Daredevil #190 cover 0

[delekkerste]

While we're at it, how much work did Miller do on the first Wolverine Limited Series? I recall that Rubinstein said that Miller did only extremely loose breakdowns, though I don't recall whether that was directly on board or on separate loose sheets of paper like DD #185-190. Does anyone remember?

[bocaratondefense]

The Wolverine miniseries was done with looser pencils but directly on boards. Someone here had scans of some of the pencils before they were inked by Rubenstein.

 

 

[jjonahjameson1]

This argument about Miller/Janson and the transition in art is a bit ridiculous. The bottom line is that Miller and Janson were an unbelievable team on this run, and neiher did it alone. Why we feel the need to idolize pencilers and disparage inkers is beyond me. You cannot separate the two on a run such as this, which frankly is yes partly about the art but mostly about the exquisite story and mood it created. The nostalgia, again, is all about the story, not the art. I agree that if you want art from this it should be art that both people touched and created, so a pure Janson piece of work doesn't have the same resonance. But, from all accounts that I've heard over the years, it is safe to say that Miller and Janson worked together at least till issue 181 (on the interiors) and maybe to issue 185. Personally, for me, my love for the run centers on the Elektra saga, and so that run from 168 to 181 will always command a huge premium whether it was all Miller, all Janson or as we all know to be true some combination of Miller and Janson that together made magic.

 

My two cents.

 

Hari

 

Hari, no offense, but Miller is the visionary on the run of DD168-181 that you are so enamoured with and its really Frank's words, layout and pacing that is so nostalgic.

 

I am not taking away anything from Janson (he is a wonderful artist), but if it was Janson pencils, the layout and pacing would be different, possibly very different. And I somehow doubt the storyline would be as nostalgic to you and you certainly wouldn't considet paying as much for it.

 

My two cents.

[blowout]

While we're at it, how much work did Miller do on the first Wolverine Limited Series? I recall that Rubinstein said that Miller did only extremely loose breakdowns, though I don't recall whether that was directly on board or on separate loose sheets of paper like DD #185-190. Does anyone remember?

 

I'm not sure on the specifics, but it is pretty clear from looking at the art style that it is mainly Rubinstein.

[J.Sid]

Re: DD 182-184 (the last issues before the Janson Breakdowns begin)

 

To further complicate the credits, a number of pages from 182-184 were originally drawn (pencilled/inked) a year earlier for issue 167, and are labeled as such on the OA.

 

EXAMPLE

 

The drug storyline got vetoed by the editorial staff at the time, but was then brought back later. Many word balloons on these pages have been whited-out and re-scripted when Frank expanded the issue into the Childs Play storyline which eventually saw print.

 

 

[heartened]

This argument about Miller/Janson and the transition in art is a bit ridiculous. The bottom line is that Miller and Janson were an unbelievable team on this run, and neiher did it alone. Why we feel the need to idolize pencilers and disparage inkers is beyond me. You cannot separate the two on a run such as this, which frankly is yes partly about the art but mostly about the exquisite story and mood it created. The nostalgia, again, is all about the story, not the art. I agree that if you want art from this it should be art that both people touched and created, so a pure Janson piece of work doesn't have the same resonance. But, from all accounts that I've heard over the years, it is safe to say that Miller and Janson worked together at least till issue 181 (on the interiors) and maybe to issue 185. Personally, for me, my love for the run centers on the Elektra saga, and so that run from 168 to 181 will always command a huge premium whether it was all Miller, all Janson or as we all know to be true some combination of Miller and Janson that together made magic.

 

My two cents.

 

Hari

 

Hari, no offense, but Miller is the visionary on the run of DD168-181 that you are so enamoured with and its really Frank's words, layout and pacing that is so nostalgic.

 

I am not taking away anything from Janson (he is a wonderful artist), but if it was Janson pencils, the layout and pacing would be different, possibly very different. And I somehow doubt the storyline would be as nostalgic to you and you certainly wouldn't considet paying as much for it.

 

My two cents.

 

No offense taken! I agree. To clarify, I was not implying that Janson alone is just as good for this run (please re-read my post above). But, the combination of Miller doing the penciling or layout on the actual board, assuring the pacing and story, and Janson finishing up everything was perfect, and that lasted all the way through at least issue 184. I do agree that the transition at issue 185 left more leeway for Janson to do his own thing, and that moves us away from that perfect combination. However, I don't see any difference between 158-172 and then issues 173-181, and if anything in my mind the later issues that were "looser" Miller are much more valuable because of that incredible story. In fact, I don't even collect his run before the Elektra issues (168-181), regardless of the fact that he was doing full pencils during that early part. If your argument were correct, then you should see a sharp decrease in prices at issue 173, when in fact the very opposity is true... prices stay at the highest level all the way through the death of Elektra, with the real transition point at issue 168 (not 173). Hope my point is coming across.

 

 

[heartened]

While we're at it, how much work did Miller do on the first Wolverine Limited Series? I recall that Rubinstein said that Miller did only extremely loose breakdowns, though I don't recall whether that was directly on board or on separate loose sheets of paper like DD #185-190. Does anyone remember?

 

I'm not sure on the specifics, but it is pretty clear from looking at the art style that it is mainly Rubinstein.

 

Does anyone here think that these pages would be more valuable than they are if they were 100% Miller? Proves my point that Miller's magic on everything he touched had mostly to do with story, pacing, and layouts. A great finisher pulls it all together, as Rubenstein did here and as Janson did on DD. I think the prices on the Wolverine Limited Series corroborate my thoughts on the pricing on the DD run, where there is essentially no price transition even when Miller became "looser", and the only real transitions are when the peak storyline started to fade away and when Janson took over everything on the art board.

 

[heartened]

I've been in this hobby long enough to know that we are not really art collectors. We are storybook art collectors. Take away the story and the characters, and the art almost never stands alone. We should start recognizing that, as all the valuations we place on the art we collect is really multi-factorial, and based on the character, story, era, nostalgia (i.e. readership at the time) and yes, perhaps lastly, the art aesthetics itself. Absolutely nothing wrong with this, but it'll make this whole debate about who pencils, who inks, etc. obsolete. Those types of nuances are fine when you're talking pure art where the valuation is solely based on the art itself, but I would suggest strongly that the values we place on the "art" we collect is 90% based on everything else I mentioned above and only 10% based on the pure aesthetics of the piece. It's time we acknowledged it. In fact, long time collectors know this to be true, and can guess prices on art mostly based on all the factors I described above.

 

[CollectingFool]

Hari, you and I don't usually see eye-to-eye on collecting and valuation but this is one point where we really agree. Most issues I have with the way collectors refer to the hobby is talking about it like it's ART (meaning a visual art like a painting and describing it as purely visually appealing art) when it's a collectible. Trying to value it using the rules for ART when it's a collectible that was creating with some artistic talent. Trying to pretend one piece is technically better (therefore worth more) than something else that is much better but not as collectible.

 

A lot of people can't or refuse to see the point you made. I think most arguments among collectors I'm involved with in the hobby have to do with people missing this point.

 

 

[Romain]

I'm with Hari on this !!!

 

Personnally I feel DK be the best exemple of what the good doctor is trying to say ...

Also though I have a deep grudge against old Joe R. I do think we should give far more credits to the inkers and even more to the writers ....

 

I'd take any DD cover from this fabulous run ( even if there weren't any Miller art on it !!! ) if I could ...

 

another

[Ferran Delgado]

Miller talks about the rejected drug story before it was published in DD #182-184 in Amazing Heroes #4 (September 1981):

 

Uploaded with ImageShack.us

Edited November 30, 2011 by Ferran Delgado

[alxjhnsn]

I completely agree with Hari.The art in my gallery is a reasonable collection as "art," it's real value comes from the context that comes with it.

 

Lots of people can draw Sgt. Rock or Superman well, but only Kubert and Swan do it their way because only they drew the stories that I loved so much.

 

When combined with a narrative, you really build on the "value."

[Weird Paper]

I've been in this hobby long enough to know that we are not really art collectors. We are storybook art collectors. Take away the story and the characters, and the art almost never stands alone. We should start recognizing that, as all the valuations we place on the art we collect is really multi-factorial, and based on the character, story, era, nostalgia (i.e. readership at the time) and yes, perhaps lastly, the art aesthetics itself. Absolutely nothing wrong with this, but it'll make this whole debate about who pencils, who inks, etc. obsolete. Those types of nuances are fine when you're talking pure art where the valuation is solely based on the art itself, but I would suggest strongly that the values we place on the "art" we collect is 90% based on everything else I mentioned above and only 10% based on the pure aesthetics of the piece. It's time we acknowledged it. In fact, long time collectors know this to be true, and can guess prices on art mostly based on all the factors I described above.

I would contend, though, that reasons we collect – nostalgia, the art itself, investment – will vary from person to person. I say that because I find myself frequently coveting and sometimes buying art from books I have no nostalgic feelings for. The most nostalgic era of comics for me is the mid 60s to the early 70s, but I have very little art from that period. I may be extremely nostalgic for JLA issues from the 60s, but make little effort to pursue the art since I don't care much for Sekowsky. That doesn't mean I wouldn't be happy to have one, but I wouldn't pursue it like I would something like a Ploog Kull splash which I covet for the art itself. So all those factors exist, but motivate different collectors to different degrees. Edited November 29, 2011 by Weird Paper

[heartened]

I've been in this hobby long enough to know that we are not really art collectors. We are storybook art collectors. Take away the story and the characters, and the art almost never stands alone. We should start recognizing that, as all the valuations we place on the art we collect is really multi-factorial, and based on the character, story, era, nostalgia (i.e. readership at the time) and yes, perhaps lastly, the art aesthetics itself. Absolutely nothing wrong with this, but it'll make this whole debate about who pencils, who inks, etc. obsolete. Those types of nuances are fine when you're talking pure art where the valuation is solely based on the art itself, but I would suggest strongly that the values we place on the "art" we collect is 90% based on everything else I mentioned above and only 10% based on the pure aesthetics of the piece. It's time we acknowledged it. In fact, long time collectors know this to be true, and can guess prices on art mostly based on all the factors I described above.

I would contend, though, that reasons we collect – nostalgia, the art itself, investment – will vary from person to person. I say that because I find myself frequently coveting and sometimes buying art from books I have no nostalgic feelings for. The most nostalgic era of comics for me is the mid 60s to the early 70s, but I have very little art from that period. I may be extremely nostalgic for JLA issues from the 60s, but make little effort to pursue the art since I don't care much for Sekowsky. That doesn't mean I wouldn't be happy to have one, but I wouldn't pursue it like I would something like a Ploog Kull splash which I covet for the art itself. So all those factors exist, but motivate different collectors to different degrees.

 

Point taken. I was, of course, speaking as a general comment. We all have exceptions to this "rule".

 

[mtlevy]

Shame to bury this thread in DD190 discussion.

 

For me some items are bought more as art...others for context...but in most cases a blend which is one reason this hobby is so fun but perhaps a bit hard to "grok"fully for non-comic folk

 

I'd imagine some debates on relative merits depend on if folks are buying or selling

[Weird Paper]

Shame to bury this thread in DD190 discussion.

 

For me some items are bought more as art...others for context...but in most cases a blend which is one reason this hobby is so fun but perhaps a bit hard to "grok"fully for non-comic folk

 

I'd imagine some debates on relative merits depend on if folks are buying or selling

I can only speak for myself on this, but knowing we share a common fondness for Everett, I can confess that the draw for me is not so much the character of Sub-Mariner himself, but the lush Everett brushwork, particularly in his later years.

[delekkerste]

I've been in this hobby long enough to know that we are not really art collectors. We are storybook art collectors. Take away the story and the characters, and the art almost never stands alone. We should start recognizing that, as all the valuations we place on the art we collect is really multi-factorial, and based on the character, story, era, nostalgia (i.e. readership at the time) and yes, perhaps lastly, the art aesthetics itself. Absolutely nothing wrong with this, but it'll make this whole debate about who pencils, who inks, etc. obsolete. Those types of nuances are fine when you're talking pure art where the valuation is solely based on the art itself, but I would suggest strongly that the values we place on the "art" we collect is 90% based on everything else I mentioned above and only 10% based on the pure aesthetics of the piece. It's time we acknowledged it. In fact, long time collectors know this to be true, and can guess prices on art mostly based on all the factors I described above.

 

Great post, Hari. It's definitely true that there are far more factors that determine comic book OA values than, say, fine art values. I've always said that is a big reason why it will be difficult to cross-sell comic OA to fine art collectors or anyone else who isn't a longtime established comic book fan that "gets" all these other factors (characters, storylines, key issue significance, etc.) I'm not sure if only 10% of value is determined by aesthetics - it probably varies a lot between pieces - but, overall, I agree that it's much less about aesthetics than one would think.

 

That said, I do think that most people still care whether and how much Miller actually contributed to a Daredevil page, even if nostalgia about that run might be the primary driver of value. Although, one might wonder what the value of #168-184 storyline pages would be if the roles had been reversed and those had been mostly Janson while #185-190 were all Miller.

[Bronty]

I've been in this hobby long enough to know that we are not really art collectors. We are storybook art collectors. Take away the story and the characters, and the art almost never stands alone. We should start recognizing that, as all the valuations we place on the art we collect is really multi-factorial, and based on the character, story, era, nostalgia (i.e. readership at the time) and yes, perhaps lastly, the art aesthetics itself. Absolutely nothing wrong with this, but it'll make this whole debate about who pencils, who inks, etc. obsolete. Those types of nuances are fine when you're talking pure art where the valuation is solely based on the art itself, but I would suggest strongly that the values we place on the "art" we collect is 90% based on everything else I mentioned above and only 10% based on the pure aesthetics of the piece. It's time we acknowledged it. In fact, long time collectors know this to be true, and can guess prices on art mostly based on all the factors I described above.

 

Great post, Hari. It's definitely true that there are far more factors that determine comic book OA values than, say, fine art values. I've always said that is a big reason why it will be difficult to cross-sell comic OA to fine art collectors or anyone else who isn't a longtime established comic book fan that "gets" all these other factors (characters, storylines, key issue significance, etc.) I'm not sure if only 10% of value is determined by aesthetics - it probably varies a lot between pieces - but, overall, I agree that it's much less about aesthetics than one would think.

That said, I do think that most people still care whether and how much Miller actually contributed to a Daredevil page, even if nostalgia about that run might be the primary driver of value. Although, one might wonder what the value of #168-184 storyline pages would be if the roles had been reversed and those had been mostly Janson while #185-190 were all Miller.

 

 

A comment and a question. As we discussed at length in the Lichtenstein thread, fine art collectors really aren't collecting for aesthetics either! They're collecting for different reasons entirely.

 

And now for the question. A lot of fine artists use / have used assistants have they not? What is the price differential for pieces that are all assistant vs. all artist? Is there any? Do fine art collectors clamor for a piece by this assistant or that assistant? I'm curious because that would be quite analagous to obsessing over who the inker is on a miller story, etc.

[WYLDCHYLD]

I would contend, though, that reasons we collect – nostalgia, the art itself, investment – will vary from person to person. I say that because I find myself frequently coveting and sometimes buying art from books I have no nostalgic feelings for. The most nostalgic era of comics for me is the mid 60s to the early 70s, but I have very little art from that period. I may be extremely nostalgic for JLA issues from the 60s, but make little effort to pursue the art since I don't care much for Sekowsky. That doesn't mean I wouldn't be happy to have one, but I wouldn't pursue it like I would something like a Ploog Kull splash which I covet for the art itself. So all those factors exist, but motivate different collectors to different degrees.

 

I totally agree, but just on the opposite end of the spectrum.

 

Using nostalgia as an example (as it is the basis of most of my personal collecting). I seek that warm fuzzy feeling of owning the original art to a book I remember reading as a kid one summer day when my grandpa would take me to the store to buy me a few comic books.

 

I don't care who the artist was that drew these images, (I really do enjoy Janson from his early Defenders work over Giffen though), I just rememember the images were powerful and interesting enough to draw my young mind away from all the others on the spinner rack.

 

Now while I love and appreciate Miller DD art (but don't personally collect the art to it), I do remember reading the original DD run off the stand, and at the time, didn't really notice any drastic changes in the art itself (perhaps because I wasn't looking for it), I just remember enjoying reading each new issue as they came out (I started reading off-the stands with issue #173 and read steadily until #191).

 

To me, this is where only nostalgia matters.

 

If I was to collect the art from this run, the only thing that would matter to me would be which individual covers/pages were burned into my memory the most from story moment images I enjoyed, rather than "artistic quality of the piece as a piece of art".

 

This is why I have so many Buckler, Milgrom, and Chan covers on my wantlist...sure they may not be the "greatest" artists of their time, but nostalgia is a powerful thing...

[Bronty]

I've been in this hobby long enough to know that we are not really art collectors. We are storybook art collectors. Take away the story and the characters, and the art almost never stands alone. We should start recognizing that, as all the valuations we place on the art we collect is really multi-factorial, and based on the character, story, era, nostalgia (i.e. readership at the time) and yes, perhaps lastly, the art aesthetics itself. Absolutely nothing wrong with this, but it'll make this whole debate about who pencils, who inks, etc. obsolete. Those types of nuances are fine when you're talking pure art where the valuation is solely based on the art itself, but I would suggest strongly that the values we place on the "art" we collect is 90% based on everything else I mentioned above and only 10% based on the pure aesthetics of the piece. It's time we acknowledged it. In fact, long time collectors know this to be true, and can guess prices on art mostly based on all the factors I described above.

 

Great post, Hari. It's definitely true that there are far more factors that determine comic book OA values than, say, fine art values. I've always said that is a big reason why it will be difficult to cross-sell comic OA to fine art collectors or anyone else who isn't a longtime established comic book fan that "gets" all these other factors (characters, storylines, key issue significance, etc.) I'm not sure if only 10% of value is determined by aesthetics - it probably varies a lot between pieces - but, overall, I agree that it's much less about aesthetics than one would think.

 

 

in light of the recent discussion on the lichty thread, I can definitely see where you are coming from on that (thumbs u Expecting a fine art collector to value the marvel spotlight 5 or green lantern 76 cover as we would makes about as much sense as asking a comic art collector with no knowledge of or appreciation for fine art to look at that Clyfford Still you posted and instantly know that's a $50m piece. No one could reasonably make that leap without a large amount of backstory in EITHER case.