Heritage February

[Terry Doyle]

 

We are OA collectors, anyone (even a very close friend) saying that a reproduction will scratch any OA itch they have is fooling themselves. If they are fine with a reproduction, they would have been fine with the comic. There is no middle-ground in this hobby. There is only one OA, one-of-a-kind. It's what keeps us excited and also what prevents many of us from simply commissioning the artist for a recreation.

 

 

A personal response to the above (and some of the other contributions to this sub-thread) . . .

 

When I first started collecting OA (in 1982), it was as a direct result of buying the Russ Cochran hardback reprint editions of the old 1950s EC books.

 

EC, then, was a new discovery to me (I wasn't old enough to have read these books first time round and, in any case, they weren't distributed over here in the UK).

 

As such, my move into buying OA wasn't spurred into action by any feelings of nostalgia for old comic-books I read as a kid - I was collecting stuff that was basically a new discovery to me . . . and as an adult my leaning was more towards aesthetics.

 

One of the things I enjoyed about the Cochran hardbacks was that they provided the clarity of the original illustrations - something that the comic-book printings could never do full justice to.

 

At one time owning several hundred pages of EC cover and story art, I would periodically peruse my collection to study the OA in depth . . . learning (from the visual information) how each artist worked (the erased pencils, style of inking, corrections and margin notes - all providing a wealth of clues).

 

Although the Cochran hardbacks were a vast improvement over the original comic-book printings, the b&w images were cleaned-up versions of the OA.

 

When Scott Dunbier started AE versions of the EC material, I'm provided, once again (in near-identical quality), with the opportunity to study the artists' works in minute detail (so, no Hari, I am not fine with a comic-book printing . . . or a pointless re-creation . . . I want to see faithful replications of how the OA looked - which is the purpose of the AE books, for me).

 

Sure, the AE books offer no real substitute to owning the OA - but who can afford to own everything they like (expense and availability are simply out of the question for most of us)?

 

The books provide a valuable insight into how an artist performed his craft, and make wonderful additions to supplement our own respective OA collections. Something that shouldn't really be overlooked . . . or casually dismissed.

 

 

[heartened]

 

We are OA collectors, anyone (even a very close friend) saying that a reproduction will scratch any OA itch they have is fooling themselves. If they are fine with a reproduction, they would have been fine with the comic. There is no middle-ground in this hobby. There is only one OA, one-of-a-kind. It's what keeps us excited and also what prevents many of us from simply commissioning the artist for a recreation.

 

 

A personal response to the above (and some of the other contributions to this sub-thread) . . .

 

When I first started collecting OA (in 1982), it was as a direct result of buying the Russ Cochran hardback reprint editions of the old 1950s EC books.

 

EC, then, was a new discovery to me (I wasn't old enough to have read these books first time round and, in any case, they weren't distributed over here in the UK).

 

As such, my move into buying OA wasn't spurred into action by any feelings of nostalgia for old comic-books I read as a kid - I was collecting stuff that was basically a new discovery to me . . . and as an adult my leaning was more towards aesthetics.

 

One of the things I enjoyed about the Cochran hardbacks was that they provided the clarity of the original illustrations - something that the comic-book printings could never do full justice to.

 

At one time owning several hundred pages of EC cover and story art, I would periodically peruse my collection to study the OA in depth . . . learning (from the visual information) how each artist worked (the erased pencils, style of inking, corrections and margin notes - all providing a wealth of clues).

 

Although the Cochran hardbacks were a vast improvement over the original comic-book printings, the b&w images were cleaned-up versions of the OA.

 

When Scott Dunbier started AE versions of the EC material, I'm provided, once again (in near-identical quality), with the opportunity to study the artists' works in minute detail (so, no Hari, I am not fine with a comic-book printing . . . or a pointless re-creation . . . I want to see faithful replications of how the OA looked - which is the purpose of the AE books, for me).

 

Sure, the AE books offer no real substitute to owning the OA - but who can afford to own everything they like (expense and availability are simply out of the question for most of us)?

 

The books provide a valuable insight into how an artist performed his craft, and make wonderful additions to supplement our own respective OA collections. Something that shouldn't really be overlooked . . . or casually dismissed.

 

 

This has become a very interesting discussion, and it's good to see long-time collectors as well as newer collectors chiming in. I guess it also boils down to what you like about OA. For me, it's not simply seeing the art and the details of the linework, pencils, changes with the inking, and all the production aspects. For me, rather, it's holding a moment in time. Something that was taken from penciler to inker to letterer and then sent on to the publisher. It was something worked on physically, on which a creative process and collaboration occurred, and it happened months before I got to hold the comic in my hand and read it. It is something uniquely special for these subjective, rather than objective, reasons. It's a piece of creativity that I get to care for and relish. The AE reprints them, much as marvel masterworks reprints old comics, but the reality of have a piece of the actual creative process is what makes it a no comparison to me. And, for that reason, I only own one AE, the Romita ASM one, and only because I got it free for contributing a scan of my ASM 75 cover. And, no, I don't think it's hurt the price of that cover. I got some very serious offers for the cover as soon as the AE hit the stands!

 

This being said, by following the other posts I realize that my attachment to the OA is somewhat different than others, in (as Scott says) nuanced ways. As it turns out not everyone collects OA for the same reasons, and thus the itch may be scratched with an AE for some and not for others. All good!

 

BEst,

[Terry Doyle]

 

We are OA collectors, anyone (even a very close friend) saying that a reproduction will scratch any OA itch they have is fooling themselves. If they are fine with a reproduction, they would have been fine with the comic. There is no middle-ground in this hobby. There is only one OA, one-of-a-kind. It's what keeps us excited and also what prevents many of us from simply commissioning the artist for a recreation.

 

 

A personal response to the above (and some of the other contributions to this sub-thread) . . .

 

When I first started collecting OA (in 1982), it was as a direct result of buying the Russ Cochran hardback reprint editions of the old 1950s EC books.

 

EC, then, was a new discovery to me (I wasn't old enough to have read these books first time round and, in any case, they weren't distributed over here in the UK).

 

As such, my move into buying OA wasn't spurred into action by any feelings of nostalgia for old comic-books I read as a kid - I was collecting stuff that was basically a new discovery to me . . . and as an adult my leaning was more towards aesthetics.

 

One of the things I enjoyed about the Cochran hardbacks was that they provided the clarity of the original illustrations - something that the comic-book printings could never do full justice to.

 

At one time owning several hundred pages of EC cover and story art, I would periodically peruse my collection to study the OA in depth . . . learning (from the visual information) how each artist worked (the erased pencils, style of inking, corrections and margin notes - all providing a wealth of clues).

 

Although the Cochran hardbacks were a vast improvement over the original comic-book printings, the b&w images were cleaned-up versions of the OA.

 

When Scott Dunbier started AE versions of the EC material, I'm provided, once again (in near-identical quality), with the opportunity to study the artists' works in minute detail (so, no Hari, I am not fine with a comic-book printing . . . or a pointless re-creation . . . I want to see faithful replications of how the OA looked - which is the purpose of the AE books, for me).

 

Sure, the AE books offer no real substitute to owning the OA - but who can afford to own everything they like (expense and availability are simply out of the question for most of us)?

 

The books provide a valuable insight into how an artist performed his craft, and make wonderful additions to supplement our own respective OA collections. Something that shouldn't really be overlooked . . . or casually dismissed.

 

 

This has become a very interesting discussion, and it's good to see long-time collectors as well as newer collectors chiming in. I guess it also boils down to what you like about OA. For me, it's not simply seeing the art and the details of the linework, pencils, changes with the inking, and all the production aspects. For me, rather, it's holding a moment in time. Something that was taken from penciler to inker to letterer and then sent on to the publisher. It was something worked on physically, on which a creative process and collaboration occurred, and it happened months before I got to hold the comic in my hand and read it. It is something uniquely special for these subjective, rather than objective, reasons. It's a piece of creativity that I get to care for and relish. The AE reprints them, much as marvel masterworks reprints old comics, but the reality of have a piece of the actual creative process is what makes it a no comparison to me. And, for that reason, I only own one AE, the Romita ASM one, and only because I got it free for contributing a scan of my ASM 75 cover. And, no, I don't think it's hurt the price of that cover. I got some very serious offers for the cover as soon as the AE hit the stands!

 

This being said, by following the other posts I realize that my attachment to the OA is somewhat different than others, in (as Scott says) nuanced ways. As it turns out not everyone collects OA for the same reasons, and thus the itch may be scratched with an AE for some and not for others. All good!

 

BEst,

 

We're not exactly poles apart on why we collect OA, Hari, and I totally agree with your sentiments about what makes the artwork both historical and unique to own.

 

As I said in my post, " . . . the AE books offer no real substitute to owning the OA . . . (they) provide a valuable insight into how an artist performed his craft, and make wonderful additions to supplement our own respective OA collections."

 

. . . and the difference between Marvel Masterworks reprints and the AE books is all too obvious. Marvel Masterworks reprint the comic-books and the AE books print faithful facsimiles of the OA. Not quite the same (to me). Different audiences.

 

[heartened]

 

We are OA collectors, anyone (even a very close friend) saying that a reproduction will scratch any OA itch they have is fooling themselves. If they are fine with a reproduction, they would have been fine with the comic. There is no middle-ground in this hobby. There is only one OA, one-of-a-kind. It's what keeps us excited and also what prevents many of us from simply commissioning the artist for a recreation.

 

 

A personal response to the above (and some of the other contributions to this sub-thread) . . .

 

When I first started collecting OA (in 1982), it was as a direct result of buying the Russ Cochran hardback reprint editions of the old 1950s EC books.

 

EC, then, was a new discovery to me (I wasn't old enough to have read these books first time round and, in any case, they weren't distributed over here in the UK).

 

As such, my move into buying OA wasn't spurred into action by any feelings of nostalgia for old comic-books I read as a kid - I was collecting stuff that was basically a new discovery to me . . . and as an adult my leaning was more towards aesthetics.

 

One of the things I enjoyed about the Cochran hardbacks was that they provided the clarity of the original illustrations - something that the comic-book printings could never do full justice to.

 

At one time owning several hundred pages of EC cover and story art, I would periodically peruse my collection to study the OA in depth . . . learning (from the visual information) how each artist worked (the erased pencils, style of inking, corrections and margin notes - all providing a wealth of clues).

 

Although the Cochran hardbacks were a vast improvement over the original comic-book printings, the b&w images were cleaned-up versions of the OA.

 

When Scott Dunbier started AE versions of the EC material, I'm provided, once again (in near-identical quality), with the opportunity to study the artists' works in minute detail (so, no Hari, I am not fine with a comic-book printing . . . or a pointless re-creation . . . I want to see faithful replications of how the OA looked - which is the purpose of the AE books, for me).

 

Sure, the AE books offer no real substitute to owning the OA - but who can afford to own everything they like (expense and availability are simply out of the question for most of us)?

 

The books provide a valuable insight into how an artist performed his craft, and make wonderful additions to supplement our own respective OA collections. Something that shouldn't really be overlooked . . . or casually dismissed.

 

 

This has become a very interesting discussion, and it's good to see long-time collectors as well as newer collectors chiming in. I guess it also boils down to what you like about OA. For me, it's not simply seeing the art and the details of the linework, pencils, changes with the inking, and all the production aspects. For me, rather, it's holding a moment in time. Something that was taken from penciler to inker to letterer and then sent on to the publisher. It was something worked on physically, on which a creative process and collaboration occurred, and it happened months before I got to hold the comic in my hand and read it. It is something uniquely special for these subjective, rather than objective, reasons. It's a piece of creativity that I get to care for and relish. The AE reprints them, much as marvel masterworks reprints old comics, but the reality of have a piece of the actual creative process is what makes it a no comparison to me. And, for that reason, I only own one AE, the Romita ASM one, and only because I got it free for contributing a scan of my ASM 75 cover. And, no, I don't think it's hurt the price of that cover. I got some very serious offers for the cover as soon as the AE hit the stands!

 

This being said, by following the other posts I realize that my attachment to the OA is somewhat different than others, in (as Scott says) nuanced ways. As it turns out not everyone collects OA for the same reasons, and thus the itch may be scratched with an AE for some and not for others. All good!

 

BEst,

 

We're not exactly poles apart on why we collect OA, Hari, and I totally agree with your sentiments on what makes the artwork both historical and unique to own.

 

As I said in my post, " . . . the AE books offer no real substitute to owning the OA . . . (they) provide a valuable insight into how an artist performed his craft, and make wonderful additions to supplement our own respective OA collections."

 

. . . and the difference between Marvel Masterworks reprints and the AE books are obvious. Marvel Masterworks reprint the comic-books and the AE books print faithful facsimiles of the OA. Not quite the same (to me).

 

Agree none of us are far apart. We all love and appreciate the OA for multiple reasons, but this thread has shown how those different reasons are prioritized differently by collectors, all of whom I respect and many of whom I call friends. For me, I have absolutely no urge to buy any of the AE books, and this thread has helped me understand why. It doesn't provide what I most like in owning OA.

 

That doesn't mean that they could and do provide a lot of value for others, as we've heard. For me, they don't even supplement by collection. I do flip through them at the comic stores to see the art how it was done, but I don't have a need to buy it after that. At all. But, again, that's me. Your and others' experiences can and do vary.

 

[Terry Doyle]

 

We are OA collectors, anyone (even a very close friend) saying that a reproduction will scratch any OA itch they have is fooling themselves. If they are fine with a reproduction, they would have been fine with the comic. There is no middle-ground in this hobby. There is only one OA, one-of-a-kind. It's what keeps us excited and also what prevents many of us from simply commissioning the artist for a recreation.

 

 

A personal response to the above (and some of the other contributions to this sub-thread) . . .

 

When I first started collecting OA (in 1982), it was as a direct result of buying the Russ Cochran hardback reprint editions of the old 1950s EC books.

 

EC, then, was a new discovery to me (I wasn't old enough to have read these books first time round and, in any case, they weren't distributed over here in the UK).

 

As such, my move into buying OA wasn't spurred into action by any feelings of nostalgia for old comic-books I read as a kid - I was collecting stuff that was basically a new discovery to me . . . and as an adult my leaning was more towards aesthetics.

 

One of the things I enjoyed about the Cochran hardbacks was that they provided the clarity of the original illustrations - something that the comic-book printings could never do full justice to.

 

At one time owning several hundred pages of EC cover and story art, I would periodically peruse my collection to study the OA in depth . . . learning (from the visual information) how each artist worked (the erased pencils, style of inking, corrections and margin notes - all providing a wealth of clues).

 

Although the Cochran hardbacks were a vast improvement over the original comic-book printings, the b&w images were cleaned-up versions of the OA.

 

When Scott Dunbier started AE versions of the EC material, I'm provided, once again (in near-identical quality), with the opportunity to study the artists' works in minute detail (so, no Hari, I am not fine with a comic-book printing . . . or a pointless re-creation . . . I want to see faithful replications of how the OA looked - which is the purpose of the AE books, for me).

 

Sure, the AE books offer no real substitute to owning the OA - but who can afford to own everything they like (expense and availability are simply out of the question for most of us)?

 

The books provide a valuable insight into how an artist performed his craft, and make wonderful additions to supplement our own respective OA collections. Something that shouldn't really be overlooked . . . or casually dismissed.

 

 

This has become a very interesting discussion, and it's good to see long-time collectors as well as newer collectors chiming in. I guess it also boils down to what you like about OA. For me, it's not simply seeing the art and the details of the linework, pencils, changes with the inking, and all the production aspects. For me, rather, it's holding a moment in time. Something that was taken from penciler to inker to letterer and then sent on to the publisher. It was something worked on physically, on which a creative process and collaboration occurred, and it happened months before I got to hold the comic in my hand and read it. It is something uniquely special for these subjective, rather than objective, reasons. It's a piece of creativity that I get to care for and relish. The AE reprints them, much as marvel masterworks reprints old comics, but the reality of have a piece of the actual creative process is what makes it a no comparison to me. And, for that reason, I only own one AE, the Romita ASM one, and only because I got it free for contributing a scan of my ASM 75 cover. And, no, I don't think it's hurt the price of that cover. I got some very serious offers for the cover as soon as the AE hit the stands!

 

This being said, by following the other posts I realize that my attachment to the OA is somewhat different than others, in (as Scott says) nuanced ways. As it turns out not everyone collects OA for the same reasons, and thus the itch may be scratched with an AE for some and not for others. All good!

 

BEst,

 

We're not exactly poles apart on why we collect OA, Hari, and I totally agree with your sentiments on what makes the artwork both historical and unique to own.

 

As I said in my post, " . . . the AE books offer no real substitute to owning the OA . . . (they) provide a valuable insight into how an artist performed his craft, and make wonderful additions to supplement our own respective OA collections."

 

. . . and the difference between Marvel Masterworks reprints and the AE books are obvious. Marvel Masterworks reprint the comic-books and the AE books print faithful facsimiles of the OA. Not quite the same (to me).

 

Agree none of us are far apart. We all love and appreciate the OA for multiple reasons, but this thread has shown how those different reasons are prioritized differently by collectors, all of whom I respect and many of whom I call friends. For me, I have absolutely no urge to buy any of the AE books, and this thread has helped me understand why. It doesn't provide what I most like in owning OA.

 

That doesn't mean that they could and do provide a lot of value for others, as we've heard. For me, they don't even supplement by collection. I do flip through them at the comic stores to see the art how it was done, but I don't have a need to buy it after that. At all. But, again, that's me. Your and others' experiences can and do vary.

 

Sure, it's obviously not for you but, for me, it's not just about owning the OA (to the exclusion of anything else worthwhile that comes along).

 

As I say, I like to study how an artist performed his craft - which is exactly my reason for collecting these books and what they provide for me. I have my OA collection and I have my selection of AE books. As such, they do complement my own OA interests.

 

Different strokes, I guess . . .

[heartened]

 

We are OA collectors, anyone (even a very close friend) saying that a reproduction will scratch any OA itch they have is fooling themselves. If they are fine with a reproduction, they would have been fine with the comic. There is no middle-ground in this hobby. There is only one OA, one-of-a-kind. It's what keeps us excited and also what prevents many of us from simply commissioning the artist for a recreation.

 

 

A personal response to the above (and some of the other contributions to this sub-thread) . . .

 

When I first started collecting OA (in 1982), it was as a direct result of buying the Russ Cochran hardback reprint editions of the old 1950s EC books.

 

EC, then, was a new discovery to me (I wasn't old enough to have read these books first time round and, in any case, they weren't distributed over here in the UK).

 

As such, my move into buying OA wasn't spurred into action by any feelings of nostalgia for old comic-books I read as a kid - I was collecting stuff that was basically a new discovery to me . . . and as an adult my leaning was more towards aesthetics.

 

One of the things I enjoyed about the Cochran hardbacks was that they provided the clarity of the original illustrations - something that the comic-book printings could never do full justice to.

 

At one time owning several hundred pages of EC cover and story art, I would periodically peruse my collection to study the OA in depth . . . learning (from the visual information) how each artist worked (the erased pencils, style of inking, corrections and margin notes - all providing a wealth of clues).

 

Although the Cochran hardbacks were a vast improvement over the original comic-book printings, the b&w images were cleaned-up versions of the OA.

 

When Scott Dunbier started AE versions of the EC material, I'm provided, once again (in near-identical quality), with the opportunity to study the artists' works in minute detail (so, no Hari, I am not fine with a comic-book printing . . . or a pointless re-creation . . . I want to see faithful replications of how the OA looked - which is the purpose of the AE books, for me).

 

Sure, the AE books offer no real substitute to owning the OA - but who can afford to own everything they like (expense and availability are simply out of the question for most of us)?

 

The books provide a valuable insight into how an artist performed his craft, and make wonderful additions to supplement our own respective OA collections. Something that shouldn't really be overlooked . . . or casually dismissed.

 

 

This has become a very interesting discussion, and it's good to see long-time collectors as well as newer collectors chiming in. I guess it also boils down to what you like about OA. For me, it's not simply seeing the art and the details of the linework, pencils, changes with the inking, and all the production aspects. For me, rather, it's holding a moment in time. Something that was taken from penciler to inker to letterer and then sent on to the publisher. It was something worked on physically, on which a creative process and collaboration occurred, and it happened months before I got to hold the comic in my hand and read it. It is something uniquely special for these subjective, rather than objective, reasons. It's a piece of creativity that I get to care for and relish. The AE reprints them, much as marvel masterworks reprints old comics, but the reality of have a piece of the actual creative process is what makes it a no comparison to me. And, for that reason, I only own one AE, the Romita ASM one, and only because I got it free for contributing a scan of my ASM 75 cover. And, no, I don't think it's hurt the price of that cover. I got some very serious offers for the cover as soon as the AE hit the stands!

 

This being said, by following the other posts I realize that my attachment to the OA is somewhat different than others, in (as Scott says) nuanced ways. As it turns out not everyone collects OA for the same reasons, and thus the itch may be scratched with an AE for some and not for others. All good!

 

BEst,

 

We're not exactly poles apart on why we collect OA, Hari, and I totally agree with your sentiments on what makes the artwork both historical and unique to own.

 

As I said in my post, " . . . the AE books offer no real substitute to owning the OA . . . (they) provide a valuable insight into how an artist performed his craft, and make wonderful additions to supplement our own respective OA collections."

 

. . . and the difference between Marvel Masterworks reprints and the AE books are obvious. Marvel Masterworks reprint the comic-books and the AE books print faithful facsimiles of the OA. Not quite the same (to me).

 

Agree none of us are far apart. We all love and appreciate the OA for multiple reasons, but this thread has shown how those different reasons are prioritized differently by collectors, all of whom I respect and many of whom I call friends. For me, I have absolutely no urge to buy any of the AE books, and this thread has helped me understand why. It doesn't provide what I most like in owning OA.

 

That doesn't mean that they could and do provide a lot of value for others, as we've heard. For me, they don't even supplement by collection. I do flip through them at the comic stores to see the art how it was done, but I don't have a need to buy it after that. At all. But, again, that's me. Your and others' experiences can and do vary.

 

Sure, it's obviously not for you but, for me, it's not just about owning the OA (to the exclusion of anything else worthwhile that comes along).

 

As I say, I like to study how an artist performed his craft - which is exactly my reason for collecting these books and what they provide for me. I have my OA collection and I have my selection of AE books. As such, they do complement my own OA interests.

 

Different strokes, I guess . . .

 

Yup, different strokes! Hey, as long as we're all happy and it fuels our passion, it's all good!

 

[J.Sid]

I've bought two BYRNE Fantastic Four pages since the AE came out. I already had three, but the Artist Edition showcase treatment made me want more.

 

Like Gene, I think the Groo book scratched my itch, but in the case of Wally Wood, it was the opposite. He's a artist I'd never considered buying something from. Now though, I'd love to own a piece from him... if it was of the quality of the pages included in that book.

[Hekla]

 

As I say, I like to study how an artist performed his craft - which is exactly my reason for collecting these books and what they provide for me. I have my OA collection and I have my selection of AE books. As such, they do complement my own OA interests.

 

As a relatively newish OA collector, I have not purchased any Artist Edition books and have used CAF Galleries/Dealer sites to study artistic craft. Other than physically holding a book, what advantages do the AE's over viewing pages on CAF - artist footnotes? Pieces not on CAF? Quality of scans? i.e. Convince me into throwing a couple of hundred bucks towards an artist edition.

[Terry Doyle]

 

As I say, I like to study how an artist performed his craft - which is exactly my reason for collecting these books and what they provide for me. I have my OA collection and I have my selection of AE books. As such, they do complement my own OA interests.

 

As a relatively newish OA collector, I have not purchased any Artist Edition books and have used CAF Galleries/Dealer sites to study artistic craft. Other than physically holding a book, what advantages do the AE's over viewing pages on CAF - artist footnotes? Pieces not on CAF? Quality of scans? i.e. Convince me into throwing a couple of hundred bucks towards an artist edition.

 

I have no interest in convincing you to shell-out your hard-earned cash on any of the AE books (which are not quite a couple of hundred bucks apiece).

 

In any case, you've pretty much summed-up what these books are about, yourself.

 

Here's the blurb from the publisher's web-site (if that helps you make an informed decision):

 

"AN ARTIST'S EDITION PRESENTS COMPLETE STORIES WITH EACH PAGE SCANNED FROM THE ACTUAL ORIGINAL ART.

 

While appearing to be in black and white, each page was scanned in color to mimic as closely as possible the experience of viewing the actual original art—for instance, corrections, blue pencils, paste-overs, all the little nuances that make original art unique. Each page is printed the same size as drawn, and the paper selected is as close as possible to the original art board."

 

Additionally, there are a number of videos uploaded on YouTube, showcasing what any potential buyer can expect.

 

For example:

 

 

There are videos of some of the other books.

[Hekla]

 

As I say, I like to study how an artist performed his craft - which is exactly my reason for collecting these books and what they provide for me. I have my OA collection and I have my selection of AE books. As such, they do complement my own OA interests.

 

As a relatively newish OA collector, I have not purchased any Artist Edition books and have used CAF Galleries/Dealer sites to study artistic craft. Other than physically holding a book, what advantages do the AE's over viewing pages on CAF - artist footnotes? Pieces not on CAF? Quality of scans? i.e. Convince me into throwing a couple of hundred bucks towards an artist edition.

 

I have no interest in convincing you to shell-out your hard-earned cash on any of the AE books (which are not quite a couple of hundred bucks apiece).

 

In any case, you've pretty much summed-up what these books are about, yourself.

 

Here's the blurb from the publisher's web-site (if that helps you make an informed decision):

 

"AN ARTIST'S EDITION PRESENTS COMPLETE STORIES WITH EACH PAGE SCANNED FROM THE ACTUAL ORIGINAL ART.

 

While appearing to be in black and white, each page was scanned in color to mimic as closely as possible the experience of viewing the actual original art—for instance, corrections, blue pencils, paste-overs, all the little nuances that make original art unique. Each page is printed the same size as drawn, and the paper selected is as close as possible to the original art board."

 

Additionally, there are a number of videos uploaded on YouTube, showcasing what any potential buyer can expect.

 

For example:

 

 

There are videos of some of the other books.

 

I didn't literally mean convince me, but thank for the response. (thumbs u

As I try to climb the OA pyramid and the financial outlay per pages increases, I want to be as informed as possible on future purchases. I haven't really considered purchasing the Artist Editions before, but from reading this thread I can see the benefit in using them as a research tool or as a potential proxy.

 

I've never considered searching for OA on Youtube - Thanks again!

[Terry Doyle]

 

As I say, I like to study how an artist performed his craft - which is exactly my reason for collecting these books and what they provide for me. I have my OA collection and I have my selection of AE books. As such, they do complement my own OA interests.

 

As a relatively newish OA collector, I have not purchased any Artist Edition books and have used CAF Galleries/Dealer sites to study artistic craft. Other than physically holding a book, what advantages do the AE's over viewing pages on CAF - artist footnotes? Pieces not on CAF? Quality of scans? i.e. Convince me into throwing a couple of hundred bucks towards an artist edition.

 

I have no interest in convincing you to shell-out your hard-earned cash on any of the AE books (which are not quite a couple of hundred bucks apiece).

 

In any case, you've pretty much summed-up what these books are about, yourself.

 

Here's the blurb from the publisher's web-site (if that helps you make an informed decision):

 

"AN ARTIST'S EDITION PRESENTS COMPLETE STORIES WITH EACH PAGE SCANNED FROM THE ACTUAL ORIGINAL ART.

 

While appearing to be in black and white, each page was scanned in color to mimic as closely as possible the experience of viewing the actual original art—for instance, corrections, blue pencils, paste-overs, all the little nuances that make original art unique. Each page is printed the same size as drawn, and the paper selected is as close as possible to the original art board."

 

Additionally, there are a number of videos uploaded on YouTube, showcasing what any potential buyer can expect.

 

For example:

 

 

There are videos of some of the other books.

 

I didn't literally mean convince me, but thank for the response. (thumbs u

As I try to climb the OA pyramid and the financial outlay per pages increases, I want to be as informed as possible on future purchases. I haven't really considered purchasing the Artist Editions before, but from reading this thread I can see the benefit in using them as a research tool or as a potential proxy.

 

I've never considered searching for OA on Youtube - Thanks again!

 

You're welcome.

 

 

[medusanyc]

forgive my ignorance but what is a BSD??

 

Urban Dictionary definition of BSD

 

The term came into vogue with the publication of Michael Lewis' breakout book "Liar's Poker" in the early '90s.

\

 

not sure which of those definitions has to do with original art purchasing

[tth2]

forgive my ignorance but what is a BSD??

 

Urban Dictionary definition of BSD

 

The term came into vogue with the publication of Michael Lewis' breakout book "Liar's Poker" in the early '90s.

\

 

not sure which of those definitions has to do with original art purchasing

BSDs are the guys who can throw lots of money at the most highly coveted pieces.

[theflashunc]

At the expense of thread drift completely (and catching up on this thread), Nuke is back in the current Marvel universe in his old incarnation. Currently in an arc on Remender's Captain America run.

 

Also, I've got a few of the AE's (Simonson, Mazz, Byrne, Davis) and I think they're a wonderful substitute in instances where the art is unavailable to me either through supply or current market value. They're that perfect bridge. Well, not totally perfect. They're a bit of a pain to store.

 

That, and seeing it at original size, they make me feel like a kid again reading the stories IDW has put together. I'm stoked for the New Gods one.

 

 

[Tokay]

The auction is now open for bids!

[delekkerste]

Can't believe the auction has started - given the size of the past couple of auctions (which both had literally hundreds more OA lots each), I was expecting a LOT more art to be posted this week. Guess we have become spoiled for choice by the recent Heritage offerings!

[jjonahjameson1]

Can't believe the auction has started - given the size of the past couple of auctions (which both had literally hundreds more OA lots each), I was expecting a LOT more art to be posted this week. Guess we have become spoiled for choice by the recent Heritage offerings!

 

I don't think its that surprising at all. If you've had previous experience as a consignor to either Heritage or Clink Nov or Feb auctions, you'd hold back from consigning, too.

[disruptive_one]

Yeah. The last couple of auctions had over 800 pieces, right?

[delekkerste]

I don't think its that surprising at all. If you've had previous experience as a consignor to either Heritage or Clink Nov or Feb auctions, you'd hold back from consigning, too.

And yet the November auction had hundreds more lots anyway.

[jjonahjameson1]

I don't think its that surprising at all. If you've had previous experience as a consignor to either Heritage or Clink Nov or Feb auctions, you'd hold back from consigning, too.

And yet the November auction had hundreds more lots anyway.

 

Settlement date = Jan 6th so no doubt there's several folks that need to raise some dough, even while knowing they won't get maximum dollars during the Nov auction. Feb is worse.