May Heritage Auction

[Superhero]

The Cap piece isn't nearly as dramatic or powerful. Cap isn't doing much either, no throwing the shield, nothing interesting really but in the Thor piece its the first clash between Thor and a major villain. The hammer hitting the ball and chain is pure magic--Plus, the half page splash is very similar to the cover of JIM 114. Amazing! Worth every penny.

 

Obviously this is a somewhat subjective matter. And, with that said, I agree that the JIM half splash is better than the TOS half-splash. Worth every penny to the tune of almost 3x better, though? In my opinion, the answer is not only "no", but NFW. I mean, $71.7K is surely enough to get you a good Stone-inked JIM title splash and still have a chunk of change left over (IMO, a far superior proposition), or a Colletta-inked title splash and have a LOT of money left over (one just sold for $38.2K in the last Heritage sale and, whatever else you may think of it, at least you can see Thor's entire face!) Or you could get four indisputably "A" quality Stone-inked JIM panel pages for that amount, or at least 5 A/A- examples (perhaps a mix of Stone and Colletta). I'd take any one of these alternatives to this page @ $71.7K.

 

Of course, after this result, maybe the whole market has ratcheted up and you won't be able get what I've described. But, I think you would have been able to a week ago.

 

I guess that is my point, the difference between a good piece and one of the best ever is a jump of a significant amount. Sure, you can buy a B+ or A- piece for a bit less but you won't have one of, if not the best ever A+ pieces. I would rather have less and better pieces. This one has historical significance, it is a rare phenomenal example of Kirby and one of his best inkers and it is a great display piece. To get a piece like that which almost never becomes available and is one of the few that still exists is worth that jump...in my opinion.

[J.Sid]

or a Colletta-inked title splash and have a LOT of money left over (one just sold for $38.2K in the last Heritage sale

 

Anyone know where that one ended up? PM me!

[r100comics]

I agree, the J.I.M. #115 page is all about the action and not whether you can see Thor's face - absolutely stunning ! It's in a different league to the Cap page, not even close, as reflected in the prices.

 

On a different note, I got blown out of the water on the Marvel Two-In-One Annual #2 color guides. I thought $350 would easily get me the Thor & Thanos action splash so couldn't believe it got $896 - congrats to the boardie selling them, well over $2k for the 4 pages in the Signature auction.

 

 

[delekkerste]

I guess that is my point, the difference between a good piece and one of the best ever is a jump of a significant amount. Sure, you can buy a B+ or A- piece for a bit less but you won't have one of, if not the best ever A+ pieces.

 

For me, this one is like an Olympic skating routine that hits all the technical marks, but, what I really wanted to see was the triple salchow, triple toe-loop combination (i.e., a great, more frontal view of Thor in the money shot), and got a double axel, double-toe instead. Not an A+ in my book, but, like I said, art is subjective and YMMV.

[comix4fun]

I guess that is my point, the difference between a good piece and one of the best ever is a jump of a significant amount. Sure, you can buy a B+ or A- piece for a bit less but you won't have one of, if not the best ever A+ pieces.

 

For me, this one is like an Olympic skating routine that hits all the technical marks, but, what I really wanted to see was the triple salchow, triple toe-loop combination (i.e., a great, more frontal view of Thor in the money shot), and got a double axel, double-toe instead. Not an A+ in my book, but, like I said, art is subjective and YMMV.

 

 

Thinking of all the "technical marks", I don't think I've ever seen better on that title.

 

However I believe, after review, you're being penalized one full point for comparing anything inked by Colletta to this.

 

 

[DJRome]

When I first saw the Kirby Thor page listed, I figured it would go somewhere north of 25k. A decent example goes for around 10, and I figured this one was good enough to merit the premium.

 

Then I saw it in person at the NY viewing and immediately changed my mind. That top panel hit me like a hammer to the chest. The energy and action displayed is just incredible! Most of the JIM splashes would pale beside it, and I felt that it should go somewhere in the 50s.

 

Now, do I think 72k was pricey for that piece? Of course I do. I can't imagine the new owner flipping it for a profit anytime soon. But it's an A+ example, and those types of things have historically done very well in the long run. My heartiest congratulations to the lucky/wealthy/insane winner. You have a piece I adore.

[delekkerste]

However I believe, after review, you're being penalized one full point for comparing anything inked by Colletta to this.

 

But, I didn't compare anything inked by Colletta to this. I compared something inked by Colletta, plus stacks and stacks and stacks and stacks of Tubmans to it, which is something else entirely!

 

(Yeah, I know that the Tubman $20 bill won't be out for a while, but I like to be a trend-setter).

[r100comics]

When I first saw the Kirby Thor page listed, I figured it would go somewhere north of 25k. A decent example goes for around 10, and I figured this one was good enough to merit the premium.

 

Then I saw it in person at the NY viewing and immediately changed my mind. That top panel hit me like a hammer to the chest. The energy and action displayed is just incredible! Most of the JIM splashes would pale beside it, and I felt that it should go somewhere in the 50s.

 

Now, do I think 72k was pricey for that piece? Of course I do. I can't imagine the new owner flipping it for a profit anytime soon. But it's an A+ example, and those types of things have historically done very well in the long run. My heartiest congratulations to the lucky/wealthy/insane winner. You have a piece I adore.

 

I agree, you won't go wrong in the long run buying the best of the best.

[comix4fun]

However I believe, after review, you're being penalized one full point for comparing anything inked by Colletta to this.

 

But, I didn't compare anything inked by Colletta to this. I compared something inked by Colletta, plus stacks and stacks and stacks and stacks of Tubmans to it, which is something else entirely!

 

(Yeah, I know that the Tubman $20 bill won't be out for a while, but I like to be a trend-setter).

 

 

This is one of those times that the sum of the parts (Iron Hands Vinnie + Harriet) doesn't equal the whole (JIM 115 page).

[AKA Rick]

For Kirby, I think there was a popularity ranking for his inkers including Ayers, Sinnott, Royer, Colletta, Stone and others who have inked over his work.

 

Personally, my favorites are Ayers and Stone, but generally I like most if not all of Kirby's silver age work, not so much the Bronze age and later stuff including works with Royer.

 

To me, to get a page written by Stan Lee and illustrated by Jack Kirby is that "Lennon / McCartney" pairing that adds to the interest and value.

[comix4fun]

For Kirby, I think there was a popularity ranking for his inkers including Ayers, Sinnott, Royer, Colletta, Stone and others who have inked over his work.

 

Personally, my favorites are Ayers and Stone, but generally I like most if not all of Kirby's silver age work, not so much the Bronze age and later stuff including works with Royer.

 

To me, to get a page written by Stan Lee and illustrated by Jack Kirby is that "Lennon / McCartney" pairing that adds to the interest and value.

 

 

True,

 

Even further down the analysis road there seem to be preferred Kirby inkers by title or character.

 

On FF the team of Kirby and Sinnott seemed to stick in most collectors minds, as they worked so closely and consistently together.

 

Ayers had a hand in a lot of the earliest Marvel Kirby work.

 

Stone, really knocked the Thor stuff out of the park.

 

So, to a lot of collectors, the title and characters enter into the analysis of Kirby inkers.

[TMNTDude]

Was that TMNT page really worth ~$5k? I didn't think those pages went for that much.

[Kevin76]

I will say this about a lot of these Silver Age artists and all this talk of "Thor's face is covered up or turned away" You guys have to remember, The storytelling comes first, not the "money shot". Artist have to convey what the body language might be if the characters were fighting in real life. No one thought back in the 1960's "Hey, I should show more of Thor's face so I'll make more in 50 years when people are paying big money for these pages I'm drawing" They were just trying to tell a story through pictures so they can pay their rent and nothing more.

 

Big name artists of today are very much about the "Money Shot" ***cough Jim Lee***cough*** All his character are nothing but striking a pose to make the money later on when he sells it. They really aren't doing anything except posing. This is what makes artists like Neal Adams, Wrightson and Frazetta so great, All of their characters were doing something and expressed the body language and facial expressions to the situations they were in or what the dialogue they were saying was. That concludes today's art lesson. Class dismissed.

[J.Sid]

I would also add that every Colletta issue of Thor has a few really nice pages to go along with the ones he took various short-cuts on.

[delekkerste]

I will say this about a lot of these Silver Age artists and all this talk of "Thor's face is covered up or turned away" You guys have to remember, The storytelling comes first, not the "money shot". Artist have to convey what the body language might be if the characters were fighting in real life. No one thought back in the 1960's "Hey, I should show more of Thor's face so I'll make more in 50 years when people are paying big money for these pages I'm drawing" They were just trying to tell a story through pictures so they can pay their rent and nothing more.

 

As a comic book reader and admirer of the published art, I agree 100%. If I have to write a check for the OA, though, that's another story. It's like a friend of mine said about a certain Uncanny X-Men cover: "Wolverine with his back turned = not interested." Of course, that's a bit of an exaggeration; the interest will still be there, but, what he's saying is that having the hero facing the wrong direction absolutely impacts on the desirability of the original art, because it simply does not present as nicely, no matter its technical merits. Even if it nails all the technical marks - 10/10 - someone will always think that the composition could have flattered the hero more. Which may not matter one iota for storytelling purposes, as with this JIM page, but, as a piece of art to be displayed and admired, it's a factor.

[Kevin76]

I will say this about a lot of these Silver Age artists and all this talk of "Thor's face is covered up or turned away" You guys have to remember, The storytelling comes first, not the "money shot". Artist have to convey what the body language might be if the characters were fighting in real life. No one thought back in the 1960's "Hey, I should show more of Thor's face so I'll make more in 50 years when people are paying big money for these pages I'm drawing" They were just trying to tell a story through pictures so they can pay their rent and nothing more.

 

As a comic book reader and admirer of the published art, I agree 100%. If I have to write a check for the OA, though, that's another story. It's like a friend of mine said about a certain Uncanny X-Men cover: "Wolverine with his back turned = not interested." Of course, that's a bit of exaggeration; the interest will still be there, but, what he's saying is that having the hero facing the wrong direction absolutely impacts on the desirability of the original art, because it simply does not present as nicely, no matter its technical merits. Even if it nails all the technical marks - 10/10 - someone will always think that the composition could have flattered the hero more. Which may not matter one iota for storytelling purposes, as with this JIM page, but, as a piece of art to be displayed and admired, it's a factor.

 

All these pages are great and are worth displaying no matter who inked what.

[comix4fun]

I would also add that every Colletta issue of Thor has a few really nice pages to go along with the ones he took various short-cuts on.

 

 

Yet we'll never get to see those Kirby backgrounds that fell prey to The Eraser's, um...well...eraser.

[AKA Rick]

 

Big name artists of today are very much about the "Money Shot" ***cough Jim Lee***cough*** All his character are nothing but striking a pose to make the money later on when he sells it. They really aren't doing anything except posing.

 

I can't agree with this more, as far as my personal tastes, and in today's world it's all about splash pages, pin-ups and covers which have no relevance to the content of the book (story inside), a lot of times it's just beauty without brains (substance).

 

I think there's some witty artists like Adam Hughes, Mark Brooks and a few others who make a cover engaging with personality and charm with their tongue in cheek humor on some covers which makes their art fun and enjoyable more so than some of the stuff I see which could be the cover of any issue of a book due to it's irrelevance in subject matter/composition.

 

I would take a nice sequential story telling page over a cover or DPS in the way I spend my money, and what I get. I have this really nice Aquaman page I bought for $5 that was minimal in art, but had great dialogue (and back when the lettering was included on the art) which I think is one of my favorite pieces sure never to be worth anything more than what I paid for it, but still a great piece that could be framed up and appreciated.

 

 

[vodou]

Isn't the whole "comic OA thing" aesthetic sorta effed when we'll (all of us, including me) pull a panel page out of sequential context and judge it more (much, much more) desirable on visual impact far over storytelling, especially when it's just one page out of twenty-two on the table, and not the pages before and after (presumably the buildup and denouement storytelling to the HOT ACTION page in the middle that's big $$$)?

 

I swear - sometimes I just don't know what we're collecting here. (Or rather 'why'.) At least when it's a sexy girl or two in nearly-nude costumes being menaced by Arnim Zola...that makes sense

[delekkerste]

Isn't the whole "comic OA thing" aesthetic sorta effed when we'll (all of us, including me) pull a panel page out of sequential context and judge it more (much, much more) desirable on visual impact far over storytelling, especially when it's just one page out of twenty-two on the table, and not the pages before and after (presumably the buildup and denouement storytelling to the HOT ACTION page in the middle that's big $$$)?

 

Yep, and that's exactly why you don't want the hero's back turned or face covered up, because, when it's framed on your wall, outside of the context of the cover and 21 other pages in the book, you don't want the first words out of your mouth when showing the piece to someone visiting your house to be, "Well, I know it's hard to tell because you can't really see his face, but..." Identification/recognition precedes any analysis of how powerful a fight scene is or how good an inking job is.