Does an artist's death cause an increase in original comic art price?

[spidermanbeyond]

I hope I am not offending anyone with this question but does an artist's death causes their original art to increase in price? I remember a Taxi comedy episode where the gang tries to buy a piece of art before the artist passes away. Does this apply to original comic art? Artists that come to mind are Michael Turner, Mike Wieringo, Dave Cockrum, Gene Colan, and recently Carmine Infantino.

[comix4fun]

I hope I am not offending anyone with this question but does an artist's death causes their original art to increase in price? I remember a Taxi comedy episode where the gang tries to buy a piece of art before the artist passes away. Does this apply to original comic art? Artists that come to mind are Michael Turner, Mike Wieringo, Dave Cockrum, Gene Colan, and recently Carmine Infantino.

 

 

From my experience it depends on the width and breadth of the body of work.

 

If they were a rising star with a relatively small amount of artwork available it could cause an increase.

 

If it's an established star who lived a long life and put out a ton of work their death might call attention to how great they were but there's usually enough artwork out there to sate demand long term.

 

Turner's market was relatively well developed and he demanded huge prices before his passing. So it's tough to figure for him.

 

When an artist is lost at a young age and hasn't seen a huge price spike during his life that's the situation where you see more instant increases.

[SuperBird]

Buscema Conan work exploded after his death...

[AKA Rick]

I do think with any collectible, an event, be it a celebration (Royal Wedding), scandal (O.J. Simpson), or death, initially attracts attention initially upsetting the supply and demand chain with "amateurs" entering the marketplace and those sellers who want to take advantage of an opportunity, putting out their supplies at higher prices, so inherent to that, I would say there's a definite correlation between being in the media spotlight and price increases.

 

I remember when Michael Jackson and Whitney Houston passed away, prior to their deaths you couldn't give away soundracks to "The Bodyguard" or other CD's, then when news of their respective demises broke, the marketplace saw emotion based irrational buying at high prices. Then, today it's calmed itself down and corrected itself and unfortunately, soon after death, the pinnacle has been met.

 

With artwork, it's a little different. I think when a mediocre (in popularity) artist passes away, their art does rise and there's a selling opportunity that probably won't be re-realized again. I think when a legend passes away, then their legacy only continues to stay strong and gets stronger.

 

I think with signature/autographs and commissions/sketches especially, since once an artist passes, obviously, they are no longer signing nor drawing. So, the supply is finite.

 

The same with published art, once a prolific artist ceases to draw, then there are no more new creations.

 

With the signatures and sketches, a buyer always has to look out for forgeries, since there are opportunistic folks out there looking to scam for a quick buck, especially upon the hype of a death.

 

Sometimes it does take the death of an artist to remind fans of their legacy and with that there is increased demand.

 

I don't think the death of let's say Steve Ditko would impact his prices much other than the fact that it brings his name into the spotlight. I speculate this since he's long since been retired, is reclusive and does not sketch/draw commissions, so his body of work has been pretty static the last decade +

 

I do think the death of let's day Stan Lee would impact his prices, and although he's prolific in his appearances and his signature isn't that hard to obtain for anyone with $50 willing to pay, he's iconic and his legend will only be more appreciated upon his passing, and once his signature is no longer available, I almost guarantee on speculation his values should increase tremendously. I believe the same thing occurred when Mickey Mantle passed, and he was a prolific signer at sports conventions.

 

I'd say Jack Kirby, Carmine Infantino, Gil Kane, Wally Wood, John Buscema, and Gene Colan's artwork will continue to rise.

 

I'd say Dave Cockrum is right in the middle, and his key work will rise, but his non-X-Men might stay static unless the value is more character driven than artist driven. I don't think the passing of Marshall Rogers created a huge surge other than for his already popular Detective and Dr. Strange work. I think similarly of living artists of today like Mark Bagley, Jim Starlin and John Romia Jr., where the key characters/titles will increase but the more common/filler titles may not.

 

I'd say the body of work of Mike Wieringo isn't substantial enough (no iconic storylines nor signature style or title) to say with his passing his artwork will increase, and in fact, unfortunately may be lost in the crowd and somewhat forgotten, from the investment perspective. From the fandom and creative appreciation perspective, they're still always respected and appreciated.

 

I'd say the same in part of Michael Turner, 'tho he has a niche following with fans of Aspen comics and his crossover work for Marvel and DC, his values were already high, so I think the question now is more of if they can sustain the same value, not increase, but not decrease. I'd speculate with time, they may decrease. I think similarly of living artists today like Todd McFarlane and Adam Hughes.

 

The living legends of today I'd say are the types of artists whose work would continue to increase upon the passing would be: Al Feldstein (The EC Comic artist); Barry Windsor Smith; Frank Miller; George Perez; John Byrne; Mike Mignola; Barry Wrightson; Neal Adams; Jim Starlin; John Romita Sr.; Jim Lee; Jim Steranko; Jeff Smith (the Bone artist); Milo Manara; Jim Davis (the Garfield artist), and a some others not off the top of my head.

 

But that's just my opinion.

[comix4fun]

Buscema Conan work exploded after his death...

 

That's true. I had always thought his work was criminally undervalued before.

His death forced people to take a closer look and there was a moment of realization of how under the radar he had been.

[delekkerste]

Buscema Conan work exploded after his death...

 

That's true. I had always thought his work was criminally undervalued before.

His death forced people to take a closer look and there was a moment of realization of how under the radar he had been.

 

Buscema died in January 2002, a little before I even started collecting OA. If prices on his Conan work exploded, they must have started off really low, because they didn't explode very high, as it took years after I got into the hobby in late 2002 for prices to really pick up. Any price increase between January 2002 and when I would have started to notice could also very easily be attributed to the overall growth/maturation of the hobby around this time.

 

I have yet to see the death of a comic artist cause a big increase in demand/price for his work. In all but a few cases, like Turner, it's the older vintage material that is coveted by collectors and not whatever the artist was working on, if anything, around the time of his death. As such, the supply/demand equation is already pretty settled for the desirable pieces, and I don't find at all that demand surges after a death. If it does, supply pretty much surges along with it with people looking to cash in - I think the net effect is pretty negligible.

 

I think you can file this phenomenon of death = higher prices along with the rest of the myths and urban legends like the statistically insignificant so-called Rule of 25.

[suspense39]

Buscema Conan work exploded after his death...

 

That's true. I had always thought his work was criminally undervalued before.

His death forced people to take a closer look and there was a moment of realization of how under the radar he had been.

 

Buscema died in January 2002, a little before I even started collecting OA. If prices on his Conan work exploded, they must have started off really low, because they didn't explode very high, as it took years after I got into the hobby in late 2002 for prices to really pick up. Any price increase between January 2002 and when I would have started to notice could also very easily be attributed to the overall growth/maturation of the hobby around this time.

 

I have yet to see the death of a comic artist cause a big increase in demand/price for his work. In all but a few cases, like Turner, it's the older vintage material that is coveted by collectors and not whatever the artist was working on, if anything, around the time of his death. As such, the supply/demand equation is already pretty settled for the desirable pieces, and I don't find at all that demand surges after a death. If it does, supply pretty much surges along with it with people looking to cash in - I think the net effect is pretty negligible.

 

I think you can file this phenomenon of death = higher prices along with the rest of the myths and urban legends like the statistically insignificant so-called Rule of 25.

 

Well put

[J.Sid]

I'm more "questions" than "answers" but.....

 

I would think it would somewhat depend on whether or not the artist's published work remains in print. Buscema's for example, is still all over the place in comic shops.

 

What about an artist like Vaughn Bode who hasn't had anything new published in years?

 

What's happened to the Jeff Jones market since his passing?

[Koa]

I was always amazed at how much Michael Turner's work demanded regardless of characters.

 

 

Rob Liefeld and Jason Pearson prices have shot up a lot in the past 13 years.

[oceans11]

I think an artist passing away leads to a short term spike in interest in their art and then the market levels out again. The true market increases are based on long term artist interest, their body of work, or their work on a specific key series. At least, this is what I have observed.

 

Don

[dgarthwaite-migration]

Price is governed by supply and demand. The death of an artist can increase demand and put a cap on supply. The death can also make you forget about an artist and ultimately cause lower demand. It really depends upon the significance of the artists and the size of the "footprint" they left on the hobby. I think the death of Jack Kirby has increased the value of his art. I think the art of some lesser creators will just be forgotten.

 

DG

[pinupcartoonguy]

In contrast, I think interest in Bode has faded as the years have past.

[delekkerste]

I think the death of Jack Kirby has increased the value of his art. I think the art of some lesser creators will just be forgotten.

 

I think that time, the growth/maturation of the hobby, the explosion of popularity of characters he created (through blockbuster movies, etc.), the realization of Kirby's place in the canon, etc. has increased the value of his art. I don't think his death had anything to do with it. Would his '60s and '70s artwork be any less valuable now if he were still alive? I doubt it.

[Maccai3]

be honest, you bought Liefeld OA and now you're thinking of killing him to get your money back

[Catwoman_Fan]

I think the death of Jack Kirby has increased the value of his art. I think the art of some lesser creators will just be forgotten.

 

I think that time, the growth/maturation of the hobby, the explosion of popularity of characters he created (through blockbuster movies, etc.), the realization of Kirby's place in the canon, etc. has increased the value of his art. I don't think his death had anything to do with it. Would his '60s and '70s artwork be any less valuable now if he were still alive? I doubt it.

 

I was thinking the same, as with the Steve Ditko example mentioned above.

Of course I was not collecting art in the 90's when he passed, but I suspect his art would be valued the same now, if he was still with us.

 

No one has mentioned Dave Stevens, another artist with a very limited output, but he produced high quality during his brief time ('80s-'00s). Would you put him in the same bucket as Turner, Adam Hughes, McFarlane, or other living legends?

 

 

[AKA Rick]

I'd put Dave Stevens in a different non-comic art category similar to Jim Steranko, since his published comic work was limited and his portfolio of non-comic work is more notable.

 

I don't think his (Dave Stevens) passing did anything for his art values, as they were already high and priced appropriately. I'm not sure if there's room for increases and if the appreciation for his artwork will stand the test of time like a Vargas or not. He won't be forgotten, but will he be top of mind is the question.

 

I think James Jean and Tara McPherson, similarly has done comic book artwork, and move onto the non-comic, as they call "fine art" sector and commanding high prices (not as much as a Mark Ryden yet), so their body of work is still evolving and I can see prices increase and be dictated by their current work market values.

 

I think the death of Jack Kirby has increased the value of his art. I think the art of some lesser creators will just be forgotten.

 

I think that time, the growth/maturation of the hobby, the explosion of popularity of characters he created (through blockbuster movies, etc.), the realization of Kirby's place in the canon, etc. has increased the value of his art. I don't think his death had anything to do with it. Would his '60s and '70s artwork be any less valuable now if he were still alive? I doubt it.

 

I was thinking the same, as with the Steve Ditko example mentioned above.

Of course I was not collecting art in the 90's when he passed, but I suspect his art would be valued the same now, if he was still with us.

 

No one has mentioned Dave Stevens, another artist with a very limited output, but he produced high quality during his brief time ('80s-'00s). Would you put him in the same bucket as Turner, Adam Hughes, McFarlane, or other living legends?