Value: Image vs Nostalgia?

[ciorac]

Our tastes do continue to refine themselves as we age. Just like wine, I suppose

 

Nostalgia for me is a strong motivator, hence I buy a lot of stuff from the 60s, which were my formative years. The 70s, a little bit. But what slows me down the most about that, and later periods, is the size.

 

I really prefer large art. I have a fair amount of small art too, but gravitate towards large art. Which has led me to buy more golden age art, mostly based on the image.

 

So, both for me drive my collecting focus

[Bronty]

^ and yet all thoughts of image quality dissipate and you become slack jawed when discussing action 1 OA

 

What you buy and why is unique to everyone but context is just way more important than image when it comes to value. That's proven out time and again and it's proven out in your own love for the a1 cover. We all do it and the greater market forces us to even if it's not how we would otherwise act. Of course, I love pieces that have both things going for it

[delekkerste]

^ and yet all thoughts of image quality dissipate and you become slack jawed when discussing action 1 OA

 

 

I will say that, unlike some here, you are at least consistent, Dan - you said what outsiders think didn't matter when it came to the GL #76 vs. ASM #98 cover discussion, whereas others who took that view regarding those two covers suddenly find what outsiders think EXTREMELY important in justifying their perceived value of the Action #1 cover art!

[Bronty]

I'm impressed you even remember what I said I'm not sure I do! I've long since moved on to the raging debate du jour that is action 1 oa!

[bluechip]

^ and yet all thoughts of image quality dissipate and you become slack jawed when discussing action 1 OA

 

What you buy and why is unique to everyone but context is just way more important than image when it comes to value. That's proven out time and again and it's proven out in your own love for the a1 cover. We all do it and the greater market forces us to even if it's not how we would otherwise act. Of course, I love pieces that have both things going for it

 

Has anyone figured out who drew the Action 1 cover. All I know is that it wasn't Shuster and some DC artist drew it after an interior panel

[Bronty]

Not me, and it's amazing we don't know that. It was just always bandied about as being shuster so I always took it as such much like the Feldstein not Baker Phantom Lady 17!

[ciorac]

^ and yet all thoughts of image quality dissipate and you become slack jawed when discussing action 1 OA

 

What you buy and why is unique to everyone but context is just way more important than image when it comes to value. That's proven out time and again and it's proven out in your own love for the a1 cover. We all do it and the greater market forces us to even if it's not how we would otherwise act. Of course, I love pieces that have both things going for it

 

Not sure what you mean by your first statement.

 

I love the cover to Action 1. I think it is a fantastic image, that must have blown kids away when they first lay eyes on it in 1938. Completely unlike anything before it.

 

And yes, I think it is one of the 3 most important and valuable (if it even exists) pieces of original art that could come to market.

 

I have a strong sense of nostalgia for it, even though I didn't exist in 1938, as it has always been a part of the hobby I love so much. The pinnacle of my comic collecting life was landing an original owner copy of Action 1 nearly 20 years ago.

 

So, for me, it has both things going for it. Image and Nostalgia.

 

And I believe it would clobber any comic sale for all time were it to come to market for sale.

 

So, whatever point you were trying to make was lost on me

[Bronty]

I think you're confusing the two Bill.

 

When you tell me that it "must have blown.. away [kids] in 1938"

 

You're talking about context.

 

The image is the image. The history, the artist, the artist's greater body of work, the character, the first appearance, all of that other stuff is the context.

 

The picture, by itself, 1938 or not, if it were unpublished and by an unknown artist you wouldn't pay $1000 for.

 

Its all the historical extras that add the value.

 

Almost every piece has some level of context. Where it falls on the continuum determines its value to a large extent. How pretty the picture is or whatever can only nudge it up or down somewhat from where it fits on that continuum.

 

Imagine the a1 cover image at auction, without any of the history. It would be sold as "american artist, fantasy drawing" at heritage and 99% of people would pass right by it the way they pass by random virgil finlay fantasy works from that era. (and that's a known artist!). There would, simply put, be no reason for them to care. No context.

[vodou]

Imagine the a1 cover image at auction, without any of the history. It would be sold as "american artist, fantasy drawing" at heritage and 99% of people would pass right by it the way they pass by random virgil finlay fantasy works from that era. (and that's a known artist!). There would, simply put, be no reason for them to care. No context.

I'm with you on this except that my own eye/buying habits would have to me take down the cover on image alone (stripped of all other context except "1938"). But not for more than $250-$400 (tops) and the higher end of range only because it's "old". I'm a pretty good picker and re-seller. I could make the case to at least one other person to ask and get double that. And for me that's a fair risk:reward to get stuck with it if I'm wrong. I like it on "thrill" factor alone (who's this dude lifting the car, the freaked out dude running right into the camera, etc!)

 

I know this to be true as I have hundreds of "american artist, fantasy drawing" type stuff already my collection - bought the same way, on the same merits. And some I've sold for that double I discuss and some I haven't. I'm not bothered either way

[Bronty]

Oh I don't doubt it! But note what I said... sub $1000. I think we agree that's probably what the scenario would be. Low three to high three figures depending on who's bidding/buying

[vodou]

Just like the XNO and Mary Fleener covers that (it appears) just me and one other guy bothered to bid on at all, tail end of Heritage internet day last week. Those are both really strong pieces, each artist has a core dedicated following, but nothing was pushing that action past $500 per. And that's about where I (and the winning bidder later agreed too) won't cross to just throw money into the wind on a whim. Take either me or the other guy away and those covers would have been the sleepers of the whole sale at $50 or $100 each, but probably catch $1500 to $2500 each if resold that that "one right buyer" type.

[Bronty]

@Bill

 

An addendum for fun

 

(Alleged) Context is how Beerbong got showcase-4 to pay 20 grand (each iirc ) for Obadiah oldbuck and got people to notice that... pamphlet.

 

Removal of that allegation of context by those not smoking drugs is what caused the price to crash back down

 

At all points in time, the artifact was the artifact.

[ciorac]

@Bill

 

An addendum for fun

 

(Alleged) Context is how Beerbong got showcase-4 to pay 20 grand (each iirc ) for Obadiah oldbuck and got people to notice that... pamphlet.

 

Removal of that allegation of context by those not smoking drugs is what caused the price to crash back down

 

At all points in time, the artifact was the artifact.

 

my comments were on what appeals to me as a collector.

 

I prefer a better looking image in many cases over context or nostalgia. But I'm not dogmatic about any of it.

 

I value you some things more because they look great, others because they are key, others because they have a sentimental attachment to me, etc.

 

What I meant by the Action 1 cover blowing kids away, was seeing a man dressed in a costume, with a car over his head, apparently possessed of super powers. This was not something they had probably seen before. Certainly never on a comic book before. So yes, the image was what would have blown them away, long before they had any of the context history has associated to the book and the cover

[Bronty]

Not sure how that responds to what I was saying. It's all good, we can agree to see it slightly differently

[ciorac]

Not sure how that responds to what I was saying. It's all good, we can agree to see it slightly differently

 

we are probably talking right past each other.

 

I don't think anything has ever sold for large amounts of money based solely on the image itself without some sort of context. At least in semi modern times

[Bronty]

So you agree then, that context is what values are based on. Lawyered. Actually, accountanted.

[tth2]

I will say that, unlike some here, you are at least consistent, Dan - you said what outsiders think didn't matter when it came to the GL #76 vs. ASM #98 cover discussion, whereas others who took that view regarding those two covers suddenly find what outsiders think EXTREMELY important in justifying their perceived value of the Action #1 cover art!

Because it`s two completely different situations. Honestly, I don`t know if you`re just being argumentative or being genuinely obtuse here.

 

GL 76 and ASM 98 have no cultural transcendence. Their value exists only within the comic world. Only comic fans would know and appreciate them, although I would say that a layman would appreciate the aesthetic beauty of GL 76 over the distinctly average artistic work of ASM 98, but they would still attribute very little value to either. Therefore the only pricing dynamic involved is pure comic fans going up against pure comic fans, with the only potential "show off" factor being what would other comic fans think.

 

Action 1 has total cultural transcendence. Superman is probably one of the best known names/characters in the world, and is certainly one of the most iconic characters to have ever been created in America.

 

As I`ve said before, I don`t think any potential buyer would be someone with absolutely no connection to comics. On the other hand, I don`t think the buyer could only come from the limited world that provides the buyers for the GL 76s and ASM 98s of the world. The potential buyer pool could include collectors of Americana who have some appreciation for comic books although not interested in general run of the mill work. They in turn might see the work as being attractive because it`s something that is known to people who are not in comic collecting circles at all.

 

I don`t know why this is such a stretch for you. Let`s use an even more iconic drawing, James Montgomery Flagg`s "I Want You" Uncle Sam (which is not in private hands as it sits in the National Museum of American History). Suppose it did come up for auction. Are you saying that the only potential bidders would be hardcore Flagg collectors, collectors of World War I memorabilia or collectors or American patriotic art? That such a transcendent piece wouldn`t draw any attention from any other wealthy person unless they habitually played in those pools?