Move Over Dark Knight #3, Page 10

[ashrael]

Yes, there are 4, and this is not the best one IMHO, but is the only available copy (unless you can steal and hold onto one of the museum copies).

 

Museum heist! The CGC Boards/CAF/ComicArt-L version of Ocean's Eleven.

 

Given our members, I think it will be more of a Maiden Heist type theft

[chrisco37]

Who's the cute chick on the right?

 

Yeah, I remember there was a "Scream" painting that was stolen in Sweden I believe....

 

The most recent theft was from the Munch Museum in Oslo, Norway. I was there in 1999 (see photo below) - as you can see, The Scream was not enclosed/protected and the small museum was barely guarded. It's no wonder the thieves so easily stole it and another famous Munch painting, Madonna, in 2004.

 

That's Gene. And he's a dude.

[pinupcartoonguy]

Who's the cute chick on the right?

 

Yeah, I remember there was a "Scream" painting that was stolen in Sweden I believe....

 

The most recent theft was from the Munch Museum in Oslo, Norway. I was there in 1999 (see photo below) - as you can see, The Scream was not enclosed/protected and the small museum was barely guarded. It's no wonder the thieves so easily stole it and another famous Munch painting, Madonna, in 2004.

 

That's Gene. And he's a dude.

 

Whoops! My bad.

[delekkerste]

That's Gene. And he's a dude.

 

I think he was talking about the painting. At least I hope he was.

[comix4fun]

That's Gene. And he's a dude.

 

I think he was talking about the painting. At least I hope he was.

 

 

 

You were so young, so full of vim and vigor.

[VintageComics]

Who's the cute chick on the right?

 

Yeah, I remember there was a "Scream" painting that was stolen in Sweden I believe....

 

The most recent theft was from the Munch Museum in Oslo, Norway. I was there in 1999 (see photo below) - as you can see, The Scream was not enclosed/protected and the small museum was barely guarded. It's no wonder the thieves so easily stole it and another famous Munch painting, Madonna, in 2004.

 

That's Gene.

 

[bluechip]

that's not THE scream though is it. there were several versions IIRC and this is not the most prized one IIRC?

 

 

Are you sure you remember correctly, if you remember correctly? [/quote

 

There were several versions done and this wasn't the first or the last. But the others are all in museums and therefore not available. Still, it would be fair to compare it to a classic comic art piece that's either a vintage prelim or recreation.

 

 

well excuse me for the redundant redundancy

 

Your last sentence is exactly my point. This is very cool but it aint quite the real deal and the real deal would, I must assume, fetch a price that would dwarf this one.

 

 

I don't agree with the comparison - there really isn't a good comic OA parallel. Artists sometimes do several versions of a particular theme, like Van Gogh's Sunflowers or Monet's Houses of Parliament. There are 4 versions of The Scream, at least two of which have been extensively reproduced. The one that just sold at auction isn't as ubiquitous simply because it's been held in private hands, and to call it the equivalent of a prelim or recreation would be doing it a great injustice.

 

I think $120 million is a great price for that piece, for the right buyer. For example, an upstart museum in the Middle East could really bolster its cachet and get more bodies in the door having an iconic painting like that as part of its permanent collection.

 

Wasn't meaning to do it an injustice by equating it to a prelim. It only sounds that way because the comic art community's attitude toward prelims and recreations is strangely skewed. In some cases I would prefer a prelim to a classic cover much preferable to the final published examples of less intriguing images. The comic art community doesn't follow that logic, partly because it's tied to the published works and partly because there is greater hype for material that exists in greater numbers. Naturally, hype or lack of it has played and will play an even larger role in how comic recreations are valued.

 

[Bronty]

"I don't agree with the comparison - there really isn't a good comic OA parallel. Artists sometimes do several versions of a particular theme, like Van Gogh's Sunflowers or Monet's Houses of Parliament. There are 4 versions of The Scream, at least two of which have been extensively reproduced. The one that just sold at auction isn't as ubiquitous simply because it's been held in private hands, and to call it the equivalent of a prelim or recreation would be doing it a great injustice."

 

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

 

Oh I do understand that. Just making the point that it's not even THE piece so a record price for a lesser version of something isnt too bad! Gene if you had to guess what do you think the more ubiquitous version might be worth, based on this sale? More just interested in the ratio- double triple quadruple?

[Bronty]

Yeah, I remember there was a "Scream" painting that was stolen in Sweden I believe....

 

The most recent theft was from the Munch Museum in Oslo, Norway. I was there in 1999 (see photo below) - as you can see, The Scream was not enclosed/protected and the small museum was barely guarded. It's no wonder the thieves so easily stole it and another famous Munch painting, Madonna, in 2004. [/quot

 

Great pic? Who's the teenager?

[bluechip]

There may be no precise "parallels" but there are plenty of comic art pieces which have more than one example of a classic image. AF 15 cover, for one. Both would be highly sought after, and there are bound to be some who would prefer the first cover, by Ditko, to the published version. Same might be true of ASM 10 unpub cover v. published version. If I was not influenced by the costs or by conventional wisdom, and I was presented a choice between Kirby's prelim pencils for FF 20 versus the published version with Roussos inks, I would be more interested in the prelim. And what about people who pay tons of money for recreations of comic covers by Barks? Do similar line art originals go for more, less, the same? An ASM 100 recreation went for more than many thought the original was worth. And what about the Dark Knight page inked by Janson (published) versus the unique recreation penciled and inked entirely by Miller? And what about lightboxed pencils, where both the published inked version and the original pencil version still exist, but there are different artists involved in each and one artist is more valued than the other?

 

The values in comic art are evolving and not as "cut and (dried)" as many think.

 

 

[Bronty]

Same might be true of ASM 10 unpub cover v. published version.

 

 

I am not familiar with the unpubbed #10 - could you tell me more?

[Solar]

"cut and (dried)"

 

Thanks for the edit, but both versions are valid. Mine's just a little less common.

 

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/cut_and_dry

[delekkerste]

Oh I do understand that. Just making the point that it's not even THE piece so a record price for a lesser version of something isnt too bad! Gene if you had to guess what do you think the more ubiquitous version might be worth, based on this sale? More just interested in the ratio- double triple quadruple?

 

I think double the price would be the ceiling, actually, and that it could very well fetch "only" ~25-50% more. In the grand scheme of things, Munch is considered to be a second-tier artist (as is Gustav Klimt for that matter, the $135 million sale of Portrait of Adele Bloch-Bauer I notwithstanding) and I think there is only so much one is willing to pay for a mixed media painting by him, for which there are 3 other versions, at prices that could alternatively secure a great example by a first-tier artist like Cezanne or Picasso. Not to mention, there are few people/institutions who can afford a $100-$125 million painting as it is (and many of those who would be interested in any version of the painting were probably bidding last night); the number of people who could afford to spend $200+ million is rarer still - only 1 painting has ever cracked the $200 million barrier (in a private sale), and none have even come close at auction.

[bluechip]

"cut and (dried)"

 

Thanks for the edit, but both versions are valid. Mine's just a little less common.

 

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/cut_and_dry

 

Didn't know that. Learn something new every day.

[bluechip]

Same might be true of ASM 10 unpub cover v. published version.

 

 

I am not familiar with the unpubbed #10 - could you tell me more?

 

Ditko did a full cover and Kirby redid it with a new (badly done) image of spidey. Similar thing happened many times,

 

[Solar]

To throw another wrinkle into the discussion, the 'prime version' (the most iconic Scream, posted earlier in this thread) isn't necessarily the first version. The other 1893 version is probably the earliest, but is less popular because it appears less finished.

 

I really think that these need to be viewed as 4 different, unique paintings of the same subject. The 'prime version' would definitely bring the most money because it's the most recognizable, but the other works are just as important.

[Bird]

The first, original, prime, earliest version is in crayon from what I understand. That is a relevant fact I would think. It isn't even a painting, it is a crayoning.

[Solar]

This might help:

 

 

#1 is called the prime version, but #4 was probably created first, possibly as a study.

[Bonds25]

Yeah, I remember there was a "Scream" painting that was stolen in Sweden I believe....

 

The most recent theft was from the Munch Museum in Oslo, Norway. I was there in 1999 (see photo below) - as you can see, The Scream was not enclosed/protected and the small museum was barely guarded. It's no wonder the thieves so easily stole it and another famous Munch painting, Madonna, in 2004.

 

 

Cool picture Gene!

 

I've always wondered what happens to stolen pieces of famous artwork? Is there a market for them? Can they ever be resold? What happens to the artwork if it's ever found? (is it returned to the original owner and the current owner is SOL?)

[B-Smooth]

Oh I do understand that. Just making the point that it's not even THE piece so a record price for a lesser version of something isnt too bad! Gene if you had to guess what do you think the more ubiquitous version might be worth, based on this sale? More just interested in the ratio- double triple quadruple?

 

I think double the price would be the ceiling, actually, and that it could very well fetch "only" ~25-50% more. In the grand scheme of things, Munch is considered to be a second-tier artist (as is Gustav Klimt for that matter, the $135 million sale of Portrait of Adele Bloch-Bauer I notwithstanding) and I think there is only so much one is willing to pay for a mixed media painting by him, for which there are 3 other versions, at prices that could alternatively secure a great example by a first-tier artist like Cezanne or Picasso. Not to mention, there are few people/institutions who can afford a $100-$125 million painting as it is (and many of those who would be interested in any version of the painting were probably bidding last night); the number of people who could afford to spend $200+ million is rarer still - only 1 painting has ever cracked the $200 million barrier (in a private sale), and none have even come close at auction.

 

Which painting sold for $200 million? Sunflowers? We had a silly, hypothetical discussion about what the Mona Lisa would sell for if it was currently in a private collection. Thoughts on that, Gene?