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

[delekkerste]

As tth said before, no one is disputing this.

 

I don't know how to make it any more clear to you.

 

No one is disputing that the cover to Hulk #181 is more important and more valuable than the last page of #180.

 

And yet, you keep saying the selling point of this page is that it's the first depiction of the character, as if it's the end-all, be-all. Well, it's not. This is a hobby driven by nostalgia, first and foremost, and few consider the art or story from Hulk #180-181 to be the pinnacle of comics achievement from the past 40 years. Yes, it's significant/notable, but it's not the most important thing that's happened to comics.

 

It may very well be the most significant/most valuable interior page from the past 40 years, but there are covers from that period that would be considered by almost everyone to be more significant and more valuable. Not to mention there is a lot of OA from earlier than that which is/would be considered better and yet would not crack the kind of figures you are mentioning.

 

The very fact that you had "little doubt" this piece would crack $1 million and that you think the ASM #328 cover datapoint is significant/relevant tells me and every other knowledgeable OA collector that you don't know what you're talking about. I love how you skirt over the hard datapoints about other, more iconic pieces of OA and instead fixate on your solely-held opinion that this is piece is more significant than all of them and is likely to fetch double what the ASM 50, Silver Surfer 4, DKR 1, etc. covers allegedly fetched, or that it is as valuable/as important as a complete Ditko ASM story. Surely anyone in possession of these facts would have grave doubts about the ability of this piece to hit anywhere close to a million bucks. Not that it's impossible, but that it would be a huge longshot. You're clearly too out of the loop to know any better.

[RockMyAmadeus]

this is some good entertainment guys

 

Yeah, I know. I really shouldn't be doing this.

 

I really held delekkerste in high regard, and I am genuinely saddened to find out that I was wrong in my estimation of him.

 

[RockMyAmadeus]

With all due respect RMA I don't think Gene's made any ludicrous statements or anything here. I don't think he's significantly misrepresented anything you've said It seems like you're having to dig deep to defend your initial statements, which - I'm sorry - were flawed. Its OK to be wrong on the internet once in a while.

 

Unless its something I've said. That works under completely different rules I'm never wrong

 

Oh come on, now. You and I both know that changing the meaning of something that someone says when it is a point of contention isn't fair play.

 

And in other threads, he said, more than once, that "you weren't there, so you couldn't possibly know what happened"...which flies in the face of the study of history itself.

 

[Bronty]

With all due respect RMA I don't think Gene's made any ludicrous statements or anything here. I don't think he's significantly misrepresented anything you've said It seems like you're having to dig deep to defend your initial statements, which - I'm sorry - were flawed. Its OK to be wrong on the internet once in a while.

 

Unless its something I've said. That works under completely different rules I'm never wrong

 

Oh come on, now. You and I both know that changing the meaning of something that someone says when it is a point of contention isn't fair play.

 

And in other threads, he said, more than once, that "you weren't there, so you couldn't possibly know what happened"...which flies in the face of the study of history itself.

 

 

I'm not even going to go wade into all that. That's not what I'm talking about.

 

What I'm discussing is the basic points that it was, paraphrasing, 'the best OA to be auctioned in X years' and that it would break a million.

 

I don't think either of those statements really hold up and apart from some popcorn worthy repartee and a Brulato card or two that's what the thrust of the discussion has been. I.e. what's 'best', why is this or is this not 'best', why is this or is it not as valuable as $1m, etc.

 

 

[RockMyAmadeus]

As tth said before, no one is disputing this.

 

I don't know how to make it any more clear to you.

 

No one is disputing that the cover to Hulk #181 is more important and more valuable than the last page of #180.

 

And yet, you keep saying the selling point of this page is that it's the first depiction of the character, as if it's the end-all, be-all. Well, it's not. .

 

One more time: that statement is independent of the discussion of the cover of Hulk #181.

 

That statement has to do with this present auction, and this present auction alone, and why I believe the piece is so important....and NOT...again, NOT...in relation to #181's cover which is not being auctioned at this time.

 

Separate ideas. Complex, compound discussions, discussing myriad aspects, not all of which are directly related to each other.

[RockMyAmadeus]

With all due respect RMA I don't think Gene's made any ludicrous statements or anything here. I don't think he's significantly misrepresented anything you've said It seems like you're having to dig deep to defend your initial statements, which - I'm sorry - were flawed. Its OK to be wrong on the internet once in a while.

 

Unless its something I've said. That works under completely different rules I'm never wrong

 

Oh come on, now. You and I both know that changing the meaning of something that someone says when it is a point of contention isn't fair play.

 

And in other threads, he said, more than once, that "you weren't there, so you couldn't possibly know what happened"...which flies in the face of the study of history itself.

 

 

I'm not even going to go wade into all that. That's not what I'm talking about.

 

What I'm discussing is the basic points that it was, paraphrasing, 'the best OA to be auctioned in X years' and that it would break a million.

 

I don't think either of those statements really hold up and apart from some popcorn worthy repartee that's what the thrust of the discussion has been. I.e. what's 'best', why is this or is this not 'best', why is this or is it not as valuable as $1m, etc.

 

 

Do you not think it is the most important (not "best") OA to be auctioned in the last 20 years...?

 

I do, and I think I've made the case for it fairly well.

 

But then again, I have no idea what I'm talking about, so why even bother...?

 

[techtre2003]

First appearances are also not the only major events in comics. I can assure you that Elektra pages/cover from DD #181 would be worth more than the cover/pages to DD #168, much as the X-Men #137 cover would be worth more than the cover/pages to X-Men #101. In fact, if the rumors about offers made regarding the #137 cover are true, the Hulk #180 page should finish comfortably below that level.

 

This surprises me. I'd think the 101 cover would be worth quite a bit more than the 137. It's definitely a much more iconic cover in my eye anyway.

[Rip]

I'll say this again:

 

The cover to #181 is more important. <------ this statement is opinion. It is not provable. Opinion, even if 10 billion people agree, is not the same thing as fact. When and if the cover to #181 shows up for public sale, then it should surpass this page.

 

And people can disagree...even those who might be "more informed" than others...without being dismissive about it. I know I'm making that effort.

 

I would think opinion is an integral part of the equation "Those deeming the artwork important" so if everyone agreed it was more important, with good reason one could claim the artwork "is more important". After all its people who are deeming the artwork important. Not chimps or raccoons.

 

This isn't like polling for the Big Bang, or if the moon is made out of cheese. Where as public polling on that outcome has zero to do with the Empirical evidence at hand.

Edited April 25, 2014 by Rip

[delekkerste]

First appearances are also not the only major events in comics. I can assure you that Elektra pages/cover from DD #181 would be worth more than the cover/pages to DD #168, much as the X-Men #137 cover would be worth more than the cover/pages to X-Men #101. In fact, if the rumors about offers made regarding the #137 cover are true, the Hulk #180 page should finish comfortably below that level.

 

This surprises me. I'd think the 101 cover would be worth quite a bit more than the 137. It's definitely a much more iconic cover in my eye anyway.

 

I don't think the #101 cover exists, but, even if it did, the #137 cover would be far more valuable. It's the more iconic image, it's a bigger key, it's the greatest X-Men art team at the top of their game, etc.

[RockMyAmadeus]

As tth said before, no one is disputing this.

 

I don't know how to make it any more clear to you.

 

No one is disputing that the cover to Hulk #181 is more important and more valuable than the last page of #180.

 

And yet, you keep saying the selling point of this page is that it's the first depiction of the character, as if it's the end-all, be-all. Well, it's not. This is a hobby driven by nostalgia, first and foremost, and few consider the art or story from Hulk #180-181 to be the pinnacle of comics achievement from the past 40 years.

 

No one said that.

 

Yes, it's significant/notable, but it's not the most important thing that's happened to comics.

 

No one said that, either.

 

It may very well be the most significant/most valuable interior page from the past 40 years, but there are covers from that period that would be considered by almost everyone to be more significant and more valuable.

 

It may be the most significant/most valuable, but others would be considered more significant/more valuable.

 

 

That's an interesting statement right there.

 

Not to mention there is a lot of OA from earlier than that which is/would be considered better and yet would not crack the kind of figures you are mentioning.

 

Speculation.

 

The very fact that you had "little doubt" this piece would crack $1 million and that you think the ASM #328 cover datapoint is significant/relevant

 

It is relevant, if only as a bar.

 

tells me and every other knowledgeable OA collector that you don't know what you're talking about.

 

Really? You speak for every other knowledgeable OA collector?

 

I love how you skirt over the hard datapoints about other, more iconic pieces of OA

 

Which hard datapoints did I "skirt over"? You sure it wasn't an attempt to just ignore YOU?

 

and instead fixate on your solely-held opinion that this is piece is more significant than all of them and is likely to fetch double what the ASM 50, Silver Surfer 4, DKR 1, etc. covers allegedly fetched, or that it is as valuable/as important as a complete Ditko ASM story.

 

"Solely-held opinion"? Read the thread again.

 

I have already made my case: this piece is more important to comics history than the covers of ASM #50, Silver Surfer #4, and DKR #1.

 

It's not a great piece. But it is the first appearance of Wolverine. That makes it, historically, more important than Spidey #50, Surfer #4, and DKR #1.

 

Surely anyone in possession of these facts would have grave doubts about the ability of this piece to hit anywhere close to a million bucks. Not that it's impossible, but that it would be a huge longshot. You're clearly too out of the loop to know any better.

 

That is, of course, the beauty of opinion. It is not fact.

[delekkerste]

Oh come on, now. You and I both know that changing the meaning of something that someone says when it is a point of contention isn't fair play.

 

And in other threads, he said, more than once, that "you weren't there, so you couldn't possibly know what happened"...which flies in the face of the study of history itself.

 

 

Well, there's that gross mischaracterization and what I actually said on the matter:

 

Like I said, you had to be there in the early 1980s. I'm not saying that Storm, Kitty, Cyclops, etc. weren't also very popular, but Wolverine was already well-established as *the* fan favorite X-Man by the time I started reading the series in 1983, as other 40-something year old collectors can attest and have attested to.

 

Just curious - when did you start reading UXM? Not which issue, but in which month/year...You're going to have to trust me on this one if you weren't a die-hard X-fan in 1983-84 - Wolverine's popularity was exponentially higher than any other X-Man's then, no matter how much facetime the others got on the covers and in the book.

 

You're going to have to trust me and everyone else's first-hand accounts that he was already huge and in another league of popularity by the time I started reading UXM in 1983. Yes, he did blow up even bigger, but he was still far and away the most popular character in Marvel's #1 title back then and *the* fan favorite among that generation of readers.

 

I enjoy reading your posts and have nothing against you, RMA, but, for you to argue that Wolverine wasn't the big cheese before the late '80s is simply factually incorrect, like trying to argue to someone who grew up in the 1930s that the Great Depression wasn't all that bad because of whatever tidbits they learned that they believe are more relevant. It has nothing to do with people in their late 30s and 40s idealizing their memories of youth.

 

Anyway, your arguments (many of which were simply ) were comprehensively refuted by various Boardies wielding various pieces of evidence (price data, circulation data, fan surveys, first-hand recollection, cover appearances across titles, etc.) while you offered up easily refuted points such as cover appearances preceding the relevant period in question, storyline ideas which were strictly editorial/creative and not a reflection of fan popularity, etc. And, when none of that worked, you tried to stealthily move the goalposts so that now 1986 somehow qualifies as "the late '80s". Face it - you were wrong, Wolverine was huge by 1983, and you chose to argue the point into oblivion rather than admit you were wrong.

 

I've seen you post intelligently on some topics; it's no shame to admit that you were ill-informed and wrong about others. Nobody can know everything about everything.

[RockMyAmadeus]

I'll say this again:

 

The cover to #181 is more important. <------ this statement is opinion. It is not provable. Opinion, even if 10 billion people agree, is not the same thing as fact. When and if the cover to #181 shows up for public sale, then it should surpass this page.

 

And people can disagree...even those who might be "more informed" than others...without being dismissive about it. I know I'm making that effort.

 

I would think opinion is an integral part of the equation "Those deeming the artwork important" so if everyone agreed it was more important, with good reason one could claim the artwork "is more important". After all its people who are deeming the artwork important. Not chimps or raccoons.

 

This isn't like polling for the Big Bang, or if the moon is made out of cheese. Where as public polling on that outcome has zero to do with the Empirical evidence at hand.

 

Absolutely. You are absolutely correct. No dispute from me. It is, after all, the foundation of my argument for why I believe this is a million dollar piece. The opinion of Wolverine worldwide. It's absolutely far, far more important than a "Rob Liefeld sketchbook" (to bring up an example of great hyperbole.)

 

The problem arises when people present opinion as fact, no matter how well held that opinion may be.

[buttock]

Well this is a productive thread.

[Bronty]

 

It may very well be the most significant/most valuable interior page from the past 40 years, but there are covers from that period that would be considered by almost everyone to be more significant and more valuable.

 

It may be the most significant/most valuable, but others would be considered more significant/more valuable.

 

 

That's an interesting statement right there.

 

c'mon RMA, you're better than that. He clearly stated interior page and cover.

 

Rightly or wrongly you are arguing to the point where many have tuned out myself included

[RockMyAmadeus]

First appearances are also not the only major events in comics. I can assure you that Elektra pages/cover from DD #181 would be worth more than the cover/pages to DD #168, much as the X-Men #137 cover would be worth more than the cover/pages to X-Men #101. In fact, if the rumors about offers made regarding the #137 cover are true, the Hulk #180 page should finish comfortably below that level.

 

This surprises me. I'd think the 101 cover would be worth quite a bit more than the 137. It's definitely a much more iconic cover in my eye anyway.

 

I don't think the #101 cover exists, but, even if it did, the #137 cover would be far more valuable. It's the more iconic image, it's a bigger key, it's the greatest X-Men art team at the top of their game, etc.

 

Once more...when we say X-Men #137 is a "more iconic image", a "bigger key", than #101, we have once again taken leave of our senses.

[bronze_rules]

First appearances are also not the only major events in comics. I can assure you that Elektra pages/cover from DD #181 would be worth more than the cover/pages to DD #168, much as the X-Men #137 cover would be worth more than the cover/pages to X-Men #101. In fact, if the rumors about offers made regarding the #137 cover are true, the Hulk #180 page should finish comfortably below that level.

 

This surprises me. I'd think the 101 cover would be worth quite a bit more than the 137. It's definitely a much more iconic cover in my eye anyway.

 

me too

 

btw. Regarding the value of 180 vs. 181. I think part of the reason there is additional value placed on the 180 is because the 181 is believed lost in the fire (not sure if someone refuted that yet), which pretty much makes it much more valuable by virtue of being the last known existing OA that shows the first appearance of arguably one of the most popular pop culture characters in today's existence. Everyone seems to be overlooking that point.

 

If the 181 where to somehow show up, I would imagine the perceived value of that 180 page would drop instantly.

[RockMyAmadeus]

 

It may very well be the most significant/most valuable interior page from the past 40 years, but there are covers from that period that would be considered by almost everyone to be more significant and more valuable.

 

It may be the most significant/most valuable, but others would be considered more significant/more valuable.

 

 

That's an interesting statement right there.

 

c'mon RMA, you're better than that. He clearly stated interior page and cover.

 

 

You're right, he did. I misread it.

 

My mistake.

 

 

Rightly or wrongly you are arguing to the point where many have tuned out myself included

 

 

C'mon, Bronty, you're better than this. You can (and should) be saying the exact same thing to delekkerste.

 

 

 

 

[Bronty]

Oh I've definitely tuned out in general, that's fine

[RockMyAmadeus]

Oh come on, now. You and I both know that changing the meaning of something that someone says when it is a point of contention isn't fair play.

 

And in other threads, he said, more than once, that "you weren't there, so you couldn't possibly know what happened"...which flies in the face of the study of history itself.

 

 

Well, there's that gross mischaracterization and what I actually said on the matter:

 

No, it's pretty much spot on with what you said here:

 

Also, weren't you like 1 or 2 years old in 1983 (based on what you said before) and not even born in 1981 (when Kitty was allegedly the most popular X-Man)? I really would like to know how these claims can be at all supported - I'll trust my potentially unreliable memories over your no memories any day.

 

And, in one fell swoop, you not only completely discounted my argument for no other reason than "you weren't there", but you also confused what someone else said with me.

 

Are you seriously going to deny that's what your quoted statement here is....?

 

Anyway, your arguments (many of which were simply ) were comprehensively refuted by various Boardies wielding various pieces of evidence (price data, circulation data, fan surveys, first-hand recollection, cover appearances across titles, etc.) while you offered up easily refuted points such as cover appearances preceding the relevant period in question, storyline ideas which were strictly editorial/creative and not a reflection of fan popularity, etc. And, when none of that worked, you tried to stealthily move the goalposts so that now 1986 somehow qualifies as "the late '80s". Face it - you were wrong, Wolverine was huge by 1983, and you chose to argue the point into oblivion rather than admit you were wrong.

 

We have all been over this before. I am perfectly capable of refuting your misstatements, false claims, misrepresentations, and erroneous "facts", but it serves no purpose. "Circulation data" does not prove who was the most popular X-Man, because the circulation data is for the X-MEN...NOT Wolverine, because he had no title of his own. And this is one of many of the mistakes you made in that discussion.

 

And no one "stealthily moved the goalposts", as you misrepresent here. I established the parameters of my argument as up to issue #200 from the outset. You may disagree with those parameters, but I certainly did not "stealthily change them" after the fact. Why do you keep doing this?

 

You are....again and again and again...trying to present your opinion as established fact.

 

"Argue the point into oblivion"...? Who tried to start up the argument AGAIN today...?

 

Hint: not me.

 

I will simply quote you one more time:

 

"The plural of anecdote is not evidence."

 

Nothing was "proven" as you claim, because, at the heart, we were talking about OPINION, and the fact that you think the memories of the 10-15 or so board members who chimed in to agree with you somehow constitutes a "comprehensive refutation" is beyond all sanity.

 

In any event, as usual, this accomplishes nothing good, so I will go back to ignoring you. I'm truly sorry it has come to this, really, but nothing good can come of trying to defend myself against you: you won't quit, no matter the truth.

 

So...I quit, as far as you are concerned.

[delekkerste]

me too

 

btw. Regarding the value of 180 vs. 181. I think part of the reason there is additional value placed on the 180 is because the 181 is believed lost in the fire (not sure if someone refuted that yet), which pretty much makes it much more valuable by virtue of being the last known existing art that shows the first appearance of arguably one of the most popular pop culture characters in today's existence. Everyone seems to be overlooking that point.

 

If the 181 where to somehow show up, I would imagine the perceived value of that 180 page would drop instantly.

 

A Boardie confirmed with Len Wein that the #181 pages were not lost in the fire and are in the process of being restored from unspecified damage.

 

X-Men #101 is the more valuable comic book than X-Men #137, but, in the OA world, we don't play by those rules - for example, McSpidey #1 is an almost worthless comic book, but the art is one of the most iconic and memorable images from the '90s, so, hence, its $358.5K auction price). Zero question that a top Byrne/Austin cover to one of the most memorable books from the '80s is going to absolutely trounce the valuation of any of the X-Men Cockrum covers except for the key books that were pencilled by Kane and inked by Cockrum (GSXM 1, UXM 94).