First Wolverine Page sells for $657,000!

[suspense39]

So, how many first appearances of Wolverine does it take to buy a statue of Popeye?

 

I think current buyers are looking at a whole different world of comps.

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2631881/Steve-Wynn-purchases-Jeff-Koons-Popeye-statue-nearly-28-2million.html

 

This is why I think there's so much room for growth in this hobby. Just because prices seem high to us, does not make them so in the grander scheme. To be sure, I'm not looking forward to this, as I in some ways long for the "old days" when we could get all this stuff for "reasonable" amounts, but I think it's inevitable.

Apples and oranges, or maybe more like diamonds and oranges.

 

Whatever you may personally think of Koons, his work is considered to be "high art" by the cognoscenti. Comic art will never be considered to be "high art" because by definition it was made for commercial purposes, and therefore will never be considered pure enough for the big moneyed art collectors to even contemplate for a nano-second.

 

If the Hulk 180 page ever goes for $28 million, that will mean that Koons' pieces will be going for around $500 million.

 

I'm glad we settled that.

I've decided to adopt the Gene Park method of speaking with absolute certainty on all things. It's very liberating!

 

Just to clarify, I'm not a fan of Koons AT ALL. If he was creating his art in the early 1960s, I might give him some credit for being part of the pop art movement. But given that he's been operating decades later, his work is not ironic or insightful in any way--it's just hopelessly derivative.

 

It's also a great example that not only is the "high art" crowd afraid to admit that the emperor is wearing no clothes, but as long as they all convince themselves that he IS wearing clothes, then for all intents and purposes he IS fully clothed. And that the delusions of the wealthy and powerful are a hard thing to overcome.

 

"Just to clarify, I'm not a fan of Koons AT ALL. If he was creating his art in the early 1960s, I might give him some credit for being part of the pop art movement. But given that he's been operating decades later, his work is not ironic or insightful in any way--it's just hopelessly derivative."

 

Couldn't the majority of what you said here also be said for someone who is second, third or fourth generation Batman (insert any character here) artist? They are different art forms with different histories and contexts. In a sense Koons is a continuation of Warhol similar to Miller being a continuation of Kane's (or finger's) Batman.

[ashrael]

This is why I think there's so much room for growth in this hobby. Just because prices seem high to us, does not make them so in the grander scheme. To be sure, I'm not looking forward to this, as I in some ways long for the "old days" when we could get all this stuff for "reasonable" amounts, but I think it's inevitable.

 

Where arguments like this break down for me is that no one in the hobby was willing to pay more than $657.2K for the Hulk #180 page. So, even if that seems "cheap" compared to a $28 million Koons, no one in this hobby has both the financial firepower and the willingness to pay more than $657.2K. And, I bet that the buyer of the Hulk #180 page will have to stretch more financially than the buyer of the Koons Popeye. They're just different markets, with different level of price potential.

 

Whether either market has reached its price potential is certainly open to debate; both markets continue to surprise on the upside to be sure. But, I think that comparing anything to top-end contemporary art is an exercise in futility, as that market makes everything else in the world look cheap by comparison, no matter how overpriced that item may be on its own merits.

 

Or at least no two people.

 

But then again the OA market needs to take steps. I don't think 4x the price of the next highest panel page ($155K for FF #55 page 3) is too shabby of a next step....

[Kevin76]

This is why I think there's so much room for growth in this hobby. Just because prices seem high to us, does not make them so in the grander scheme. To be sure, I'm not looking forward to this, as I in some ways long for the "old days" when we could get all this stuff for "reasonable" amounts, but I think it's inevitable.

 

Where arguments like this break down for me is that no one in the hobby was willing to pay more than $657.2K for the Hulk #180 page. So, even if that seems "cheap" compared to a $28 million Koons, no one in this hobby has both the financial firepower and the willingness to pay more than $657.2K. And, I bet that the buyer of the Hulk #180 page will have to stretch more financially than the buyer of the Koons Popeye. They're just different markets, with different level of price potential.

 

Whether either market has reached its price potential is certainly open to debate; both markets continue to surprise on the upside to be sure. But, I think that comparing anything to top-end contemporary art is an exercise in futility, as that market makes everything else in the world look cheap by comparison, no matter how overpriced that item may be on its own merits.

 

No one in the hobby? Really? You speak for every qualified potential buyer? The auction ended what it ended at on that particular day. Ever miss an auction and say to yourself, "I would have paid a bit more to get that? I'm sure quite a few people have thought the same about auctions they missed. People do get busy and aren't on the phone, online all at one time, trying to win a piece of art even if it was something they wanted.

 

 

no one in this hobby has both the financial firepower and the willingness to pay more than $657.2K. And, I bet that the buyer of the Hulk #180 page will have to stretch more financially than the buyer of the Koons Popeye.

 

Must be nice to know what the financial situation is for every comic art collector is off the top of your head and what they can and can't afford.

 

 

[delekkerste]

No one in the hobby? Really? You speak for every qualified potential buyer? The auction ended what it ended at on that particular day. Ever miss an auction and say to yourself, "I would have paid a bit more to get that? I'm sure quite a few people have thought the same about auctions they missed. People do get busy and aren't on the phone, online all at one time, trying to win a piece of art even if it was something they wanted.

 

 

no one in this hobby has both the financial firepower and the willingness to pay more than $657.2K. And, I bet that the buyer of the Hulk #180 page will have to stretch more financially than the buyer of the Koons Popeye.

 

Must be nice to know what the financial situation is for every comic art collector is off the top of your head and what they can and can't afford.

 

 

People had 2 1/2 months to gear up for this auction. Nobody missed it because they were too busy or not online during the auction. And, it's not enough to be able to afford a piece like this - you have to be able to afford and want it more than anything else you could do with the money (including saving it). The market spoke on Friday that $657.2K is the price that eliminated all but one bidder. You don't need a copy of everyone's personal financial statements to figure that out - you just need common sense.

[comiconxion]

Although the personalization on the piece adds to the history of the piece, it somewhat distracts from the piece if you were looking to frame it up. Who here would remove it after paying $657k? Maybe it would be more appealing to other buyers if it didn't have that?

[delekkerste]

Although the personalization on the piece adds to the history of the piece, it somewhat distracts from the piece if you were looking to frame it up. Who here would remove it after paying $657k? Maybe it would be more appealing to other buyers if it didn't have that?

 

I don't think it's obtrusive, and I'd be surprised if it affected the sale price at all. I'd also be shocked if the owner decided to remove it - if anything, I think it adds to the history of the piece and I like it when the art is signed in the margins. The fact that it says "Ben" wouldn't bother me personally.

[RockMyAmadeus]

So, how many first appearances of Wolverine does it take to buy a statue of Popeye?

 

I think current buyers are looking at a whole different world of comps.

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2631881/Steve-Wynn-purchases-Jeff-Koons-Popeye-statue-nearly-28-2million.html

 

This is why I think there's so much room for growth in this hobby. Just because prices seem high to us, does not make them so in the grander scheme. To be sure, I'm not looking forward to this, as I in some ways long for the "old days" when we could get all this stuff for "reasonable" amounts, but I think it's inevitable.

Apples and oranges, or maybe more like diamonds and oranges.

 

Whatever you may personally think of Koons, his work is considered to be "high art" by the cognoscenti. Comic art will never be considered to be "high art" because by definition it was made for commercial purposes, and therefore will never be considered pure enough for the big moneyed art collectors to even contemplate for a nano-second.

 

If the Hulk 180 page ever goes for $28 million, that will mean that Koons' pieces will be going for around $500 million.

 

I'm glad we settled that.

I've decided to adopt the Gene Park method of speaking with absolute certainty on all things. It's very liberating!

 

[theflashunc]

Although the personalization on the piece adds to the history of the piece, it somewhat distracts from the piece if you were looking to frame it up. Who here would remove it after paying $657k? Maybe it would be more appealing to other buyers if it didn't have that?

 

Given what I understand to be the history of the page -- one owner who acquired it from Trimple directly -- I think the name adds to the provenance more than anything, and I don't find it particularly intrusive. Not like it's right on Wolverine's face or anything.

[glendgold]

I went to a conference a couple of weeks ago where Nina Paley did a great presentation -- she's taken quilting to a new artistic level, adapting software and hardware to make quilts that couldn't be done before. She's doing a series of $10,000 bills - which are for sale for, I think, face value -- because she realized that the only reason many rich collectors buy Jeff Koons, et al, is that they can't actually hang twenty million dollar bills on the wall.

 

It's true, but folks don't like to have that pointed out to them. Even rich society rabble who don't collect understand what a Hirst is, and so seeing it is a social signifier that a Wolverine page will never be. Our hobby isn't going to go that way.

[lb jefferies]

I went to a conference a couple of weeks ago where Nina Paley did a great presentation -- she's taken quilting to a new artistic level, adapting software and hardware to make quilts that couldn't be done before. She's doing a series of $10,000 bills - which are for sale for, I think, face value -- because she realized that the only reason many rich collectors buy Jeff Koons, et al, is that they can't actually hang twenty million dollar bills on the wall.

 

It's true, but folks don't like to have that pointed out to them. Even rich society rabble who don't collect understand what a Hirst is, and so seeing it is a social signifier that a Wolverine page will never be. Our hobby isn't going to go that way.

 

Well said!

[tth2]

I went to a conference a couple of weeks ago where Nina Paley did a great presentation -- she's taken quilting to a new artistic level, adapting software and hardware to make quilts that couldn't be done before. She's doing a series of $10,000 bills - which are for sale for, I think, face value -- because she realized that the only reason many rich collectors buy Jeff Koons, et al, is that they can't actually hang twenty million dollar bills on the wall.

 

It's true, but folks don't like to have that pointed out to them. Even rich society rabble who don't collect understand what a Hirst is, and so seeing it is a social signifier that a Wolverine page will never be. Our hobby isn't going to go that way.

Great post.

[Doc Joe]

 

It's true, but folks don't like to have that pointed out to them. Even rich society rabble who don't collect understand what a Hirst is, and so seeing it is a social signifier that a Wolverine page will never be. Our hobby isn't going to go that way.

 

It is impossible for me in response to this not to post a pic of a wall in my kitchen in which you can see some of my comic art and one of my Hirsts

 

 

 

[Eric Seffinga]

So, how many first appearances of Wolverine does it take to buy a statue of Popeye?

 

I think current buyers are looking at a whole different world of comps.

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2631881/Steve-Wynn-purchases-Jeff-Koons-Popeye-statue-nearly-28-2million.html

 

This is why I think there's so much room for growth in this hobby. Just because prices seem high to us, does not make them so in the grander scheme. To be sure, I'm not looking forward to this, as I in some ways long for the "old days" when we could get all this stuff for "reasonable" amounts, but I think it's inevitable.

Apples and oranges, or maybe more like diamonds and oranges.

 

Whatever you may personally think of Koons, his work is considered to be "high art" by the cognoscenti. Comic art will never be considered to be "high art" because by definition it was made for commercial purposes, and therefore will never be considered pure enough for the big moneyed art collectors to even contemplate for a nano-second.

 

If the Hulk 180 page ever goes for $28 million, that will mean that Koons' pieces will be going for around $500 million.

 

I'm glad we settled that.

I've decided to adopt the Gene Park method of speaking with absolute certainty on all things. It's very liberating!

 

Just to clarify, I'm not a fan of Koons AT ALL. If he was creating his art in the early 1960s, I might give him some credit for being part of the pop art movement. But given that he's been operating decades later, his work is not ironic or insightful in any way--it's just hopelessly derivative.

 

It's also a great example that not only is the "high art" crowd afraid to admit that the emperor is wearing no clothes, but as long as they all convince themselves that he IS wearing clothes, then for all intents and purposes he IS fully clothed. And that the delusions of the wealthy and powerful are a hard thing to overcome.

 

"Just to clarify, I'm not a fan of Koons AT ALL. If he was creating his art in the early 1960s, I might give him some credit for being part of the pop art movement. But given that he's been operating decades later, his work is not ironic or insightful in any way--it's just hopelessly derivative."

 

Couldn't the majority of what you said here also be said for someone who is second, third or fourth generation Batman (insert any character here) artist? They are different art forms with different histories and contexts. In a sense Koons is a continuation of Warhol similar to Miller being a continuation of Kane's (or finger's) Batman.

 

To me, the funniest thing about what was paid for that Popeye piece is that it, like everything else relating to Koons came simply from a whim to copy something else. In this case a Dark Horse Popeye toy. http://www.cartoonbrew.com/fine-art/did-jeff-koons-just-make-28-million-by-plagiarizing-a-dark-horse-popeye-toy-99475.html

 

He licensed it fair and square, but this is all becoming so meta. It is a piece of "fine" art based on a toy, based on a comic. And the Koons Popeye painting features the toy. And I would assume the painting was produced in Koon's factory to which he never set brush to canvas himself.

 

I can't help but wonder how many generations in the future these kinds of head-game money grabs can continue before the population stands up and says the emperor has no clothes?

 

And this from someone that actually likes a good deal of modern and underground art and ideas, and really has never been a giant fan of superhero books either. I just happen to think the commodifying and "branding" of art as anything put out by a name artist in this way has gotten so out of hand, it just has to implode at some point. Surely the people who have that kind of money are also not unintelligent enough to not understand the nod and wink as well.

 

While I am one of those that thinks a handful of particularly interesting pieces of original comic art (like the Wovie appearance) may have a place in museums one day in the future. I think it would be more likely in places like the Smithsonian's American History Museum. I could see it in their displays alongside other historical documents, and pop culture items that they already display (Star Wars, Wizard of Oz, etc). And I could also foresee a time with comic pages shown in certain temporary shows and displays. Not unlike the more recent showings of the National Gallery of Art's showings on Art Deco, and Art Nouveau pieces. They have cycled similar exhibits on and off for years now, with work by Mucha and Tiffani hanging in rooms not far removed from the mainstays of contemporary art.

 

The National Portrait Gallery did a wonderful show on Rockwell a few years back thanks to Spielberg & Lucas' collections that were on loan with some other works. It was quite amazing to see in the flesh.

 

And in the way that news has arguably slid into a form of infotainment rather than the hard hitting cut and dry journalism of Murrow, I would not be surprised if Marvel continues to make major income from it's films over the coming years, to hear that the art museums want to get in on some of that audience action and draw people into their doors.

 

Sure, items like a large porcelain Michael Jackson and Bubbles or a shiny Popeye might have some interest for the mass populace of old folks... but think of how popular a shiny Wolverine would be!

[Raymondb0]

Not sure if this was posted but thought I would if it was not...

 

http://artsbeat.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/05/19/first-wolverine-comic-art-is-sold-for-nearly-660000/?_php=true&_type=blogs&_r=0

 

 

[kbmcvay]

Does anybody think the final price of this piece would have been higher if it had been penciled by a bigger "name" than Trimpe (a John Romita or Neal Adams for example)? I do.

[delekkerste]

Does anybody think the final price of this piece would have been higher if it had been penciled by a bigger "name" than Trimpe (a John Romita or Neal Adams for example)? I do.

 

It's possible, but at that price, I think it would have been difficult to rationalize stretching farther than it went. So, my opinion is no.

[drdroom]

Does anybody think the final price of this piece would have been higher if it had been penciled by a bigger "name" than Trimpe (a John Romita or Neal Adams for example)? I do.

 

Maybe if Jeff Koons had drawn it. But the WAY its drawn, with a big presentational image of Wolvie, is definitely a factor. Imagine the page is gorgeously drawn and inked by Bernie Wrightson, with Wolverine barely glimpsed in the shadows... now what does it hammer for?

[Bronty]

Great point about the "presentational image". More important than the artist, for sure, given the desirability of this page is all about the content anyways. It wouldn't matter, IMO, who the artist was (all due respect to Trimpe).

[ashrael]

Does anybody think the final price of this piece would have been higher if it had been penciled by a bigger "name" than Trimpe (a John Romita or Neal Adams for example)? I do.

 

Hmm, a Frazetta Wolverine in the shadows a la Famous Funnies 213 would be incredible.

 

Actually, that sounds like a great commission idea

 

Published: http://www.aaronlopresti.com/blog/al-content/uploads/2014/01/Famous_Funnies-213.jpg

 

[heartened]

Does anybody think the final price of this piece would have been higher if it had been penciled by a bigger "name" than Trimpe (a John Romita or Neal Adams for example)? I do.

 

Actually, it WAS drawn by Romita

 

Trimpe swiped the entire image, line for line, from Romita's prelim. The prelim is also on CAF, for reference.