A few pics from NYCC

[Eltanin]

I'm surprised anyone thinks it would be a convincing selling argument.

I know I couldn't care less.

[vodou]

I'm surprised anyone thinks it would be a convincing selling argument.

I know I couldn't care less.

Only matters imo re: Old Masters, elevates a $500 genre painting to $5,000 if you think (may imagine) he might have asked Rembrandt for a few drapery tips over beers at the end of the work day

[suspense39]

Yeah, it's used in the artworld, I haven't seen it used in the comic art world........yet!

[vodou]

Yeah, it's used in the artworld, I haven't seen it used in the comic art world........yet!

But only because there's an agreed silence on the prevalence of 'lesser hands' on much of the vintage comic art we cherish (and pay fabulous sums for). Example: those Kirby/Tuska Tales of Suspense stories. At least they were credited as such publicly! That's something for sure. But...Crusty Bunkers? Brett Breeding ghosting Bob Layton as apprentice? The never-ending Miller/Janson DD controversey? How much Wiacek vs. Cockrum in those latter second run Uncanny X-Men before Paul Smith took over? Joe Rubinstein's 'studio', Quickdraw Studio (Frank McLaughlin and friends), Mike Deodato's studio...need I go on?

[suspense39]

Yeah, it's used in the artworld, I haven't seen it used in the comic art world........yet!

But only because there's an agreed silence on the prevalence of 'lesser hands' on much of the vintage comic art we cherish (and pay fabulous sums for). Example: those Kirby/Tuska Tales of Suspense stories. At least they were credited as such publicly! That's something for sure. But...Crusty Bunkers? Brett Breeding ghosting Bob Layton as apprentice? The never-ending Miller/Janson DD controversey? How much Wiacek vs. Cockrum in those latter second run Uncanny X-Men before Paul Smith took over? Joe Rubinstein's 'studio', Quickdraw Studio (Frank McLaughlin and friends), Mike Deodato's studio...need I go on?

 

That is all certainly rediculous, but not exactly the way the term would be used. It would be used a bit more like," of course this art is important, (insert little know artist's name here) was a great FRIEND of Jack Kirby".

[bluechip]

 

Might want to check with Mike. I've bought stuff from him only to see it still on his site a couple years later.

 

It just appeared on his site today - after the NYCC. He'll usually put "On Hold" or "Sold" if he doesn't have it

 

Right you are, sir. It shows up as "new" on the site (though he does that even when he's had something for years).

[bluechip]

Yeah, it's used in the artworld, I haven't seen it used in the comic art world........yet!

But only because there's an agreed silence on the prevalence of 'lesser hands' on much of the vintage comic art we cherish (and pay fabulous sums for). Example: those Kirby/Tuska Tales of Suspense stories. At least they were credited as such publicly! That's something for sure. But...Crusty Bunkers? Brett Breeding ghosting Bob Layton as apprentice? The never-ending Miller/Janson DD controversey? How much Wiacek vs. Cockrum in those latter second run Uncanny X-Men before Paul Smith took over? Joe Rubinstein's 'studio', Quickdraw Studio (Frank McLaughlin and friends), Mike Deodato's studio...need I go on?

 

So much comic art was the result of multiple hands that it pays not to get too extreme either one way or the other. Does it really matter that Kirby did only layouts when we know that his layouts were more detailed than some artist's pencils? Does it matter that Marie Severin did layouts for many covers credited to Kirby and Romita, and others. Should the credits read "Cover layout by Marie Severin? How much does it matter that when Kirby and Romita did covers, they often based their drawings directly on interior images done by lesser hands? Should that Kirby cover images be called "after Bob Powell"?)

 

The "agreed silence" you refer to would be less necessary if people just accepted the multiple hands as a part of the process. And there would be less of a concern that the "agreed silence" might ebb or flow depending on who owns (or is selling) the art.

 

There is a lot of emphasis on whom is the artist but I would rather have a classic cover that was the result of multiple hands than an unappealing cover with a poor image from a forgettable issue that has all the right metrics for artist and size of art, etc. If the art itself, and its place in comics history, is not a big part of a piece's value, then one of the least valuable recognizable covers would be Action Comics #1, because we don't know who drew it. (extant DC memos indicate it was drawn by some unnamed, unknown staffer who drew it based on an interior panel ("after Shuster")

 

[NelsonAI]

You guys forgot the "I once stood next to John Romita Sr. "

 

OT but an interesting discussion. It certainly merits it's own thread.

 

Let's say that when Bob Layton wrote and drew The Hercules miniseries, he did full sized detailed layouts on vellum. His plan was to light box the art onto bristol before inking the pages. Due to deadlines, Luke McDonnell light boxed the art onto bristol for him. Layton does the finished inks.

 

The credits show Luke McDonnell as the penciller, which technically he is.

 

How would collectors value the art?

 

From a nostalgia point of view it probably is viewed as Bob Layton art as he has the higher name recognition.

 

Hypothetically, if this were Romita Sr. doing the detailed layouts on bristol and Luke McDonnell did the light box pencils and Layton did the finished inks, how would you value the art when there are no actual Romita Sr. pencils on the published art?

 

Cheers!

N.

 

 

 

 

[vodou]

There is a lot of emphasis on whom is the artist but I would rather have a classic cover that was the result of multiple hands than an unappealing cover with a poor image from a forgettable issue that has all the right metrics for artist and size of art, etc. If the art itself, and its place in comics history, is not a big part of a piece's value, then one of the least valuable recognizable covers would be Action Comics #1, because we don't know who drew it. (extant DC memos indicate it was drawn by some unnamed, unknown staffer who drew it based on an interior panel ("after Shuster")

Oh yeah totally. The "art" itself (and by extension the artist/s) is hardly what makes our crp desirable. It's nostalgia (first) and place in (comics) history. Many times the first is heavily-colored by the second. Other times not, typically newer stuff (post-70s) and/or offbeat material (indies, etc.)

 

Who's today's Kirby? Nobody really knows because the market hasn't told them yet, not because there are oodles of panelogists out there that can handicap it. Could they have handicapped Kirby back in the day, looking to the non-Marvel SA ground-breaking stuff with Lee? I have my doubts. What's Ditko without Spider-Man and Dr. Strange? Steranko without Nick Fury and Cap? No...they (we? whatever) all have to wait until there's some accumulated nostalgia for characters and/or storylines to break things out...then the marketers can tack on premiums based on that. Very little actual scholarship out there, though I'll credit (and I'm not the first) Scott McCloud with all sorts of praise here.

 

This isn't actually so different that the big world of contemporary art where (the majority of) collectors need an advisor or the market to tell them what things are worth (sellout shows and name galleries, comps at auction) and "who" to collect. That's 'their' version of 'nostalgia' and 'main character in action, in costume'. Anybody want an Andy Warhol of some has-been NYC socialite? Well for cheap maybe (Kirby Destroyer Duck, anyone?) How about a Marilyn? Sure $50m seems the going rate. All bs.

[mtlevy]

I Like Destroyer Duck...

[Terry Doyle]

I like Ditko's non-Spidey/Doc Strange work.

[vodou]

And you two would pay the same money for them as FF, Avengers and Spidey, Dr. Strange? Riiiight What's 'liking' got to do with it? Either of you going willing to acknowledge that the prices for Destroyer Duck and 'other' Ditko are all discounted versions of their (so-called) 'top' works? If so, that is my point.

 

I'll ask again, who's handicapping today's artists as this century's Kirby and Ditko, without fanboy context to lead the horse to water? The scholarship is so weak, it's basically non-existent (and if I'm wrong, just point me to it - I'm interested in learning; always!)

[Ferran Delgado]

Thanks for sharing the pics!

 

Just saw this piece which looks like a commission done by Byrne/Austin circa 1980. Does anyone have more info about it?

 

As a curiosity, notice that Wolverine has the brown costume but Angel is not included in the team. Wonder why? This is because when X-Men #139 and #140 were drawn, they were 17 pages long, but they had to expand them to 22 pages to compensate the raise in price, and they added Angel in the additional pages. He was not in the first version of the issue, and this explains why he doesn't show in a few commissions done in the summer of 1980 in spite that Wolverine wears the new brown costume.

 

[/url]

[delekkerste]

Are you sure that the inks are by Austin? I'm pretty sure I was told that it was someone else. I can't make out the signature on my phone, though.

[Ferran Delgado]

I'm not sure, it was a guess.

The commission looks strange to me, it looks like a collage of published poses, but I couldn't find an image of Kitty like this one. Hence that I asked for more info. I wish someone took a pic with more resolution of it.

[Ferran Delgado]

In this pic from 1979, Byrne inks the drawing himself.

http://www.comicartfans.com/gallerypiece.asp?piece=989482

[JadeGiant]

I know he was asking 65k and now it's being reported as "sold".

 

"Sold" means many different things in this hobby.

 

If it means purchased at full cash price, well, I'd like to meet the buyer.

 

I've been in this hobby long enough to see thing "change hands" at numbers that indicate caution in instantly assuming it's to be taken at face value without more Information.

 

This is a great point. How much of all this great art is just trading hands in a small circle. It seems that a piece is put up at a crazy high price and then is later marked at sold. Is this really just a shell game? Are the dealers putting these inflated prices to keep up with each come time to trade?

[suspense39]

I know he was asking 65k and now it's being reported as "sold".

 

"Sold" means many different things in this hobby.

 

If it means purchased at full cash price, well, I'd like to meet the buyer.

 

I've been in this hobby long enough to see thing "change hands" at numbers that indicate caution in instantly assuming it's to be taken at face value without more Information.

 

This is a great point. How much of all this great art is just trading hands in a small circle. It seems that a piece is put up at a crazy high price and then is later marked at sold. Is this really just a shell game? Are the dealers putting these inflated prices to keep up with each come time to trade?

 

I think there is some new blood in the game, but im not sure how much and at what levels. I would guess that less people are buying from dealers and more from auctions, part of the reason for that , I would assume, is no one really knows the value of anything and would rather wait and see what happens in a bidding session. I rarely buy from a dealer anymore, after a couple trades where they under valued my art only to see it show up on their sites for twice what they told me it was worth.....i'll take my chances at auction!

[vodou]

Is this really just a shell game?

Mostly yes. But not 100%. There is some new (non-comics) money coming in. I do not have the full picture (nobody does) but my guess would be less than 10% of $50k+ cash transactions come from outside.

[JadeGiant]

I know he was asking 65k and now it's being reported as "sold".

 

"Sold" means many different things in this hobby.

 

If it means purchased at full cash price, well, I'd like to meet the buyer.

 

I've been in this hobby long enough to see thing "change hands" at numbers that indicate caution in instantly assuming it's to be taken at face value without more Information.

 

This is a great point. How much of all this great art is just trading hands in a small circle. It seems that a piece is put up at a crazy high price and then is later marked at sold. Is this really just a shell game? Are the dealers putting these inflated prices to keep up with each come time to trade?

 

I think there is some new blood in the game, but im not sure how much and at what levels. I would guess that less people are buying from dealers and more from auctions, part of the reason for that , I would assume, is no one really knows the value of anything and would rather wait and see what happens in a bidding session. I rarely buy from a dealer anymore, after a couple trades where they under valued my art only to see it show up on their sites for twice what they told me it was worth.....i'll take my chances at auction!

 

This is how it feels to an outsider (I have been collecting OA for 10 years but I still feel like I am looking in from the outside).