Is production page art worth picking up?

[suspense39]

http://comics.ha.com/itm/memorabilia/ec-two-fisted-tales-23-kill-complete-story-silverprint-proof-group-ec-1951-total-6-items-/a/121432-12738.s

 

an example of a color guide sold on HA

[suspense39]

http://www.anthonyscomicbookart.com/GalleryPiece.asp?Piece=40135&ArtistId=1968

 

presumably authentic stat proofs. the ones ive seen in person that are authentic had a slight emboss from the printing plates, they are not like regular xeroxes. unless you really know what you're doing and have real knowledge of the whole process, its probably better to stay away from. if you're spending a few dollars for an image you like and its no risk to you....go for it.

[Weird Paper]

I don't question the authenticity of the EC Silver prints or Anthony's stats. Acetates are the things I find questionable. If Anthony's stats are older than, say, 10-15 years, they should be on a photographic paper which will eventually discolor. Whether they are a viable collectible becomes the verdict of the consumer. Personally, I have no interest in them, but I have discovered I am not the arbiter of what's collectible for everyone, despite my best efforts.

[suspense39]

 

Agreed, I have more or less heard all acetates out there are fake.

[bluechip]

The distinction is being lost between "production art" and "art reproductions."

 

Anybody can make a xerox or a print. But real production art has some value, if it was used in the actual production of the original book. Sometimes it even has touch ups not on the original art and sometimes it has the comics code stamp on it, etc.

 

Some collectors don't even like that stuff. And that's fine. It's their opinion. But they shouldn't equate genuine production art with newly made copies and imply that genuine production art is of no more value than a simple copy which was not used in the original production. It may be of no value to that collector. But there is no question they are of interest to many people.

 

Problem is that the shysters have done a good job of equating them, for the opposite purpose. Personally, I paid a fair sum for a nice piece of verifiably genuine production art, only to see acetates of the piece being offered on ebay with a vague description designed to make buyers believe it was production art. Naturally, I was not happy with that. But at least I wasn't one of the guys paying money for acetates thinking they were production art.

 

So it should be "buyer beware" as opposed to "they are all worthless" If a comic book published in 1965 and sold on a newsstand is worth collecting, then why wouldn't the original office stats of the same comic be of some interest and collectible value? It would, and it often is, of interest and value.

 

The proliferation of fakes has tainted the genuine stuff, somewhat, and

probably held the value of genuine items below their natural price threshold, possibly leading to some bargains in the long term. But only if you are very careful about what you buy, and from whom.

 

BTW, if you want to say that production art is not really art, that is fine, too. I would have no problem calling it memorabilia. But the fact that people call it production art is not, in itself, proof of intent to deceive, because that's what the publishers called it in the first place.

 

 

[Weird Paper]

In the world of fake "production art," leadpink (or whatever pink they call themselves) seems to have new competition.

 

http://www.ebay.com/itm/ACTION-COMICS-36-Cover-FRED-RAY-SUPERMAN-vs-ROBOTS-Production-Art-/161487735840?pt=US_Comic_Books&hash=item25996b4c20

 

I can't imagine any circumstance where this would have been used in the actual production of anything. It really just looks like a bad inkjet print on acetate. Look, if you don't want your money, go give it to some starving people or something. If you really want a bad inkjet print on acetate, you can buy acetate sheets at most office stores, and then you can make your own production art.

[bluechip]

In the world of fake "production art," leadpink (or whatever pink they call themselves) seems to have new competition.

 

http://www.ebay.com/itm/ACTION-COMICS-36-Cover-FRED-RAY-SUPERMAN-vs-ROBOTS-Production-Art-/161487735840?pt=US_Comic_Books&hash=item25996b4c20

 

I can't imagine any circumstance where this would have been used in the actual production of anything. It really just looks like a bad inkjet print on acetate. Look, if you don't want your money, go give it to some starving people or something. If you really want a bad inkjet print on acetate, you can buy acetate sheets at most office stores, and then you can make your own production art.

 

I acquired some production and proof art pages that were used in the actual production of the book and/or came from the actual creators' files including Marvel staff files, Bill Finger and Joe Shuster files, and incidentally even some that came with provenance from Fred Ray's estate. I know they were not worth anything close to original art, and would never expect them to be. But scams like lead pink listings make people (understandably) wonder whether they're worth anything more than a scan made yesterday at kinko's

 

 

[Weird Paper]

In the world of fake "production art," leadpink (or whatever pink they call themselves) seems to have new competition.

 

http://www.ebay.com/itm/ACTION-COMICS-36-Cover-FRED-RAY-SUPERMAN-vs-ROBOTS-Production-Art-/161487735840?pt=US_Comic_Books&hash=item25996b4c20

 

I can't imagine any circumstance where this would have been used in the actual production of anything. It really just looks like a bad inkjet print on acetate. Look, if you don't want your money, go give it to some starving people or something. If you really want a bad inkjet print on acetate, you can buy acetate sheets at most office stores, and then you can make your own production art.

 

I acquired some production and proof art pages that were used in the actual production of the book and/or came from the actual creators' files including Marvel staff files, Bill Finger and Joe Shuster files, and incidentally even some that came with provenance from Fred Ray's estate. I know they were not worth anything close to original art, and would never expect them to be. But scams like lead pink listings make people (understandably) wonder whether they're worth anything more than a scan made yesterday at kinko's

 

If those are photographic transparencies (b&w) or overlay color proofs, and they're more than 15-20 years old, they should be fogged or yellowed. These materials were not meant to be archival. They were throwaway items used for press proofs. If they are black-and-white film positives, they were probably not used in printing in the U.S. There is no instance where a color transparency like the one in this auction would be used in the printing process. Especially this piece, which would be from the 40s. Silverprints like the EC proofs are legit, as are marker color pieces like the Adlers. 99% of everything else is junk. If I wanted, I could make these all day, but I have no interest in scamming anybody.