Killer Leyendecker at Hertitage

[drdroom]

Yeah I don't see it. To me content and other subject factors trump draughtsmanship every time both in comic OA and I dare say in illustration OA and fine art as well.

 

For example, I am sure les demoiselles de l'avignon (sp?) would be one of the most, if not the most valuable picasso, although I have no reason to believe its the most technically impressive, in fact I doubt that very much. But being the first (well along with Braque I suppose) cubist work its the fine art equivalent of a marvel key and would go huge bucks for that reason. Because of the content/significance and not because of the fact that it was a particularly fine technical painting. It was certainly called ugly at the time.

 

On the illustration side of things, you have valuation factors like.... well such-and-such Texas artist is known for his paintings of Blue Bonnets, so his most valuable works are Blue Bonnet paintings - technical merit be damned.

 

There are so many reasons for art to be valuable or not valuable. Technical brilliance is only one factor and not the most important one either.

 

To play turnabout with you, if Kirby had done one pastel of daffodils in his life, and it was possibly his most technically brilliant work, do you really think for a second that the daffodil pastel would be worth as much as less technically brilliant works, like, oh, the cover to amazing fantasy 15? C'mon The excellence of the work wouldn't have a hope of overcoming the fact that the work would be in the "wrong" medium for kirby and of the "wrong" subject matter. How much would a really excellent kirby drawing of a butterfly be worth? Not very much.

 

How much do carl barks landscapes go for vs the duck paintings?

 

I think if in real estate value is determined by location, location, location then more often than not the relative values of a given illustrator's output is valued by reference to content, content, content.

 

Well, I oversimplified with the phrase "brilliant drawing". The content and the drawing are interrelated. Content is part of the brilliance. The daffodil pastel just isn't going to be Kirby's best because flower pastels have nothing to do with his artistic passion. So let me restate the idea-- the content which will be valued by my second group of collectors, call them the post-geek collectors, will be characteristically Kirby in its imaginative scope but need not have a famous super guy included. Here's an example, from Todd Seisser's CAF gallery (not surprisingly):

http://cafurl.com?i=19737

http://cafurl.com?i=19737

[Bronty]

Foresight is 60/80, or something, but for my money (and I really do have money on it) Kirby is a better long term bet than any of the three painters above.

 

all this being said, I'd love to see your kirby; I never get tired of looking at his work. Are they on CAF?

 

Yep, here's mine (and check back in a few months-- I have some more in the pipeline):

http://cafurl.com?i=19736

 

great stuff

[Bronty]

Yeah I don't see it. To me content and other subject factors trump draughtsmanship every time both in comic OA and I dare say in illustration OA and fine art as well.

 

For example, I am sure les demoiselles de l'avignon (sp?) would be one of the most, if not the most valuable picasso, although I have no reason to believe its the most technically impressive, in fact I doubt that very much. But being the first (well along with Braque I suppose) cubist work its the fine art equivalent of a marvel key and would go huge bucks for that reason. Because of the content/significance and not because of the fact that it was a particularly fine technical painting. It was certainly called ugly at the time.

 

On the illustration side of things, you have valuation factors like.... well such-and-such Texas artist is known for his paintings of Blue Bonnets, so his most valuable works are Blue Bonnet paintings - technical merit be damned.

 

There are so many reasons for art to be valuable or not valuable. Technical brilliance is only one factor and not the most important one either.

 

To play turnabout with you, if Kirby had done one pastel of daffodils in his life, and it was possibly his most technically brilliant work, do you really think for a second that the daffodil pastel would be worth as much as less technically brilliant works, like, oh, the cover to amazing fantasy 15? C'mon The excellence of the work wouldn't have a hope of overcoming the fact that the work would be in the "wrong" medium for kirby and of the "wrong" subject matter. How much would a really excellent kirby drawing of a butterfly be worth? Not very much.

 

How much do carl barks landscapes go for vs the duck paintings?

 

I think if in real estate value is determined by location, location, location then more often than not the relative values of a given illustrator's output is valued by reference to content, content, content.

 

Well, I oversimplified with the phrase "brilliant drawing". The content and the drawing are interrelated. Content is part of the brilliance. The daffodil pastel just isn't going to be Kirby's best because flower pastels have nothing to do with his artistic passion. So let me restate the idea-- the content which will be valued by my second group of collectors, call them the post-geek collectors, will be characteristically Kirby in its imaginative scope but need not have a famous super guy included. Here's an example, from Todd Seisser's CAF gallery (not surprisingly):

http://cafurl.com?i=19737

http://cafurl.com?i=19737

 

OK, I better understand your position, thanks. Heck I don't think you need a new group of collectors even, necessarily. I'd love to have some characteristically kirby work without super guys, like his marvel western work for example. I'll buy a kirby at some point when the time and piece are right and while FF would be nice I'm much more interested in finding a page that as you say is "characteristically kirby." I'm sure I'm not the only one.

 

Whether or not that sort of buying will be strong enough to create a pricing trend, I don't know.

[drdroom]

...and with that, I think this thread is done.

[Bronty]

I was hoping for continued debate as an opportunity to make more references to kirby genitalia artwork

[delekkerste]

What can I say Gene... I didnt like Nagel's work in the 80s and 90s and I dont care for it now. Doesnt mean that other people cant enjoy it; it just isnt for me.

 

Patrick Nagel is ON FIRE!!! Two more 6-figure Nagel sales in the Heritage Illo auction last week; guess that 6-figure sale last April and near 6-figure sale last July weren't flukes!

 

Viva the '80s!

[pinupcartoonguy]

What can I say Gene... I didnt like Nagel's work in the 80s and 90s and I dont care for it now. Doesnt mean that other people cant enjoy it; it just isnt for me.

 

Patrick Nagel is ON FIRE!!! Two more 6-figure Nagel sales in the Heritage Illo auction last week; guess that 6-figure sale last April and near 6-figure sale last July weren't flukes!

 

Viva the '80s!

 

I was also impressed that one of his smaller Playboy pieces went for more than $30k. Re the ones that went for $161k, I thought the one with the horse, especially given it's size, was underwhelming in person, though I realize it was used for one commemoratives.

 

Aside from the Nagels and some of the Elvgrens, nothing else really stood out for me in this auction.

 

[Bronty]

What can I say Gene... I didnt like Nagel's work in the 80s and 90s and I dont care for it now. Doesnt mean that other people cant enjoy it; it just isnt for me.

 

Patrick Nagel is ON FIRE!!! Two more 6-figure Nagel sales in the Heritage Illo auction last week; guess that 6-figure sale last April and near 6-figure sale last July weren't flukes!

 

Viva the '80s!

 

 

 

[comiconxion]

And to think no one cared about Nagels 10-15 year ago when I started buying them. Canvas paintings ran $6-12k up till about 7 years ago. Amazing how time change.

 

The surprising one in my opinion was the price for the unpublished canvas with the man and woman for over $50k. Not one of his stronger compositions - he actually experimented with the woman's head in a couple other painting compositions that I think are a stronger. But, it shows that some people are probably just looking for an "affordable" canvas example and $50k may be the new ground floor for those.

[Bronty]

And to think no one cared about Nagels 10-15 year ago when I started buying them. Canvas paintings ran $6-12k up till about 7 years ago. Amazing how time change.

 

The surprising one in my opinion was the price for the unpublished canvas with the man and woman for over $50k. Not one of his stronger compositions - he actually experimented with the woman's head in a couple other painting compositions that I think are a stronger. But, it shows that some people are probably just looking for an "affordable" canvas example and $50k may be the new ground floor for those.

 

Good for you chuck! (thumbs u Always nice to get in on the ground floor when its something you care about.

 

 

[pinupcartoonguy]

And to think no one cared about Nagels 10-15 year ago when I started buying them. Canvas paintings ran $6-12k up till about 7 years ago. Amazing how time change.

 

The surprising one in my opinion was the price for the unpublished canvas with the man and woman for over $50k. Not one of his stronger compositions - he actually experimented with the woman's head in a couple other painting compositions that I think are a stronger. But, it shows that some people are probably just looking for an "affordable" canvas example and $50k may be the new ground floor for those.

 

I wasn't thrilled with that one when I saw it in the catalog, but when I saw it in person, I liked it a lot more. As collectors say regaring 2x pages, bigger is better. In fact, value aside, I'd take that one over the Montana piece (woman with a horse) if I was hanging it in my house.