Daredevil #190 cover 0

[t3quila]

You know, what's funny is that this cover sold privately over the summer for six figures

 

I thought that the price of 188 was strong but this went for the same or more??

[Bronty]

I suppose it was really GOOD bernaise sauce

[Bronty]

you know, I never followed the link until just now to actually see the jpgs of the cover physically on two boards. The printed piece may be a nice image but BOTH of the two halves, even the DD half which I imagined would look nice, look like spoon to me - that big blank spot where elektra is supposed to be superimposed ruins the DD half for me. Yuck.

 

Personally this would bother me enough that on my rankings of DD/elektra cover originals (and without the benefit of knowing what all the others look like...) I'd go so far to put this at or near the very bottom. As far as miller DD elektra covers go, this ain't chicken its tofu

[comix4fun]

you know, I never followed the link until just now to actually see the jpgs of the cover physically on two boards. The printed piece may be a nice image but BOTH of the two halves, even the DD half which I imagined would look nice, look like spoon to me - that big blank spot where elektra is supposed to be superimposed ruins the DD half for me. Yuck.

 

Personally this would bother me enough that on my rankings of DD/elektra cover originals (and without the benefit of knowing what all the others look like...) I'd go so far to put this at or near the very bottom. As far as miller DD elektra covers go, this ain't chicken its tofu

 

 

I hear what you are saying...but, based on what you said, I am just guessing you aren't a fan of Dave McKean's work.

[Eric Seffinga]

What's McKean got to do with the price of tea in China?

Sorry, lost me on that one.

 

Been following this thread as I do most, with moderate interest.

I could think of other Miller art I'd want much much more, so for me like a lot of what gets discussed here, my interest is more of a market curiosity.

 

[Bronty]

you know, I never followed the link until just now to actually see the jpgs of the cover physically on two boards. The printed piece may be a nice image but BOTH of the two halves, even the DD half which I imagined would look nice, look like spoon to me - that big blank spot where elektra is supposed to be superimposed ruins the DD half for me. Yuck.

 

Personally this would bother me enough that on my rankings of DD/elektra cover originals (and without the benefit of knowing what all the others look like...) I'd go so far to put this at or near the very bottom. As far as miller DD elektra covers go, this ain't chicken its tofu

 

 

I hear what you are saying...but, based on what you said, I am just guessing you aren't a fan of Dave McKean's work.

 

I am a huge fan of his printed work... not too familiar with his originals.

 

If you are implying he tends to do his work on more than one surface all I can say is that when it comes to that I think you evaluate each piece on its own merits. It may be a death knell for one piece and just a minor side note on another. As a a general and simplistic comment, to me the closer the split of the art is to 50/50 on the two boards, the less I like it. If its 90/10 that's not so bad. But as always a lot of other factors will come into play

[glendgold]

Wait, Rib Eye is below New York? And Porterhouse? Would that be grass-fed or would you finish the cow off with 30 days of barley and hay? Because then Rib Eye is definitely up below filet mignon.

 

 

[comix4fun]

What's McKean got to do with the price of tea in China?

Sorry, lost me on that one.

 

Been following this thread as I do most, with moderate interest.

I could think of other Miller art I'd want much much more, so for me like a lot of what gets discussed here, my interest is more of a market curiosity.

 

 

He doesn't like his art in pieces. He doesn't like art that's not on one board. He doesn't like art that's not on a nice white board. That's all I meant.

 

When he was mentioning how the two boards thing killed the piece for him and made the individual pieces look like poop to him it reminded me of those great McKean pieces where he would glue strange object and work with photos and everyday things. It's just non traditional artwork, but wonderful.

 

I don't get hung up on how the piece is put together as long as the final product is real, original, and well done.

[comix4fun]

you know, I never followed the link until just now to actually see the jpgs of the cover physically on two boards. The printed piece may be a nice image but BOTH of the two halves, even the DD half which I imagined would look nice, look like spoon to me - that big blank spot where elektra is supposed to be superimposed ruins the DD half for me. Yuck.

 

Personally this would bother me enough that on my rankings of DD/elektra cover originals (and without the benefit of knowing what all the others look like...) I'd go so far to put this at or near the very bottom. As far as miller DD elektra covers go, this ain't chicken its tofu

 

 

I hear what you are saying...but, based on what you said, I am just guessing you aren't a fan of Dave McKean's work.

 

I am a huge fan of his printed work... not too familiar with his originals.

 

If you are implying he tends to do his work on more than one surface all I can say is that when it comes to that I think you evaluate each piece on its own merits. It may be a death knell for one piece and just a minor side note on another. As a a general and simplistic comment, to me the closer the split of the art is to 50/50 on the two boards, the less I like it. If its 90/10 that's not so bad. But as always a lot of other factors will come into play

 

 

Yeah, I was mostly joking around because McKean's work can be as far from an 11x17 bristol board as you can imagine, but it's still the original artwork that became the cover.

 

Take his Sandman #1 cover artwork (scan taken from Scott Eder's wonderful collection on CAF):

 

 

 

That's what I was referring to. You can't get too much further from traditional than this, but it's a masterpiece of the medium.

[Eric Seffinga]

Ah, well McKean's early work is a bit touch and go as far as stability goes. Also some of those early Sandman covers didn't hold up so good as fluids evaporated and things died off, etc.

But when McKean made the leap from color copiers to computers he didn't have to worry about the dead stuff anymore. And collectors didn't have to worry about originals either. Heh.

Tho as someone with a giant McKean piece with real sticks and leaves in it, I can tell you if anything that stuff can look BETTER in the flesh than printed in a book. But it is definitely piece dependent.

 

As for the originals being spread over multiple boards or whatever, he didn't do much of that kind of thing after Black Orchid, but guys like Fabry have done what Miller did here with their painted work even within the last few years. They just put them together on the computer.

 

I remember when Van Fleet did his Batman book as individual panels that were digitally manipulated and assembled on the computer. Sad really as his original pieces prior to that were really really cool.

 

But we've deviated pretty far off the Miller DD topic.

 

 

[delekkerste]

He doesn't like his art in pieces. He doesn't like art that's not on one board. He doesn't like art that's not on a nice white board. That's all I meant.

 

Comparing McKean's artwork, which is more multi-media/collage/sculpture than pure pen & ink on board, to a Miller cover drawn on 2 boards instead of the usual 1 is like comparing apples and porterhouses.

[Bronty]

That's what I was referring to. You can't get too much further from traditional than this, but it's a masterpiece of the medium.

 

You couldn't have misunderstood me more completely! Since when did looking like spoon = not traditional? You are inferring things that I surely did not state.

 

If a piece looks good, collage elements or no, it looks good. In the case of this DD190 cover, IMO it does not look good and the two board issue weighs heavily into that.

 

That mckean piece probably looks terrific in person. From what I have seen of the jpgs, this DD190 would not.

[Bronty]

He doesn't like his art in pieces. He doesn't like art that's not on one board. He doesn't like art that's not on a nice white board. That's all I meant.

 

Comparing McKean's artwork, which is more multi-media/collage/sculpture than pure pen & ink on board, to a Miller cover drawn on 2 boards instead of the usual 1 is like comparing apples and porterhouses.

 

exactly

[delekkerste]

You know, what's funny is that this cover sold privately over the summer for six figures

 

I thought that the price of 188 was strong but this went for the same or more??

 

So...

 

Then:

 

"Well, if that DKR splash is worth $448K, this Daredevil #190 cover must be worth 6-figures, easy.:takeit:"

 

Now:

 

 

[Bronty]

you know, I never followed the link until just now to actually see the jpgs of the cover physically on two boards. The printed piece may be a nice image but BOTH of the two halves, even the DD half which I imagined would look nice, look like spoon to me - that big blank spot where elektra is supposed to be superimposed ruins the DD half for me. Yuck.

 

Personally this would bother me enough that on my rankings of DD/elektra cover originals (and without the benefit of knowing what all the others look like...) I'd go so far to put this at or near the very bottom. As far as miller DD elektra covers go, this ain't chicken its tofu

 

 

I hear what you are saying...but, based on what you said, I am just guessing you aren't a fan of Dave McKean's work.

 

I am a huge fan of his printed work... not too familiar with his originals.

 

If you are implying he tends to do his work on more than one surface all I can say is that when it comes to that I think you evaluate each piece on its own merits. It may be a death knell for one piece and just a minor side note on another. As a a general and simplistic comment, to me the closer the split of the art is to 50/50 on the two boards, the less I like it. If its 90/10 that's not so bad. But as always a lot of other factors will come into play

 

 

Yeah, I was mostly joking around .

 

My bad! Did not notice this part of your post until now. We will continue to be BFF's then

[Bronty]

I'm disappointed no one so far has picked up my dog poop train of thought. I was hoping to derail the thread further with that one

[Nexus]

I don't get hung up on how the piece is put together as long as the final product is real, original, and well done.

 

I'm with you, generally. However, in this case, it doesn't matter if the cover is in one piece or two pieces...it's just not that great to begin with. Sorry. I don't see how anyone who claims to be into Miller DD could call #190 one of "the 3 best covers in the run". Unless they had some interest in the auction doing well. In which case they'd be a shill.

 

Wouldn't be the first time.

[comix4fun]

He doesn't like his art in pieces. He doesn't like art that's not on one board. He doesn't like art that's not on a nice white board. That's all I meant.

 

Comparing McKean's artwork, which is more multi-media/collage/sculpture than pure pen & ink on board, to a Miller cover drawn on 2 boards instead of the usual 1 is like comparing apples and porterhouses.

 

 

Well, in all fairness, what was said was that the final product (on the stands) looked great and that seeing it on two boards and that it was compiled from those two boards made it look horrible. In the case of the Miller and the McKean you have multiple pieces coming together to form a final finished piece. Not so different my carnivorous friend.

 

I was pointing out, to the absurd, that simply because a piece of artwork is compiled from more than one piece of bristol, or a multi media piece, doesn't necessarily make it horrible.

 

This is the only art for the image that turned into that "great" cover on the stands. Unless the piece was a stat, or unless the piece smelled irrevocably of Tuna and dirty ashtray, I am having a hard time understanding why the art beginning on two boards and becoming a single piece is a deal breaker in this instance.

[comix4fun]

I don't get hung up on how the piece is put together as long as the final product is real, original, and well done.

 

I'm with you, generally. However, in this case, it doesn't matter if the cover is in one piece or two pieces...it's just not that great to begin with. Sorry. I don't see how anyone who claims to be into Miller DD could call #190 one of "the 3 best covers in the run". Unless they had some interest in the auction doing well. In which case they'd be a shill.

 

Wouldn't be the first time.

 

 

Ah, I see.

 

This auction doesn't matter to me either way as I (shock, awe, horror, ) don't have Miller as one of the artists I actively collect, but what you mention makes sense.

 

I reserve calling a piece dog poop, because it's dog poop..number of bristol boards used aside.

[delekkerste]

I was pointing out, to the absurd, that simply because a piece of artwork is compiled from more than one piece of bristol, or a multi media piece, doesn't necessarily make it horrible.

 

This is the only art for the image that turned into that "great" cover on the stands. Unless the piece was a stat, or unless the piece smelled irrevocably of Tuna and dirty ashtray, I am having a hard time understanding why the art beginning on two boards and becoming a single piece is a deal breaker in this instance.

 

Well, it wouldn't necessarily be a dealbreaker for me, though if I were interested in it, I'd certainly prefer to have the art all on one board. Yes, the stat overlay was very nicely done, but really only the DD image is original if you're displaying it with the overlay, while the original Elektra art would be tucked in a portfolio somewhere else. Not the end of the world, but worthy of some kind of discount I think, one of a kind or not.