ComicLink November 2012 Auction - McFarlane Strikes Again

[Overthetopinc]

No problem guys. I agree with Kevin. Mcfarlane pieces will disappear from the scene in the next 6 months and things will go back to normal as far as availability goes.

thanks,

Matthew

[artcollector9]

Hey Gene!

 

I enjoy your posts.

 

I think the Mattingly market corrected down, and high end (condition and blue chip name) cards went way up. I don't follow cards anymore.

 

I've heard KK dailies and much more scarce than Sundays-- I suppose many were destroyed? I don't believe there are 1000s out there, I know where a lot of them are, and they are in the 100s. Some of them are approaching 100 years old, from a time when these were not deemed worthy of saving.

 

I agree that mainstream stuff that gets reinvented (e.g. Spider-Man) has had the best track record-- for sure. That's why I'm bullish on Marvel art.

 

But--big but-- I buy what I like, so I don't need a home run on something doing 500-600% over 15-20 years, since the first dividend was my enjoyment and pleasure...I paid 6K for some KK Sundays in 2000, now worth 20K+, that's 12 years, around 28% per year increase ..if that's not a home run (in terms of what else I could have bought in 2000 for 6K), it certainly is much more than respectable.

 

I would collect differently if I ONLY collected (or really, invested) for chance of appreciation in value.

 

I think we collectors/investors temper one (love of the art) with the other (appreciation in value).

 

Rob

 

 

[Aman619]

Tarzan is a hundred years old this year. The world said a big " big deal". Age isn't everything sadly.

[Koa]

There isn't any need to knock down one generation's artist to prop up another generation. Just because your taste was shaped by Frazetta, Jack Kirby or John Romita Sr., Neal Adams, Buscema or Byrne doesn't mean the world ended there for everybody else. The early 90's does not begin and end with Rob Liefeld and Chromium covers as much as some people would like to pretend.

 

For those of us not diminishing an entire era because of of our own personal aesthetic bias , Todd Mcfarlane is one of the most popular artists in and to emerge out of comics.Todd's popularity has transcended the comics community, into popular culture and that may put his work in the rare position of attracting bidders outside of the traditional pool, no?

 

Mcfarlane's spider-man was a breath of fresh air to younger readers at the time who were forced fed Romita's rendition in cartoons and on t-shirts and in comics to the point of nausea, Todd managed to bring the dark quirkiness back to the character Ditko had created, updated for a new generation of readers. Were the stories he worked on classics, no. The imagery he created with the character is iconic to an entire generation of readers.

 

Could part of the success of the Shamus collection auction at heritage be that it reached a lot more potential buyers through publicity than previous auctions of Mcfarlane's work? That was the first heavily promoted auction of Mcfarlane artwork. interior pages of spider-man swinging got 30k. It' hard to imagine ofe of the best covers of the mcfarlane spider-man era selling for a little more than that. The AMS 313 was auctioned on ebay, in a much shorter time frame with no publicity and got over 70k. Had more people known about it who knows where it would have gone.

 

[Bronty]

There isn't any need to knock down one generation's artist to prop up another generation. Just because your taste was shaped by Frazetta, Jack Kirby or John Romita Sr., Neal Adams, Buscema or Byrne doesn't mean the world ended there for everybody else. The early 90's does not begin and end with Rob Liefeld and Chromium covers as much as some people would like to pretend.

 

 

You replied to me so I'll assume this is directed to me (?).... if so, keep in mind I AM a McFarlane generation guy. I enjoyed his work a lot at the time and still do enjoy some of it. But to me the quality of the art went downhill after ASM, and it was exacerbated by the godawful stories (after ASM). Some of his stuff has a fond place in my heart and some of it I just find hard to look at today.

 

That's not me tearing down a generation that's just me being honest.

[Koa]

There isn't any need to knock down one generation's artist to prop up another generation. Just because your taste was shaped by Frazetta, Jack Kirby or John Romita Sr., Neal Adams, Buscema or Byrne doesn't mean the world ended there for everybody else. The early 90's does not begin and end with Rob Liefeld and Chromium covers as much as some people would like to pretend.

 

 

You replied to me so I'll assume this is directed to me (?).... if so, keep in mind I AM a McFarlane generation guy. I enjoyed his work a lot at the time and still do enjoy some of it. But to me the quality of the art went downhill after ASM, and it was exacerbated by the godawful stories (after ASM). Some of his stuff has a fond place in my heart and some of it I just find hard to look at today.

 

That's not me tearing down a generation that's just me being honest.

 

, I wasn't directing that at you specifically but the general dismissal of the entire era. it reminds me of my first trips to the comic book shops around that time and the hostility aimed toward us by the old hats.I don't know, David micheline wasn't exactly Stan Lee. It's a shame that J.M. Dematties wasn't writing Mcfarlane's AMS run because what he did with KLH and spectacular spider-man was much more in tune with Mcfarlane's visual sense. Personally i thought the first 7 issues of spider-man were more interesting and the visual pacing was pretty good.

 

Anyway, that doesn't change Mcfarlane's enormous popularity in comics during that period and in pop culture as a designer today. IMHO, part of why certain artists from that period are selling is because of the splashy nature of the work. it's art more than story. I think that's particularity important with cover art.

[Kevin76]

There isn't any need to knock down one generation's artist to prop up another generation. Just because your taste was shaped by Frazetta, Jack Kirby or John Romita Sr., Neal Adams, Buscema or Byrne doesn't mean the world ended there for everybody else. The early 90's does not begin and end with Rob Liefeld and Chromium covers as much as some people would like to pretend.

 

 

You replied to me so I'll assume this is directed to me (?).... if so, keep in mind I AM a McFarlane generation guy. I enjoyed his work a lot at the time and still do enjoy some of it. But to me the quality of the art went downhill after ASM, and it was exacerbated by the godawful stories (after ASM). Some of his stuff has a fond place in my heart and some of it I just find hard to look at today.

 

That's not me tearing down a generation that's just me being honest.

 

, I wasn't directing that at you specifically but the general dismissal of the entire era. it reminds me of my first trips to the comic book shops around that time and the hostility aimed toward us by the old hats.I don't know, David micheline wasn't exactly Stan Lee. It's a shame that J.M. Dematties wasn't writing Mcfarlane's AMS run because what he did with KLH and spectacular spider-man was much more in tune with Mcfarlane's visual sense. Personally i thought the first 7 issues of spider-man were more interesting and the visual pacing was pretty good.

 

Anyway, that doesn't change Mcfarlane's enormous popularity in comics during that period and in pop culture as a designer today. IMHO, part of why certain artists from that period are selling is because of the splashy nature of the work. it's art more than story. I think that's particularity important with cover art.

 

Exactly.

 

It's fun to look at. It's exciting! I find Romita and Ditko boring, While they are both great artists and certainly "Do things the right way" Mcfarlane is just in your face, It's full of energy. Over the top works in comic books. In 1990/1991 who bought "Spider-Man" simply because they loved the stories? Hardly anyone. people bought it to look at the amazing art. Now that a collection of his art is up for auction, it's been a shark feeding frenzy, prices on Mcfarlane art will never be the same now.

[Koa]

There isn't any need to knock down one generation's artist to prop up another generation. Just because your taste was shaped by Frazetta, Jack Kirby or John Romita Sr., Neal Adams, Buscema or Byrne doesn't mean the world ended there for everybody else. The early 90's does not begin and end with Rob Liefeld and Chromium covers as much as some people would like to pretend.

 

 

You replied to me so I'll assume this is directed to me (?).... if so, keep in mind I AM a McFarlane generation guy. I enjoyed his work a lot at the time and still do enjoy some of it. But to me the quality of the art went downhill after ASM, and it was exacerbated by the godawful stories (after ASM). Some of his stuff has a fond place in my heart and some of it I just find hard to look at today.

 

That's not me tearing down a generation that's just me being honest.

 

, I wasn't directing that at you specifically but the general dismissal of the entire era. it reminds me of my first trips to the comic book shops around that time and the hostility aimed toward us by the old hats.I don't know, David micheline wasn't exactly Stan Lee. It's a shame that J.M. Dematties wasn't writing Mcfarlane's AMS run because what he did with KLH and spectacular spider-man was much more in tune with Mcfarlane's visual sense. Personally i thought the first 7 issues of spider-man were more interesting and the visual pacing was pretty good.

 

Anyway, that doesn't change Mcfarlane's enormous popularity in comics during that period and in pop culture as a designer today. IMHO, part of why certain artists from that period are selling is because of the splashy nature of the work. it's art more than story. I think that's particularity important with cover art.

 

Exactly.

 

It's fun to look at. It's exciting! I find Romita and Ditko boring, While they are both great artists and certainly "Do things the right way" Mcfarlane is just in your face, It's full of energy. Over the top works in comic books. In 1990/1991 who bought "Spider-Man" simply because they loved the stories? Hardly anyone. people bought it to look at the amazing art. Now that a collection of his art is up for auction, it's been a shark feeding frenzy, prices on Mcfarlane art will never be the same now.

 

It wasn't even Romita sr (who I loved from the first time i saw AMS 45 reprinted in MT) it was that, 20 years later most of the artists still drew spidey like that. Todd gave him rubber bones and really emphasized the cartoon nature of the character in costume. I loved the move away from illustration toward expressionism in it's own way. The focus on creating a subjective experience for the reader.

 

I think this Spider-man #4 cover could be major.

 

[J.Sid]

Can't wait to see what the McFarlane covers go for this round, even if the pieces had previously been shopped around.

 

I know several collectors who, for example, never cared about getting a Killing Joke page until they saw the bidding frenzy that happens when one was at auction. The high profile results definitely can generate buying interest in collectors where there may not have been interest before.

 

Also, I know at least 3 newer McFarlane collectors who a bit out-of-touch with the McFarlane market. They would inquiries/offers based on things like that panel page of Spidey sitting in a limo talking to Silver Sable. Maybe the last auction has them re-evaluating what it takes to get something they'd be happy with.

 

 

 

 

[Terry Doyle]

Hey Gene!

 

I enjoy your posts.

 

I think the Mattingly market corrected down, and high end (condition and blue chip name) cards went way up. I don't follow cards anymore.

 

I've heard KK dailies and much more scarce than Sundays-- I suppose many were destroyed? I don't believe there are 1000s out there, I know where a lot of them are, and they are in the 100s. Some of them are approaching 100 years old, from a time when these were not deemed worthy of saving.

 

I agree that mainstream stuff that gets reinvented (e.g. Spider-Man) has had the best track record-- for sure. That's why I'm bullish on Marvel art.

 

But--big but-- I buy what I like, so I don't need a home run on something doing 500-600% over 15-20 years, since the first dividend was my enjoyment and pleasure...I paid 6K for some KK Sundays in 2000, now worth 20K+, that's 12 years, around 28% per year increase ..if that's not a home run (in terms of what else I could have bought in 2000 for 6K), it certainly is much more than respectable.

 

I would collect differently if I ONLY collected (or really, invested) for chance of appreciation in value.

 

I think we collectors/investors temper one (love of the art) with the other (appreciation in value).

 

Rob

 

 

When I started buying art from Cochran in 1982, I did so because I loved all those EC comic-books I'd recently discovered a few years beforehand.

 

OA seemed like the next stage in my EC fascination.

 

I'd grew up reading all the Marvel and DC superhero books during the 1960s (which is my era of nostalgia), but the EC art was head-and-shoulders above most things I'd seen before.

 

At the time, OA seemed like an expensive part of the hobby to move into, but I regularly bought art simply because I loved the stuff.

 

Never because I thought it would appreciate in value and make me a wealthy man one day.

 

With me, it was all about passion.

 

Those collectors who were buying Raymonds, Fosters, Herrimans, etc, were passionate about those strips.

 

This thread, and similar ones, is interesting - but the leaning seems more towards investment potential.

 

With the big numbers involved, I can understand and appreciate that - to a certain extent.

 

I think I lean more towards the views of those posters who speak out of passion and enthusiasm for the OA they collect.

 

The elitist attitudes often displayed here leave me a little cold.

 

In many ways, some of these OA threads are beginning to show similarities to the slabbed-comics phenomenon.

 

Cold and clinical.

 

[delekkerste]

Could part of the success of the Shamus collection auction at heritage be that it reached a lot more potential buyers through publicity than previous auctions of Mcfarlane's work?

 

I doubt it. I think HA did a good job of pouring gasoline onto a hot market with their marketing efforts, but, ultimately, I doubt that any of the covers ended up with newbies or outsiders who were sucked in by the publicity. Everybody talks about crossover potential of certain comics and OA, and yet, they always seem to end up either in or at least going through the hands of "the usual suspects" (as has already been confirmed with the #328). When the smoke clears and the buyers are revealed for the rest of the covers, I'm sure this sale will prove to be no different.

[jbud73]

Could part of the success of the Shamus collection auction at heritage be that it reached a lot more potential buyers through publicity than previous auctions of Mcfarlane's work?

 

I doubt it. I think HA did a good job of pouring gasoline onto a hot market with their marketing efforts, but, ultimately, I doubt that any of the covers ended up with newbies or outsiders who were sucked in by the publicity. Everybody talks about crossover potential of certain comics and OA, and yet, they always seem to end up either in or at least going through the hands of "the usual suspects" (as has already been confirmed with the #328). When the smoke clears and the buyers are revealed for the rest of the covers, I'm sure this sale will prove to be no different.

 

Good point Gene, The ASM 328 = Dealer; WSF 29 = Auction House owner; Spidey 1= (why do I think this might reside with an Auction House owner / dealer). I think the music is starting to wind down, a few chairs are left.

 

I actually went back and re-read the ASM and Spidey runs and had a look at some of the other early 90s stuff just for nostalgia and to try and remember or put the art into perspective ....

 

The ASM run blows the Spidey run out of the water, I know not news but yes Todd breathed new life into ASM, revitalized the character a la Miller before him. But that is where the similarities end, because he also issued in the beginning of the end with Spidey 1. There is a discernible difference in feel, now it could be that hindsight is 20-20, but there is a manufactured vibe to Spider-man, the art feels contrived the flow feels wrong and every other page is this over the top splash that desensitizes that reader and diminishes the art.

 

The funny thing is Liefeld did the same thing. I know people bash him now, but there was a definite buzz to his end run on New Mutants (as an aside does anyone remember the Levis jeans add???), but again with X-Force it felt forced and his art went down hill as he started to increase the exaggerations, but he was not alone, just seemed to suffer more for it.

 

What people now tend to ... I don't want to say forget as the combined knowledge on this forum is par excellance , but diminish, is that everything went over the top from 1993 onwards a little dark ages after the 1984 to 1991 Renaissance. The Spider-man run epitomizes that peak to valley in all its glory and horror. When i went back and read and flipped through the comics there was nostalgia, though not all of it good. Still Todd's impact on the medium can not be denied and owning an example of his work will have a strong appeal to a certain segment of the comic collector market.

[Bronty]

Well said

[VintageComics]

Boy I could be very wrong but I don't see this one getting big numbers at ALL. Lizards dislocated unhinged jaw is all I can look at. I'm bearish on this one.

 

Looks cool and who cares?

 

I'm trying to place the quote..... Let's see.... Let's see...... How To Draw the Rob Liefeld way, chapter 1?

 

Yeah, but Kirby couldn't draw knuckles to save his life.

 

[jjeanius]

Biz rules! Anyway, it's good to here a little background about the cover from the source (not that it matters, because its a great cover). I also heard over 50k. Again, all these prices are from before the big HA auction, so price of the piece is moot. You have people sounding off on this thread saying "under 50" or "he had trouble getting rid of it" almost as if there was a hidden agenda. Of course, we are all entitled to our opinion, that's what makes the discussion fun. Thanks Matt!

 

You keep mentioning the recent HA auction results as if it totally raised the bar on the McSpidey market, and I just don't think it did. As far as I can tell, exactly one piece (ASM 328) exceeded expectations...and every other McSpidey example was at or below expectations. Spider-Man #1 was largely expected to go for $500k+, and most view the hammer price as a bit of a disappointment. ASM 328 certainly exceeded expectations by a very healthy margin, but the other pieces (1/2 splash, full splash, Marvel Tales cover, ASM 317) all came in about where they should. In fact, a number of people on this very forum expressed their personal preference for ASM 317 over ASM 328...and it went for a fraction of the ASM 328 price, which most view as an aberration and an anomaly. So...taking all of this into account, and ignoring the absurd result with ASM 328, what makes you think that the bar has been raised..?

 

As to Gene's point....I know the new owners on 4 of 5 McSpideys from the last HA ended up (not including ASM 328, which I still believe did *not* land with Fishler/Zurzolo), and they did, indeed, land with some of the "usual suspects". No outside money was in play (or at least, no outside money ended up winning).

[comix4fun]

Biz rules! Anyway, it's good to here a little background about the cover from the source (not that it matters, because its a great cover). I also heard over 50k. Again, all these prices are from before the big HA auction, so price of the piece is moot. You have people sounding off on this thread saying "under 50" or "he had trouble getting rid of it" almost as if there was a hidden agenda. Of course, we are all entitled to our opinion, that's what makes the discussion fun. Thanks Matt!

 

You keep mentioning the recent HA auction results as if it totally raised the bar on the McSpidey market, and I just don't think it did. As far as I can tell, exactly one piece (ASM 328) exceeded expectations...and every other McSpidey example was at or below expectations. Spider-Man #1 was largely expected to go for $500k+, and most view the hammer price as a bit of a disappointment. ASM 328 certainly exceeded expectations by a very healthy margin, but the other pieces (1/2 splash, full splash, Marvel Tales cover, ASM 317) all came in about where they should. In fact, a number of people on this very forum expressed their personal preference for ASM 317 over ASM 328...and it went for a fraction of the ASM 328 price, which most view as an aberration and an anomaly. So...taking all of this into account, and ignoring the absurd result with ASM 328, what makes you think that the bar has been raised..?

 

As to Gene's point....I know the new owners on 4 of 5 McSpideys from the last HA ended up (not including ASM 328, which I still believe did *not* land with Fishler/Zurzolo), and they did, indeed, land with some of the "usual suspects". No outside money was in play (or at least, no outside money ended up winning).

 

 

The 317 result, by itself, taking away the SM 1 and ASM 328 sales would have been the single highest public sale of a McFarlane cover ever recorded.

 

So I think that piece exceeded expectations given how far above every other public sale that came before it went.

[VintageComics]

Hey Gene!

 

I enjoy your posts.

 

I think the Mattingly market corrected down, and high end (condition and blue chip name) cards went way up. I don't follow cards anymore.

 

I've heard KK dailies and much more scarce than Sundays-- I suppose many were destroyed? I don't believe there are 1000s out there, I know where a lot of them are, and they are in the 100s. Some of them are approaching 100 years old, from a time when these were not deemed worthy of saving.

 

I agree that mainstream stuff that gets reinvented (e.g. Spider-Man) has had the best track record-- for sure. That's why I'm bullish on Marvel art.

 

But--big but-- I buy what I like, so I don't need a home run on something doing 500-600% over 15-20 years, since the first dividend was my enjoyment and pleasure...I paid 6K for some KK Sundays in 2000, now worth 20K+, that's 12 years, around 28% per year increase ..if that's not a home run (in terms of what else I could have bought in 2000 for 6K), it certainly is much more than respectable.

 

I would collect differently if I ONLY collected (or really, invested) for chance of appreciation in value.

 

I think we collectors/investors temper one (love of the art) with the other (appreciation in value).

 

Rob

 

 

When I started buying art from Cochran in 1982, I did so because I loved all those EC comic-books I'd recently discovered a few years beforehand.

 

OA seemed like the next stage in my EC fascination.

 

I'd grew up reading all the Marvel and DC superhero books during the 1960s (which is my era of nostalgia), but the EC art was head-and-shoulders above most things I'd seen before.

 

At the time, OA seemed like an expensive part of the hobby to move into, but I regularly bought art simply because I loved the stuff.

 

Never because I thought it would appreciate in value and make me a wealthy man one day.

 

With me, it was all about passion.

 

Those collectors who were buying Raymonds, Fosters, Herrimans, etc, were passionate about those strips.

 

This thread, and similar ones, is interesting - but the leaning seems more towards investment potential.

 

With the big numbers involved, I can understand and appreciate that - to a certain extent.

 

I think I lean more towards the views of those posters who speak out of passion and enthusiasm for the OA they collect.

 

The elitist attitudes often displayed here leave me a little cold.

 

In many ways, some of these OA threads are beginning to show similarities to the slabbed-comics phenomenon.

 

Cold and clinical.

 

 

This is a terrific post and hits the nail on the head on several levels.

 

I feel the same way about conversations in comics general where every time a movie is announced people wonder which keys will go up in value.

 

As values increase it becomes very difficult to detach the investment side of the equation, unfortunately.

[jbud73]

Hey Gene!

 

I enjoy your posts.

 

I think the Mattingly market corrected down, and high end (condition and blue chip name) cards went way up. I don't follow cards anymore.

 

I've heard KK dailies and much more scarce than Sundays-- I suppose many were destroyed? I don't believe there are 1000s out there, I know where a lot of them are, and they are in the 100s. Some of them are approaching 100 years old, from a time when these were not deemed worthy of saving.

 

I agree that mainstream stuff that gets reinvented (e.g. Spider-Man) has had the best track record-- for sure. That's why I'm bullish on Marvel art.

 

But--big but-- I buy what I like, so I don't need a home run on something doing 500-600% over 15-20 years, since the first dividend was my enjoyment and pleasure...I paid 6K for some KK Sundays in 2000, now worth 20K+, that's 12 years, around 28% per year increase ..if that's not a home run (in terms of what else I could have bought in 2000 for 6K), it certainly is much more than respectable.

 

I would collect differently if I ONLY collected (or really, invested) for chance of appreciation in value.

 

I think we collectors/investors temper one (love of the art) with the other (appreciation in value).

 

Rob

 

 

When I started buying art from Cochran in 1982, I did so because I loved all those EC comic-books I'd recently discovered a few years beforehand.

 

OA seemed like the next stage in my EC fascination.

 

I'd grew up reading all the Marvel and DC superhero books during the 1960s (which is my era of nostalgia), but the EC art was head-and-shoulders above most things I'd seen before.

 

At the time, OA seemed like an expensive part of the hobby to move into, but I regularly bought art simply because I loved the stuff.

 

Never because I thought it would appreciate in value and make me a wealthy man one day.

 

With me, it was all about passion.

 

Those collectors who were buying Raymonds, Fosters, Herrimans, etc, were passionate about those strips.

 

This thread, and similar ones, is interesting - but the leaning seems more towards investment potential.

 

With the big numbers involved, I can understand and appreciate that - to a certain extent.

 

I think I lean more towards the views of those posters who speak out of passion and enthusiasm for the OA they collect.

 

The elitist attitudes often displayed here leave me a little cold.

 

In many ways, some of these OA threads are beginning to show similarities to the slabbed-comics phenomenon.

 

Cold and clinical.

 

 

Terry, very much agree with you concerning the cold and clinical by-product that comes with the maturation of a collectibles market. When the dollars get big the economic analysis is sure to follow.

 

When this happened in the graded comics market I must attest to a tinge of regret that echoes your comments. I found myself in a little bit of a different situation however in that I had bought nice SA and BA books before the CGC explosion. So on the one hand the books I owned had escalated in value. The problem with that is the value would only manifest itself if I SOLD THEM, something I was not prepared to do. So I was left with the prospect of having to pay more and more for the comics I wanted and enter into coldly clinical analysis of the purchases I was making, this was a necessity given the dollar amounts now involved.

 

Finally I had to make concessions and sell off portions of my collection to focus efforts on obtaining some of the remaining books in the runs that I was / am seeking to complete. This decision was linked to the fact that my desire to pump new disposable income into the hobby at the levels required had waned in comparisons to other things (house, cars, savings, investing). I remember thinking, does this make me less of a collector, there are others paying these prices, are they somehow more committed than I am? What I found in my many discussion was that, in a few cases it just came down to means, some people will always have more funds than others. However in most cases, as I have a good career path, it came down to the other collectors reducing the breadth of their collecting focus AND recycling their collection to meet those shiny new offerings.

 

Personal tangent aside, as the money goes up so do the fiscal considerations, and yes the purest in me will attest that the maturity of a collectibles market does come with a SAD truth - the insertion of the idea of the collectible in question as a commodity. (I still cringe too Terry, if that makes me a curmudgeonly 30 something, so be it)

[jjeanius]

Biz rules! Anyway, it's good to here a little background about the cover from the source (not that it matters, because its a great cover). I also heard over 50k. Again, all these prices are from before the big HA auction, so price of the piece is moot. You have people sounding off on this thread saying "under 50" or "he had trouble getting rid of it" almost as if there was a hidden agenda. Of course, we are all entitled to our opinion, that's what makes the discussion fun. Thanks Matt!

 

You keep mentioning the recent HA auction results as if it totally raised the bar on the McSpidey market, and I just don't think it did. As far as I can tell, exactly one piece (ASM 328) exceeded expectations...and every other McSpidey example was at or below expectations. Spider-Man #1 was largely expected to go for $500k+, and most view the hammer price as a bit of a disappointment. ASM 328 certainly exceeded expectations by a very healthy margin, but the other pieces (1/2 splash, full splash, Marvel Tales cover, ASM 317) all came in about where they should. In fact, a number of people on this very forum expressed their personal preference for ASM 317 over ASM 328...and it went for a fraction of the ASM 328 price, which most view as an aberration and an anomaly. So...taking all of this into account, and ignoring the absurd result with ASM 328, what makes you think that the bar has been raised..?

 

As to Gene's point....I know the new owners on 4 of 5 McSpideys from the last HA ended up (not including ASM 328, which I still believe did *not* land with Fishler/Zurzolo), and they did, indeed, land with some of the "usual suspects". No outside money was in play (or at least, no outside money ended up winning).

 

 

The 317 result, by itself, taking away the SM 1 and ASM 328 sales would have been the single highest public sale of a McFarlane cover ever recorded.

 

So I think that piece exceeded expectations given how far above every other public sale that came before it went.

 

Considering that 317 is one of only two McSpidey covers featuring Venom, I really didn't think that result was all that surprising. Venom panel pages always command a premium, so I would expect the same to be true of the covers, especially with such a limited supply..? Then again, I am no expert, so perhaps you are correct.

[NelsonAI]

 

IMO those that missed out or underbid on McFarlane covers from the last Heitage auction will undoubtably take a second look at SM 4 or chase after SM 2.

 

While we are all talking McFarlane, people also should consider "character based" collecting. In this instance, Spider-Man. People are not clamoring for McFarlane's work on "Infinite Inc".

 

It also ties in with other posts where different generations favored other characters. Krazy Kat, Tarzan, Tracy, Flash Gordon, etc.

 

Ten years ago, X-Men was red hot. Right now, it's Spidey.

 

Cheers!

N.