Comiclink Winter Auction

[Lucky Baru]

Surprised the Thor 1, DAUTERMAN, pages didn't go for more noting what they were and how that might play out in the future of the character.

 

I'm surprised they went for so much considering they are a digital print

 

 

Bingo....it's just a print. The only ink on it was put there by Epson.

 

It's not marked OA, or as the artwork used for the book, because it's not and it was produced after the fact to be sold as a representation of the artwork. It says 1/1 artist's proof but that's really not the same as the real thing to almost all collectors.

 

...and if a person loved the piece, the could probably just "right click" the image and print out their own 11 x 17 of that piece, frame it up and it's virtually the same, except the cost is only pennies, ink and paper.

 

You can do that with photoshop with anything/page/cover on comic art fans today.

 

 

At the end of the day, I think the deal breaker for most collectors was that it was and is simply a printout that's claimed to be 1 of 1 but for an "Original Art" collector has nothing original about it.

 

I know I'd have loved it if it were original pencils and ink, or even blueline pencils with original inks over it and I think the price would have been easily 10x to maybe 20x more, but because Dauterman renders his illustrations digitally and no original art exists, there's a limited marketplace for that type of work.

 

I'm actually surprised in part that those command anything at or above $300 simply because of the format of what they are.

 

 

Then what is the answer on works in the future for historic pages to come noting that everything will be digital in the next 5 or so years? As stated in my earlier post, there seem to be only a few roads that digital works can be rendered to collectors. Should be interesting to see what solutions become available to collectors of modern digital pages in the future.

 

Didn't one of them go for like just over three bills and the other in the 450.00 range?

[vodou]

Should be interesting to see what solutions become available to collectors of modern digital pages in the future.

The tacit assumption being that there are future collectors of modern digital pages. Hardly a given.

 

Probably poor analogies, but looking to prior large technological production shifts and how collectors embraced (or didn't) the new technology vs. the old already collectible technology:

 

1. Typewriters vs. word processors. The former never stopped being collectible, but I think probably less so as time goes by (caveat: I am no expert in that hobby!). The latter: uncollectible by the same crowd and just about everyone except the "early" pc/Apple crowd. Very limited appeal. And not (to my knowledge) for the 'word processing' functionality!

 

2. Horses vs. combustion engines. Well-bred horses, always prized (and kinda-sorta collectible). Cars/motorcycle, etc also collectible but by different folks for very different reasons.

 

3. Telephones vs. mobile phones. Old phones, and older telegraph machines definitely have their base, always have and appear to going forward. Probably shrinking over time like the typewriter crowd though...most 'nice' common clean pieces will eventually end up being decor accessories for interior designers (methinks!) Anybody...is there a mobile phone collecting base? Not that I'm aware of, and I'm certain -if there is- not the same collectors!

 

Those are all "con" cases; tried hard to come up with a "pro" case. Couldn't*. Maybe somebody else can? And maybe...it's moot anyway. It may be similar to the early computer crowd, there will be new collectors for the new tech, they will define the space and prices...bearing little relationship, if any, to the old-tech typewriter hobby?

 

*Well we could look to "fine" digital and video art, even performance art (as vastly alternative art mediums vs. traditional)...but I think that's a big ol' OT discussion, which almost nobody here would care to read much more engage in

[zhamlau]

It was a good auction for me. I was runner up on 2 items, no wins. But all of my consignments hit or exceeded what I was asking for them on CAF with one exception but it was at what i was offered on it privately so i guess I was overvaluing it.

 

Threw in bids on the final Inhumans Hulk page, runner up. Threw in bids on the JSA/JLA huntress page, got blown out of the water. Oh well, so be it.

[alxjhnsn]

I picked up the HG Peter Etta Candy vs. the Cheetah - 10 Rounds. Nice watercolour, love his Wonder Woman, too bad she wasn't in it but it was a good price.

Brian, I was sorely tested by that piece; I really like characters, the design, and the color, but decided that my Peter WW was good enough for me.

 

Anyway, I'm very glad that Etta and Cheetah are going to a good home. Peter's art is pretty scarce and this was a very nice example.

[suspense39]

https://www.comiclink.com/auctions/item.asp?back=%2FAuctions%2Fallsub%2Easp%3FFocused%3D1%26id%3D1398%26Artist%3DDON%2520HECK%23Item%5F1103807&id=1103807

 

TOS 52, 5357.00..... Does anyone have an image of the page from the same issue that sold in the last auction? I'm pretty sure it sold for 3x this price.

[alxjhnsn]

any comments on the $12K hammer for the DD Miller pg from 179. i know it's been debated to death but the page screams Miller layouts/ heavily Jansen art to me. thanks

According to the best information available, your opinion is the right one. According to the research that I've documented in the Spoiler tags, 179 has layouts by Miller on the page with finishes by Janson.

 

To understand how I arrived at this conclusion, I offer my standard reply on that topic which is based on a lot of conversations on this board and other places. If anyone has additions or corrections, please let me know.

 

 

On the comicart-l and the CGC OA board, we have had a long conversation on the topic of the work split on the Miller DD run. This write-up is based on e-mails and posting from many people. Foremost among them are: Mitch Itkowitz, Ferran Delgado, Gene Park (notes on 158, 162, 163, 179-180), and Mike O'Halloran (Theory on 182-184), and NelsonAl (photocopies of 182 and 184; see below for their origin). I took notes and created this summary. I believe it represents the best understanding available to us, but it may not be perfect. Other comments are welcome and especially if they come with evidence that I can cite.

 

Hope this helps. Be sure to save and reference!

 

Here's the link to this post:

http://boards.collectors-society.com/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Main=6672890&Number=8098126#Post8098126

 

The consensus of how Miller/Janson exectuted the "Miller" DD run is as follows:

• DD #158-161,163-172: Full pencils by Miller, inks by Janson.
  Notes:
  • Rubinstein was the cover inker for #158
    
  • Ditko did all the art for #162
    
  • Rubinstein was the co-inker (with Janson) for #163
    
  • See discussion of 168 below

  [*]DD #173-184: Layouts by Miller on the same sheet, embellishment by Janson

  [*]DD #185-190: Layouts by Miller on a DIFFERENT smaller sheet, embellishment by Janson. Miller didn't touch the published original art.

  [*]DD #191: Detailed layouts by Miller, finishes by Austin

 

The above summary was derived from a lot of evidence and speculation. I'm going to try and capture that in the following notes:

• Issue 168:
  The issue: GCD lists Miller as breakdown artist on issue 168 while the credits on the issue itself list Miller as artist but Janson as Inker and Embellisher.
  
  • Notes:
• The issue was identified by MikeyO.
  

  [Regarding credits on 168 - ed], I would be hesitant to describe this as the same relationship when it comes to the division of labour where art is concerned in issues 173 on. I think, by looking at the art that what might be described as Miller "breakdowns" are closer to a finished product when it comes to 168, but given the public notations, I thought it was worth mentioning.

• NelsonAI states that he has photocopies that he describes as "full pencils" for this book.
  I have chosen to accept Nelson's claim in my summary above. I'll change it if better evidence comes along.

[*]The style of the art shifted between 178 and 179-184, this made people wonder if the working method had changed.

[*]There was once a theory that since issues 182-184 (Punisher arc) were originally intended for an earlier publication and since we know that from 185 on that Miller provided smaller pages with breakdowns that there might have a mix of (Miller pencils/Janson inks) and all Jansen pages from Miller layouts in those issues. It might be difficult to know who actually did what as the story was altered for the revised publication and changed situation.

[*]Adding to the confusion was this comment posted by Klaus. In it he clearly states:

Just to set the record straight, though, Frank went to 8 and a half inch by 11 inch breakdowns on issue #179, not #185.

[*]MikeyO, the articulator of the theory in the note above, later wrote:

My theory is logical but needs support from other sources. Some one could counter and say the previous art drawn by Miller a year and a half or so ago may have been used as a complete issue (perhaps issue 183?). My guess is that other pages were inserted but I still think verification is necessary.

 

Mitch [itkowitz - ed] had responded that your previous supposition was correct (that Miller went to breakdowns and Janson finished on the same page for 182 to 184), but if you think about the possible rationalization that Mitch is using to assume this you can determine he may be coming to an erroneous conclusion. As Mitch said he got the whole issue of 181 from Janson to sell because he essentially drew the issue, so Mitch would assume any issue he received the complete book would be done in this method and any book where Mitch received only partial pages to an issue would indicate that Miller did breakdowns on the page and Janson finished. The problem with that logic is that as we have discussed that some pages to issues 182-4 would have been done by Miller more than a year ago and obviously returned to him and Janson could still be working the procedure of following Miller layouts on 8 by 11 paper that was instituted with issue 181 on the pages that were added to issues 182-4. Therefore, Mitch would not get a complete book as Miller would get his pages back even though they were done many months ago but Janson could still be the only person that added anything new.

 

Others have said that the Punisher storyline was meant for issue 167 as a one part story. As said, my rationale is that they added pages to make up a two part story. Evidence to lend credence to my theory is given by Grand Comic Book Database that credits Roger McKenzie as the co writer for issue 183 and 184. Roger's last story on DD was issue 167 and after that he was done with the title, so they are obviously crediting him with both issues as they broke up the one issue and expanded into two. Now, the question is was the new art done by the process started in 181 or did Miller work on the same sheet as Janson? It's bending a little towards the former, but not a dunk yet.

[*]New information was presented by NelsonAl in a post on the CGC boards that indicated that he had photocopies of the pencils for issues 168 (described as "crappy") and DD issues 182 and 184. This really galvanized the conversation since it contradicted Klaus' statement.

[*] At the 2014 NYCC, Nelson and Gene discussed the issue with Klaus. Here's what Gene wrote:

A few of us talked at length with Klaus today on this subject. We had some #176 pages with us (that we know are Miller layouts on the board), I brought my #181 page (which was one of the issues that we weren't sure about) and Nelson brought a bunch of his photocopied Miller pencils with him as well. After reviewing the artwork and the photocopies, Klaus believes that the separate sheet layouts started with #185 after all. He said that his & Frank's artistic relationship was a progression, so that when Frank went to the separate sheet layouts, they never went back to layouts on board. As such, since we know from Nelson's archives that #182 and #184 were both Miller pencils on the board, we can deduce that #185 was the start of the separate sheet layouts.

 

Furthermore, Klaus said that the handwritten "DAREDEVIL" at the top of pages was written by Frank when he did pencils on the board (at some point this becomes "DAREDEVIL" using a rubber stamp). But, you'll notice from #185 that it became handwritten again - "DD #___" is what it says for a few issues before it becomes "Daredevil" written in -script. The latter is definitely confirmed to be Klaus' notation on pages done with separate sheet layouts, and it stands to reason that the former is also Klaus, as it's not Frank's writing. I think this bolsters the case for #185 being the start.

 

As for Klaus getting all of the #181 art back, he confirmed that sometimes they would trade off getting full books as opposed to splitting up the pages in each issue. So, even if he got the whole #181 book back, that doesn't necessarily mean that Frank didn't do pencils on the board.

 

Bottom line: I'm satisfied at this point that any stylistic changes we see between #178 and #179-#184 is just the progression of the artwork over time and that separate sheet layouts did begin with #185 after all.

[*]One last comment on this from Gene. It includes the origin of the photocopies from Nelson.

Thanks to Nelson who brought photocopies of Miller's pencils to DD #182, 184 and Wolverine LS #1 to the show today. I don't know if he mentioned it before, but he found these at a garage or yard sale in Brooklyn - apparently the house was rented by a Marvel editor/staffer of some sort, who left behind all these photocopies which were then sold. Amazing that Nelson was able to recover these before they were lost to the world.

 

I can confirm that every page from DD #182 and #184 are finished Miller layouts directly on the board. There are a few of us who are going to try and track down Janson at the show tomorrow and show him that these issues were done directly on the board, and to see if there was a reason #179-#181 were done on separate sheet layouts or whether he was mistaken and these too were layouts directly on the board. I'm going to bring my DD #181 page and the TPB which features the issues in question as visual aids. So, hopefully we can get to the bottom of this tomorrow.

 

As for the Wolvie LS #1, they are definitely finished layouts on board as well. So, I don't know if Rubinstein was exaggerating the level of his involvement on this mini-series or if the later issues got progressively less detailed. But, as far as issue #1 goes, it is definitely detailed layouts and nothing even remotely close to loose shapes or squiggles.

[*]Comment from NelsonAI on 191 reads:

I have some copies of FM pencils from # 191. FM did detailed layouts not full pencils. Austin did finishes.

 

[alxjhnsn]

I got the only item that I bid on!

 

It's the Bill Woggon Katy Keene Pin-Up. Per John Sterling Lucas, the premiere Woggon expert and former Katy artist, Bill did the pencils and Cassie Bill did the inks.

 

I think it's a great example of their work and, yes, it reminds me of my wife.

 

[buyatari]

 

The big problem is that there is nothing to stop anyone or even the artist from creating more of them that are exactly the same. The only thing that I can think of to create an OAlike market in a non OA world would be to sign and date it. A print created on the very day the image was created would carry more weight. If it was the only one ever printed by the artist then it could possibly be sought after by some in the same way as OA.

 

Most prints are of very little interest to me. While I enjoy the images my attraction is for the historical significance of owning the original that spawned every image ever printed. There are a few exceptions, I'd love to own one of the Frazetta Weird Science Fantasy 29 signed numbered prints. So there could be a market but it won't be the same.

 

 

[G.A.tor]

Buscema Silver Surfer #11 half splash = 11K

good price, bad price ...?

[fsumavila]

I'm pretty surprised by this result. Thought it would go much higher -- pretty famous WW image from one of her most famous artists. I wish I had the $$ to go after it...

 

Perez WW 22 cvr = $8,850

[Lucky Baru]

Should be interesting to see what solutions become available to collectors of modern digital pages in the future.

The tacit assumption being that there are future collectors of modern digital pages. Hardly a given.

 

Probably poor analogies, but looking to prior large technological production shifts and how collectors embraced (or didn't) the new technology vs. the old already collectible technology:

 

1. Typewriters vs. word processors. The former never stopped being collectible, but I think probably less so as time goes by (caveat: I am no expert in that hobby!). The latter: uncollectible by the same crowd and just about everyone except the "early" pc/Apple crowd. Very limited appeal. And not (to my knowledge) for the 'word processing' functionality!

 

2. Horses vs. combustion engines. Well-bred horses, always prized (and kinda-sorta collectible). Cars/motorcycle, etc also collectible but by different folks for very different reasons.

 

3. Telephones vs. mobile phones. Old phones, and older telegraph machines definitely have their base, always have and appear to going forward. Probably shrinking over time like the typewriter crowd though...most 'nice' common clean pieces will eventually end up being decor accessories for interior designers (methinks!) Anybody...is there a mobile phone collecting base? Not that I'm aware of, and I'm certain -if there is- not the same collectors!

 

Those are all "con" cases; tried hard to come up with a "pro" case. Couldn't*. Maybe somebody else can? And maybe...it's moot anyway. It may be similar to the early computer crowd, there will be new collectors for the new tech, they will define the space and prices...bearing little relationship, if any, to the old-tech typewriter hobby?

 

*Well we could look to "fine" digital and video art, even performance art (as vastly alternative art mediums vs. traditional)...but I think that's a big ol' OT discussion, which almost nobody here would care to read much more engage in

 

Pro Case

 

Your number 2 example. Muscle cars from the 60's/70's are very sought after. Cars from the 1930/40's have seen a fall off. Why? People that identify with them are dead. Yes, there are examples of cars in that era that still hold and command higher values but for the most part their values have declined. The cycle in the collector car market is very much guys reaching their later 40 to 60's that want what they remember from their youth. They have the expendable income to chase the hobby. That is what keeps it alive. I believe that same age group is what is keeping the OA business going.

 

If people are reading comics they will seek out what they remember. I just am interested in what format as you have toys, video games (like Infinity) that have figures, and digital comics that don't spawn an actual paper page.

 

[AKA Rick]

I think that Original Comic Art and Comic Books have a bit more longevity to them in terms of fandom popularity, collectible interest as a hobby and investment potential.

 

I think it may narrow down with time to become a bit more consolidated and niche, but there's going to be an established baseline where values won't plummet and crash.

 

If you look at the way certain collectible categories have evolved and maintained where the industries changed be it with Stamps (now they're simply stickers instead of adhesive glue backs) and Music (first there were records and then CD's now digital downloads/streaming) there's still popularity and value to both of those categories.

 

If I had to predict, I still think for comic art and comics, of course the cream will rise to the top, so for comics it's key issues in high grade and for artwork it's top titles/characters by known and popular artists with a solid fan following. I think there's going to be a certain layer where if investors rode the wrong horse (for comics, today I think it's going to be chasing variant covers; and for art, I think it's going to be sketch covers and commissions) that may not go up as much as rival choices that could have been made to support (for comics, high grade non-modern; for art, Marvel and DC published art of well written popular stories such as "Kraven's Last Hunt", "Hush", "Dark Phoenix Saga", etc.).

 

In summary 'tho as collectors in the year 2016, I think if the comic/comic art industry does falter, it "won't be in our lifetime" and we'll all be long since passed when our treasure turns to trash.

[Ironmandrd]

$31,568

 

Iron Man #1 splash

 

Was priced at 50k at NYCC 2014.

 

I wasn't the immediate underbidder on this but was in that last grouping in the last seconds. It's before the period I collect of Iron Man but since it was the IM#1 Title splash, I decided to throw in a bid.

 

I've heard differently about what it was priced at. It was never offered to me privately by the owner to whom Ankur is referring (again because the owner knew I didn't collect IM from that period) but from what I recall hearing then and from at least two other people who I've emailed with this week, we all recollect $40k, not $50k. Maybe $50k was the price that owner offered to someone or to Ankur but to the people I know, we all recall differently.

[vodou]

Pro Case

 

Your number 2 example. Muscle cars from the 60's/70's are very sought after. Cars from the 1930/40's have seen a fall off. Why? People that identify with them are dead....

Ah. No. There was no great technological change in moving people from point A to point B when comparing 30/40s to 60s/70s automobiles. That my friend was simple linear advancement of the same technology!

 

I framed the argument of physical comic art to digital comic art in creating comics as a technological change that alienates collectors (of the previous technology) and may or may not spawn it's own new collectors. I doubt we'll see today's active physical collectors wildly embrace digital comic art if/when a hobby develops around it.

 

Of course you can re-frame the argument any way you like, but your example doesn't move the needle in mine.

 

Somebody else brought up record collectors embracing cd and digital music. Sure. But does anybody collect those music delivery media? I don't think so. Excepting cd, maybe, for out of print titles that aren't available digitally (does such a thing even exist?) And I'm not sure that cd media is significantly different technology. Digital music files certainly are. This all reinforces my point though.

[Brian Peck]

I have a couple of inked HG Peter just one with WW. His colour pieces don't show up much and this is one of his best. I wonder what happened to all his WW art, only seen a couple of his unpublished covers and a few full pages. Where are the rest of the original Peter WW art?

[Lucky Baru]

Pro Case

 

Your number 2 example. Muscle cars from the 60's/70's are very sought after. Cars from the 1930/40's have seen a fall off. Why? People that identify with them are dead....

Ah. No. There was no great technological change in moving people from point A to point B when comparing 30/40s to 60s/70s automobiles. That my friend was simple linear advancement of the same technology!

 

I framed the argument of physical comic art to digital comic art in creating comics as a technological change that alienates collectors (of the previous technology) and may or may not spawn it's own new collectors. I doubt we'll see today's active physical collectors wildly embrace digital comic art if/when a hobby develops around it.

 

Of course you can re-frame the argument any way you like, but your example doesn't move the needle in mine.

 

Somebody else brought up record collectors embracing cd and digital music. Sure. But does anybody collect those music delivery media? I don't think so. Excepting cd, maybe, for out of print titles that aren't available digitally (does such a thing even exist?) And I'm not sure that cd media is significantly different technology. Digital music files certainly are. This all reinforces my point though.

 

Umm, the SUV was invented. Wanna talk 1967 to 1971 Ford Bronco values and how collectible that vehicle is in today's world?

 

I understand what you are saying but I believe there will always be a market for historical pages - just curious if it is a 1 of 1 print, a blue line with ink or something else. The first Deadpool or the first whatever well known character brings with it a desire to have a part of it.

[alxjhnsn]

I've often wondered about his art. There is so little around and he drew the book for 17 years!

 

I like his color pieces, too, and yours is a top tier example, Brian.

[suspense39]

I have a couple of inked HG Peter just one with WW. His colour pieces don't show up much and this is one of his best. I wonder what happened to all his WW art, only seen a couple of his unpublished covers and a few full pages. Where are the rest of the original Peter WW art?

 

I would guess destroyed

[Catwoman_Fan]

Bagley Carnage Prototype- $1.6k

 

Not bad when you consider how well the character has held, and his first appearance has steadily increased in value. Looking back this could be a steal.

 

Love the description with GI Joe quote on the back.

 

 

[g-man]

any thoughts on the Andru/Romita page from ASM #151? Cool page....I would have thought the Romita inks would have bumped it a bit higher...