse is true for their comics section, which seems much stronger.

 

Would have thought that the November and earlier auctions that achieved record prices, would have dragged out a number of prime pieces or at least nice A- / B+ class pieces, doesnt seem to be the case though IMO.