1st Wolverine art @ $140K with 22 days to go!! 0

[Rip]

[

 

And wasn't your whole argument that Wolverine wasn't that popular until LATE 80s? )

 

My argument is that Wolverine was not a superstar until 1986-up.

 

Was he very popular? Yes, of course.

 

But...and this is a key that many want to diminish, but it speaks volumes: he wasn't popular enough to get his own series. Marvel did not think he could carry his own series, when they thought dozens of others could.

 

He was simply not considered a "solo" character, and could not be a superstar in his own right because of it. He was part of a team. An integral part of the team, yes. But part of a team nonetheless. Just like Sue, Johnny, and Reed didn't have their own series, but the Thing did, because Marvel believed that the Thing was the most popular character on the team (which was proven correct, by virtue of him carrying his own series for 136 consecutive issues.)

 

He appeared high on fan award polls, yes. But it has to be taken into account that those poll results are from people who were very big comic fans to begin with, and who cared enough to respond. They are not scientific. That doesn't mean they have no value...of course not. But they are not scientific, and they are most decidedly skewed towards people who were already huge fans to begin with.

 

If you had simply said Wolverine was not a superstar until 1986, I'm not sure I would have entered the debate. I would have disagreed but would have likely not entered a prolonged debate..

 

But since we have some more parameters of the debate I added a quote and a link.

Wolverine was not a superstar until 1986-up and....

"I think it's safe to say that Wolverine was NOT *THE* big draw for the X-Men until the late 80's (generally, 1986 and beyond), and that it was fairly equally spread up until then. "

See most Significant X-Men thread.

http://boards.collectors-society.com/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=7637525&fpart=6

 

That's the thread that really started the debate. You were claiming that Wolverine wasn't even the most popular X-men. Your above quote makes it look like you are moving the goalposts.

 

Do you know why Wolverine didn't get his own series? Do you have any information to support your claim that "Marvel did not think he could carry his own series until 1988" other than simply not having one?

 

And if Marvel believed this, what facts can you bring to the table that supported Marvels supposed belief? Polling? Mothers against Wolverine?

 

Why did the series wait until late 1988 when you claim he was a superstar around the start of 1986.

 

 

 

Edited April 26, 2014 by Rip

[VintageComics]

Do you know why Wolverine didn't get his own series?

 

As a parallel thought, the Silver Surfer is about as iconic a person as you can get without ever becoming a true superstar.

 

I get more compliments on my Silver Surfer #1 cover t-shirt than I do on any other article of clothing I wear, hands down. People recognize him and love the character and personally he's one of my favorites (as is the 1968, 18 issue run) and yet he had a hard time carrying a series.

 

Interesting thought.

[RockMyAmadeus]

[

 

And wasn't your whole argument that Wolverine wasn't that popular until LATE 80s? )

 

My argument is that Wolverine was not a superstar until 1986-up.

 

Was he very popular? Yes, of course.

 

But...and this is a key that many want to diminish, but it speaks volumes: he wasn't popular enough to get his own series. Marvel did not think he could carry his own series, when they thought dozens of others could.

 

He was simply not considered a "solo" character, and could not be a superstar in his own right because of it. He was part of a team. An integral part of the team, yes. But part of a team nonetheless. Just like Sue, Johnny, and Reed didn't have their own series, but the Thing did, because Marvel believed that the Thing was the most popular character on the team (which was proven correct, by virtue of him carrying his own series for 136 consecutive issues.)

 

He appeared high on fan award polls, yes. But it has to be taken into account that those poll results are from people who were very big comic fans to begin with, and who cared enough to respond. They are not scientific. That doesn't mean they have no value...of course not. But they are not scientific, and they are most decidedly skewed towards people who were already huge fans to begin with.

 

If you had simply said Wolverine was not a superstar until 1986, I'm not sure I would have entered the debate. I would have disagreed but would have likely not entered a prolonged debate..

 

But since we have some more parameters of the debate I added a quote and a link.

Wolverine was not a superstar until 1986-up and....

"I think it's safe to say that Wolverine was NOT *THE* big draw for the X-Men until the late 80's (generally, 1986 and beyond), and that it was fairly equally spread up until then. "

See most Significant X-Men thread.

http://boards.collectors-society.com/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=7637525&fpart=6

 

That's the thread that really started the debate. You were claiming that Wolverine wasn't even the most popular X-men. Your above quote makes it look like you are moving the goalposts.

 

Do you know why Wolverine didn't get his own series? Do you have any information to support your claim that "Marvel did not think he could carry his own series until 1988" other than simply not having one?

 

And if Marvel believed this, what facts can you bring to the table that supported Marvels supposed belief? Polling? Mothers against Wolverine?

 

Why did the series wait until late 1988 when you claim he was a superstar around the start of 1986.

 

 

 

You can't argue it both ways. Wolverine didn't get his own series until 1988. Marvel's focus on new series in 1986 was CLEARLY the New Universe, and very little new ongoing series came out in the 1986-1987 period, outside of Star and the New U.

 

I stand by my statements. We can agree to disagree. I'm tired of the debate, really. Too much hostility. I'm open to discussion as long as anyone wishes, but not confrontation.

[delekkerste]

Do you know why Wolverine didn't get his own series?

 

As a parallel thought, the Silver Surfer is about as iconic a person as you can get without ever becoming a true superstar.

 

I get more compliments on my Silver Surfer #1 cover t-shirt than I do on any other article of clothing I wear, hands down. People recognize him and love the character and personally he's one of my favorites (as is the 1968, 18 issue run) and yet he had a hard time carrying a series.

 

Interesting thought.

 

This is true, but has zero bearing on Wolverine. His 1982 mini-series was a blockbuster success, and the character was so popular that fans even bought the Kitty Pryde & Wolverine mini-series in 1984 despite the absolutely horrendous Al Milgrom artwork. And, despite being part of numerous other books, the character has had a solo series more or less consistently since 1988.

 

If the character wasn't already anchoring Marvel's hottest title of the early '80s, OF COURSE he would have gotten a solo series before he did. You can bet your bottom dollar that there were editorial, creative, bandwidth, resource/talent availability, continuity, political or any number of infinitely more plausible reasons why they didn't launch a solo series until 1988. Heck, maybe they just realized that, because he was so important, that they had better take the time to do a solo series right. Or that it would be more manageable and better if they used the character in more mini-series and crossover appearances instead. Or that they just had some ideas that seemed like a more timely/pressing priority at the time. I mean, they certainly didn't think that Dazzler could carry her own series and Wolverine couldn't. That's just absurd.

[Rip]

[

 

And wasn't your whole argument that Wolverine wasn't that popular until LATE 80s? )

 

My argument is that Wolverine was not a superstar until 1986-up.

 

Was he very popular? Yes, of course.

 

But...and this is a key that many want to diminish, but it speaks volumes: he wasn't popular enough to get his own series. Marvel did not think he could carry his own series, when they thought dozens of others could.

 

He was simply not considered a "solo" character, and could not be a superstar in his own right because of it. He was part of a team. An integral part of the team, yes. But part of a team nonetheless. Just like Sue, Johnny, and Reed didn't have their own series, but the Thing did, because Marvel believed that the Thing was the most popular character on the team (which was proven correct, by virtue of him carrying his own series for 136 consecutive issues.)

 

He appeared high on fan award polls, yes. But it has to be taken into account that those poll results are from people who were very big comic fans to begin with, and who cared enough to respond. They are not scientific. That doesn't mean they have no value...of course not. But they are not scientific, and they are most decidedly skewed towards people who were already huge fans to begin with.

 

If you had simply said Wolverine was not a superstar until 1986, I'm not sure I would have entered the debate. I would have disagreed but would have likely not entered a prolonged debate..

 

But since we have some more parameters of the debate I added a quote and a link.

Wolverine was not a superstar until 1986-up and....

"I think it's safe to say that Wolverine was NOT *THE* big draw for the X-Men until the late 80's (generally, 1986 and beyond), and that it was fairly equally spread up until then. "

See most Significant X-Men thread.

http://boards.collectors-society.com/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=7637525&fpart=6

 

That's the thread that really started the debate. You were claiming that Wolverine wasn't even the most popular X-men. Your above quote makes it look like you are moving the goalposts.

 

Do you know why Wolverine didn't get his own series? Do you have any information to support your claim that "Marvel did not think he could carry his own series until 1988" other than simply not having one?

 

And if Marvel believed this, what facts can you bring to the table that supported Marvels supposed belief? Polling? Mothers against Wolverine?

 

Why did the series wait until late 1988 when you claim he was a superstar around the start of 1986.

 

 

 

You can't argue it both ways. Wolverine didn't get his own series until 1988. Marvel's focus on new series in 1986 was CLEARLY the New Universe, and very little new ongoing series came out in the 1986-1987 period, outside of Star and the New U.

 

I stand by my statements. We can agree to disagree. I'm tired of the debate, really. Too much hostility. I'm open to discussion as long as anyone wishes, but not confrontation.

 

Both ways? I'm trying to understand your logic and see the supporting information.

 

So you are telling me, (according to you) Marvel would rather wait on Wolverine and instead go with Star, and New Universe, a complete gamble that failed?

(And yes I'm sure you could debate the degree of failure for 50 pages)

 

 

Is this your reasonable reply to all of the above?

You DO realize its OK to say you are wrong on the internet. I won't think any less of you.

 

 

 

Edited April 26, 2014 by Rip

[Senormac]

Do you know why Wolverine didn't get his own series?

 

As a parallel thought, the Silver Surfer is about as iconic a person as you can get without ever becoming a true superstar.

 

I get more compliments on my Silver Surfer #1 cover t-shirt than I do on any other article of clothing I wear, hands down.

 

It's probably because of your huge pectoral muscles

[VintageComics]

Do you know why Wolverine didn't get his own series?

 

As a parallel thought, the Silver Surfer is about as iconic a person as you can get without ever becoming a true superstar.

 

I get more compliments on my Silver Surfer #1 cover t-shirt than I do on any other article of clothing I wear, hands down.

 

It's probably because of your huge pectoral muscles

 

No, it's because his feet are cut off ala Liefeld and it looks like I am keeping them warm with my junk.

 

[Senormac]

Do you know why Wolverine didn't get his own series?

 

As a parallel thought, the Silver Surfer is about as iconic a person as you can get without ever becoming a true superstar.

 

I get more compliments on my Silver Surfer #1 cover t-shirt than I do on any other article of clothing I wear, hands down.

 

It's probably because of your huge pectoral muscles

 

No, it's because his feet are cut off ala Liefeld and it looks like I am keeping them warm with my junk.

 

 

You should take up painting

[chrisco37]

I'm glad to see you are backtracking from your ludicrous statement that this piece will easily surpass $1 million,

 

You are misrepresenting.....again....what I said. I said "I have little doubt that it will cross $1 million"....that is not the same as "this piece will easily surpass $1 million."

 

 

They aren't identical statements, but they're pretty darn close.

 

Reminds me of the "WAY MORE" debate with JC years ago. That one was a classic.

[chrisco37]

 

The fact that "people with real money" understand the art makes the whole thing even more laughable to me. And that's not meant as a jab at you; I've heard that argument before. I don't have a ton of money myself so I think it's silly to spend 10s of thousands on a comicbook. Now if I had money to burn I'm sure I'd feel different. However, I don't care how much money I had, I wouldn't spend a dime on some of the art that's sold for millions.

 

72.8 million - Really?

 

 

It's difficult to enter into this work because of how the aura of the sexy fish threatens to penetrate the exploration of montage elements.

[techtre2003]

 

The fact that "people with real money" understand the art makes the whole thing even more laughable to me. And that's not meant as a jab at you; I've heard that argument before. I don't have a ton of money myself so I think it's silly to spend 10s of thousands on a comicbook. Now if I had money to burn I'm sure I'd feel different. However, I don't care how much money I had, I wouldn't spend a dime on some of the art that's sold for millions.

 

72.8 million - Really?

 

 

It's difficult to enter into this work because of how the aura of the sexy fish threatens to penetrate the exploration of montage elements.

 

Yes, I concur.

[chrisco37]

 

The fact that "people with real money" understand the art makes the whole thing even more laughable to me. And that's not meant as a jab at you; I've heard that argument before. I don't have a ton of money myself so I think it's silly to spend 10s of thousands on a comicbook. Now if I had money to burn I'm sure I'd feel different. However, I don't care how much money I had, I wouldn't spend a dime on some of the art that's sold for millions.

 

72.8 million - Really?

 

 

It's difficult to enter into this work because of how the aura of the sexy fish threatens to penetrate the exploration of montage elements.

 

Yes, I concur.

 

Personally, I wouldn't have paid a penny over 71 Million for it.

[techtre2003]

 

The fact that "people with real money" understand the art makes the whole thing even more laughable to me. And that's not meant as a jab at you; I've heard that argument before. I don't have a ton of money myself so I think it's silly to spend 10s of thousands on a comicbook. Now if I had money to burn I'm sure I'd feel different. However, I don't care how much money I had, I wouldn't spend a dime on some of the art that's sold for millions.

 

72.8 million - Really?

 

 

It's difficult to enter into this work because of how the aura of the sexy fish threatens to penetrate the exploration of montage elements.

 

Yes, I concur.

 

Personally, I wouldn't have paid a penny over 71 Million for it.

 

, I may have bumped it up to 73. It would look ok in my spare Summer yacht.

[tth2]

I do object to the hyperbole from people who seem to have forgotten comic history - the most important or 2nd most important piece of OA in the past 40 years? Who here agrees with that? And, while I'm not discounting the possibility of a huge price, to say that it will easily surpass $1 million is a claim that no knowledgeable OA collector or dealer would make. Heck, even Burkey would only go on record saying more than $200K (and he's not one to shy away from putting the pom-poms on). Even if the piece does sell for a truly insane amount, it would do nothing to change the ex ante fact it was utterly baseless speculation (as opposed to considered opinion from those who know the market and the players) and that pointing to outliers like the ASM #328 cover, let alone $100 million Modern art masterpieces, to justify any other price is a completely exercise.

Why do you assign so much importance to the opinions of the peanut gallery? If you hadn`t made such a big deal and focused 2/3 of this thread on those opinions, they would`ve been buried in this thread and no one would have given them any further thought. It`s not like the final price of this piece will be impacted one iota by the opinions of the peanut gallery anyways.

 

Or did you think the real players, after reading some of the posts in this thread, suddenly started thinking "Hmm, I was only going to bid up to $X00,000, but now I better be ready to bid over $1M"?

[Gotham Kid]

 

The fact that "people with real money" understand the art makes the whole thing even more laughable to me. And that's not meant as a jab at you; I've heard that argument before. I don't have a ton of money myself so I think it's silly to spend 10s of thousands on a comicbook. Now if I had money to burn I'm sure I'd feel different. However, I don't care how much money I had, I wouldn't spend a dime on some of the art that's sold for millions.

 

72.8 million - Really?

 

 

It's difficult to enter into this work because of how the aura of the sexy fish threatens to penetrate the exploration of montage elements.

 

Yes, I concur.

 

Personally, I wouldn't have paid a penny over 71 Million for it.

 

Seriously, who's 5 year old painted this ?

[COI]

I do object to the hyperbole from people who seem to have forgotten comic history - the most important or 2nd most important piece of OA in the past 40 years? Who here agrees with that? And, while I'm not discounting the possibility of a huge price, to say that it will easily surpass $1 million is a claim that no knowledgeable OA collector or dealer would make. Heck, even Burkey would only go on record saying more than $200K (and he's not one to shy away from putting the pom-poms on). Even if the piece does sell for a truly insane amount, it would do nothing to change the ex ante fact it was utterly baseless speculation (as opposed to considered opinion from those who know the market and the players) and that pointing to outliers like the ASM #328 cover, let alone $100 million Modern art masterpieces, to justify any other price is a completely exercise.

Why do you assign so much importance to the opinions of the peanut gallery? If you hadn`t made such a big deal and focused 2/3 of this thread on those opinions, they would`ve been buried in this thread and no one would have given them any further thought. It`s not like the final price of this piece will be impacted one iota by the opinions of the peanut gallery anyways.

 

Or did you think the real players, after reading some of the posts in this thread, suddenly started thinking "Hmm, I was only going to bid up to $X00,000, but now I better be ready to bid over $1M"?

 

Oh god.

 

This is like the scientific community's rationale for not debating creationists; that the opposing side is too irrational and uninformed for their opinions to be dignified by a response. Except that a thread in comics general discussing comic art may not be important enough to take this kind of attitude. The fact that, as you say, the price of this piece won't be impacted by the uninformed or less informed opinions around here, makes Gene acknowledging them and engaging them a harmless exercise. I've enjoyed reading Gene's posts in this thread, as he rarely makes an appearance in the comic section these days, and I'm sure plenty of us in the "peanut gallery" appreciate the discussion, undignified and offensive to your sensibilities as it may be.

 

[tth2]

The fact that, as you say, the price of this piece won't be impacted by the uninformed or less informed opinions around here, makes Gene acknowledging them and engaging them a harmless exercise.

In fact I was expecting Gene to appear in this thread and rain on the dreamers` parade as soon as they started speculating crazy prices.

 

For a few posts, it`s fine. But when it takes over this thread and just becomes this endless circular argument, then it just becomes boring and annoying.

 

If my 14-year old daughter told me that the greatest musical act ever is One Direction (which she in fact has), I might spend a few minutes trying to explain to her why she`s wrong, but she won`t be listening to me anyways and even if she is, she doesn`t have enough context to understand my argument at the moment, and in a few years she`ll realize how wrong she was anyways. So why waste the next 3 hours debating something like that?

[Unca Ben]

 

 

 

I figure it's easier to diminish and make fun of something I don't understand, than to educate myself in an attempt to understand it.

Edited April 26, 2014 by ucleben

[Comicopolis]

Funniest thread of the year.

[The-Collector]

 

The fact that "people with real money" understand the art makes the whole thing even more laughable to me. And that's not meant as a jab at you; I've heard that argument before. I don't have a ton of money myself so I think it's silly to spend 10s of thousands on a comicbook. Now if I had money to burn I'm sure I'd feel different. However, I don't care how much money I had, I wouldn't spend a dime on some of the art that's sold for millions.

 

72.8 million - Really?

 

 

It's difficult to enter into this work because of how the aura of the sexy fish threatens to penetrate the exploration of montage elements.

 

Yes, I concur.

 

Me and the girlfriend tried to paint a Rothko rip off, it is harder than you think. But surely it isn't 72.8 million dollars hard.