Will OA prices ever surpass comic book prices ?

[buyatari]

AKA Rick

 

Amazing fantasy 15 is actually a perfect demonstration of why arbitrary rules of thumb like that don't work. I would all day, every day, take a 10.0 af15 (heck even an 8.0) over a page from one of the non Spider-Man stories in the book, and so too , no doubt, would you!

 

But would anyone take the top condition published issue over the entire issue of OA? Cover and all. Every page of OA.

[delekkerste]

But what about compared to the OA of the cover of AF 15? Would it not be more valuable than a 9.6 copy (let's assume that there are no better copies out there)?

 

I would rather have the AF 15 cover OA than a 9.6 copy.

 

Yes, the AF 15 cover OA would easily best a 9.6 copy.

[Hekla]

AKA Rick

 

Amazing fantasy 15 is actually a perfect demonstration of why arbitrary rules of thumb like that don't work. I would all day, every day, take a 10.0 af15 (heck even an 8.0) over a page from one of the non Spider-Man stories in the book, and so too , no doubt, would you!

 

But would anyone take the top condition published issue over the entire issue of OA? Cover and all. Every page of OA.

 

Not a fair comparison; a complete OA book can be broken up into smaller pieces and sold separately while the book can't (or it can, but at a much smaller price while a broken up OA book will bring a bigger price). How many pages are in AF15? 22? Maybe a better question is would anyone take 22 9.0's over 22 OA pages?

[delekkerste]

I disagree with that. No one says that a Monet with a bridge in it is automatically more valuable than a Monet with a boat in it, or that a Monet with 2 boats is more valuable than one with 1 boat, or that the first Monet with a lily is worth more than the second Monet with a lily (I realize that I've just lost a lot of the audience here who are furiously flipping through their Overstreets trying to find this Monet guy ).

 

In fine art, it ultimately does come down to aesthetics. You may disagree with the aesthetic choice (perhaps you don't think Picasso's cubist period is all that great), but it does come down to aesthetics.

 

In contrast, as Chris rightly pointed out, the only driving factor in the Hulk 180 page was that it was the first appearance of Wolverine, and the aesthetic and artist was completely irrelevant. It could've been Frank Robbins, one of the most hated artists in history, or Neal Adams, one of the most revered, and the price probably would've been more or less the same.

 

I don't think it's as clear-cut as that regarding fine art. For example, certain periods of an artist's career are almost automatically going to be more valuable than others, as are certain subjects depicted. A Rothko color field painting is automatically more valuable than a figurative Rothko painting. A Lichtenstein comic painting is automatically more valuable than anything else he did. Late Renoir is automatically less valuable than prime era Renoir. Monet water lillies is automatically more valuable than his portraits. I mean, sure, if you look hard enough maybe you can find an exception here or there, but it's far less about aesthetics than you're making it out to be.

 

That said, I don't disagree with you about comic art. While in fine art, you have to learn the rules of what makes certain works of art more valuable than others, in comics, you really have to learn the decades-long history and narrative of the underlying stories and characters. Why is a page from X-Men #94 so much more valuable than a page from X-Men #96? Why is the first Wolverine or the Death of Gwen Stacy so important? This is why, IMO, the fine art world will never truly accept mainstream superhero art into their fold, but has been more accepting of the work of single-creator "auteurs" (e.g., R. Crumb, Spiegelman, Clowes, Ware, etc.) who create their own limited, defined universes, characters and narratives as opposed to decades-long collaborative continuity like you see with mainstream comics (MAYBE there will some limited exception for those who built the universes in the first place, like Kirby and Ditko, but, even then, I doubt they will ever be fully embraced given the collaborative nature of their art). There is no just way to spin the Hulk #180 page in a manner that makes sense to fine art people, because its value has nothing to do with aesthetics, expression, or anything else in a language that fine art people would care to understand.

[comix4fun]

I disagree with that. No one says that a Monet with a bridge in it is automatically more valuable than a Monet with a boat in it, or that a Monet with 2 boats is more valuable than one with 1 boat,

.

 

 

 

[OldGuy]

Would you rather have an "Amazing Fantasy #15 in CGC 10 or even 9.8,whether signature series by Stan Lee and Steve Ditko... or opt to own the original cover art or an interior page?

 

I'd take the 15, sell it, and buy OA with the money.

[vodou]

It could've been Frank Robbins, one of the most hated artists in history, or ...

Yesterday's news. Today's headline is crummy 1970s Johnny Hazard dailies are going for $150-$200 per. Which is a triple off a few years back. And older/desirable 50s/60s are a big notch higher too. Same with the few examples of Robbins Batman and Capt America I've seen disappear recently. Dunno who's putting up all the heat, but I'm glad I got my Robbins (never a hater!) early and am not competing today.

[AKA Rick]

 

I can say the one grail type of art I saw for sale, but simply didn't have the money was the entire book of X-Men 1 for $300k about 15 years ago. What are those pages worth today? I can bet the page 1 splash alone would bring close to that amount.

 

I remember back in 2008, Heritage auctioned off multiple pages from X-Men #1 (1963) within the same signature auction through a series of auctions that broke the book up that ranged for as low as I think $15-20k per page on up with I don't think anything going for over $50k.

 

I was fascinated by the opportunity, 'tho like you could never afford those pages, and one of my early posts here on these message boards in 2008 was focused on that very topic along with the actual sales prices of each page. I don't know how to search the archives here to see if that thread with the information still exists or not, but if it does, you'll see (and we'll all kick ourselves for not taking out loans!) great opportunities of less than a decade ago to profit double, triple, quadruple or greater.

[AKA Rick]

AKA Rick

 

Amazing fantasy 15 is actually a perfect demonstration of why arbitrary rules of thumb like that don't work. I would all day, every day, take a 10.0 af15 (heck even an 8.0) over a page from one of the non Spider-Man stories in the book, and so too , no doubt, would you!

 

No, that's apples to oranges in comparison.

 

apples to apples is, an original art page from the story vs the actual published story, so given that option... which would you take?

 

the value of AF #15 is due to the Spider-Man content, not the back-up stories, and the same goes for the artwork.

 

[rrichards]

"Frank Robbins, one of the most hated artists in history"'

 

Just curious ,what does an artist have to do to gain such a title ?

[AKA Rick]

 

the only driving factor in the Hulk 180 page was that it was the first appearance of Wolverine, and the aesthetic and artist was completely irrelevant. It could've been Frank Robbins, one of the most hated artists in history, or Neal Adams, one of the most revered, and the price probably would've been more or less the same.

 

I do agree this happens.

 

Typically the primary needle mover is "artist"

 

Then it's character and story (which includes 1st App's)

 

Just look at the recent Heritage auction where the 1st App of Gambit done by Mike Collins (who?) went for $5k or so.

 

If any other Mike Collins work, it would be 10% or less of that price.

 

Inversely, if the 1st App of Gambit was done by Jim Lee or a top tier name artist, the price tag would be a lot higher.

 

 

[Bronty]

AKA Rick

 

Amazing fantasy 15 is actually a perfect demonstration of why arbitrary rules of thumb like that don't work. I would all day, every day, take a 10.0 af15 (heck even an 8.0) over a page from one of the non Spider-Man stories in the book, and so too , no doubt, would you!

 

I'm all but certain that such a copy would fetch more than at least some, if not all, of the individual Spidey story interior pages as well. To own the single best copy - in perfect condition - of the first appearance of Spider-Man? That would surely fetch insane money. I mean, a 9.6 sold for $1.1 million; I suspect the powers-that-be would bid a 9.9 or 10.0 up to Action 1 9.0 type levels. At least a "2" handle in the worst case, and I doubt the worst Spidey story page from AF15 would fetch that much.

 

I agree entirely. But for the sake of the argument, I stayed away from anything even slightly debatable and pointed out that some of the interior pages are not too desirable and are probably four figure items, five max.

[Bronty]

AKA Rick

 

Amazing fantasy 15 is actually a perfect demonstration of why arbitrary rules of thumb like that don't work. I would all day, every day, take a 10.0 af15 (heck even an 8.0) over a page from one of the non Spider-Man stories in the book, and so too , no doubt, would you!

 

No, that's apples to oranges in comparison.

 

apples to apples is, an original art page from the story vs the actual published story, so given that option... which would you take?

 

the value of AF #15 is due to the Spider-Man content, not the back-up stories, and the same goes for the artwork.

 

Its the comparison you chose, remember I just pointed out the flaw in it Point is, you can't say that the page should be more than the book in perfect condition... always... let alone say something like 10x.

 

What about a page that is text only? No art.

 

What about a page that is 99% stat?

 

What about a page that is a photo?

 

I could go on.........

 

You just have to evaluate each page and each book on its own merits

[Bronty]

its interesting to me that in terms of Highest priced originals by comic book artists, you go through Trimpe, Macfarlane, Miller, Adams, Byrne, Kane, Guardanier, Romita Sr., Robinson, and Wrightson before you get to Kirby.

The fact that Herb Trimpe (Herb ing Trimpe!) is sitting there at the top of the mountain is the biggest indictment of comic OA collecting there is.

 

 

The panel with the first appearance of Wolverine could have been drawn by Christy Brown, and it would have brought the same money.

 

Sometimes the subject matter sets the price beyond aesthetics.

You're right. THAT's the biggest indictment of comic OA collecting.

 

No different than Anything else Tim including fine art. Why u mad bro?

I disagree with that. No one says that a Monet with a bridge in it is automatically more valuable than a Monet with a boat in it, or that a Monet with 2 boats is more valuable than one with 1 boat, or that the first Monet with a lily is worth more than the second Monet with a lily (I realize that I've just lost a lot of the audience here who are furiously flipping through their Overstreets trying to find this Monet guy ).

 

In fine art, it ultimately does come down to aesthetics. You may disagree with the aesthetic choice (perhaps you don't think Picasso's cubist period is all that great), but it does come down to aesthetics.

 

In contrast, as Chris rightly pointed out, the only driving factor in the Hulk 180 page was that it was the first appearance of Wolverine, and the aesthetic and artist was completely irrelevant. It could've been Frank Robbins, one of the most hated artists in history, or Neal Adams, one of the most revered, and the price probably would've been more or less the same.

 

Oh I violently disagree.

 

For Richard Prince you want a Nurse painting, for Jasper Johns you want a bullseye, for Lichty you want a big comic panel, Warhol you want a silkscreen of marilyn not joe schmoe, for western artists you want bluebonnets not pine trees, in 1800s portraits you want a little girl not a grandmother etc etc etc. It is NOT about aesthetics only; you know that.

 

*disclaimer as I'm sure others know much more about that than I, point is...... content very much affects other collectibles.

[JadeGiant]

[ the only driving factor in the Hulk 180 page was that it was the first appearance of Wolverine, and the aesthetic and artist was completely irrelevant. It could've been Frank Robbins, one of the most hated artists in history, or Neal Adams, one of the most revered, and the price probably would've been more or less the same.

 

Bold statement. Can't agree on that. For sure, content is driving force but artist is definitely a factor IMO

[Peter G]

[ the only driving factor in the Hulk 180 page was that it was the first appearance of Wolverine, and the aesthetic and artist was completely irrelevant. It could've been Frank Robbins, one of the most hated artists in history, or Neal Adams, one of the most revered, and the price probably would've been more or less the same.

 

Bold statement. Can't agree on that. For sure, content is driving force but artist is definitely a factor IMO

 

While the comparison to the "fine art" market can be tempting, I wonder if a comparison to the "antiquities" market would be a better analogy to compare the comic books/OA market to.

 

"Antiquities" are in part valuable because they provide historical context for the time period in which the artifact was created. Although the artist is an important factor for Italian sculptures or Chinese vases, the value is not just based solely on the artist that created the work but also the ability of the artifact to communicate historical context to the observer.

 

Whether Egyptian pottery/sarcophagus or Renaissance bronzes, the artist is just a single factor to assess value.

 

There is lots of recognized art in museums that is not considered "fine art" but still is important and valuable. In my opinion, the label of "fine art" is kind of a snobby and arbitrary and also an irrelevant label anyways. Comic books / OA are important art even if never classified as "fine art".

 

Comic book art is important because it is a truly globalized phenomena in which the comic book style transcends national boundaries and is representative of modernity and pop culture on a global level .

 

How anybody could say comic art is not important or real "art" would be simply baffling to me

[The-Collector]

I'd bet whatever Burkey paid for the ASM 33 interiors would rank fairly high on that list, if it was all cash.

 

Can anyone direct me to more information on this?

[The-Collector]

its interesting to me that in terms of Highest priced originals by comic book artists, you go through Trimpe, Macfarlane, Miller, Adams, Byrne, Kane, Guardanier, Romita Sr., Robinson, and Wrightson before you get to Kirby.

The fact that Herb Trimpe (Herb ing Trimpe!) is sitting there at the top of the mountain is the biggest indictment of comic OA collecting there is.

 

 

The panel with the first appearance of Wolverine could have been drawn by Christy Brown, and it would have brought the same money.

 

Sometimes the subject matter sets the price beyond aesthetics.

You're right. THAT's the biggest indictment of comic OA collecting.

 

No different than Anything else Tim including fine art. Why u mad bro?

I disagree with that. No one says that a Monet with a bridge in it is automatically more valuable than a Monet with a boat in it, or that a Monet with 2 boats is more valuable than one with 1 boat, or that the first Monet with a lily is worth more than the second Monet with a lily (I realize that I've just lost a lot of the audience here who are furiously flipping through their Overstreets trying to find this Monet guy ).

 

In fine art, it ultimately does come down to aesthetics. You may disagree with the aesthetic choice (perhaps you don't think Picasso's cubist period is all that great), but it does come down to aesthetics.

 

 

This is patently untrue. Works with subjects the artist is well known for usually command a significant premium to lesser known subjects.

 

So people would say a Monet with a lilly is worth more than one with a boat.

 

Why does a Koons dog sell for more than a Koons vacuum cleaner/ready made? Why are Basquiats with a large central figure worth considerably more than other works from the same period? Even if those works have similar aesthetic appeal? Because cet par subject matters.

 

[Unca Ben]

I'd bet whatever Burkey paid for the ASM 33 interiors would rank fairly high on that list, if it was all cash.

 

Can anyone direct me to more information on this?

 

What kinda info?

(not that I know much more than what I posted)

[tth2]

its interesting to me that in terms of Highest priced originals by comic book artists, you go through Trimpe, Macfarlane, Miller, Adams, Byrne, Kane, Guardanier, Romita Sr., Robinson, and Wrightson before you get to Kirby.

The fact that Herb Trimpe (Herb ing Trimpe!) is sitting there at the top of the mountain is the biggest indictment of comic OA collecting there is.

 

 

The panel with the first appearance of Wolverine could have been drawn by Christy Brown, and it would have brought the same money.

 

Sometimes the subject matter sets the price beyond aesthetics.

You're right. THAT's the biggest indictment of comic OA collecting.

 

No different than Anything else Tim including fine art. Why u mad bro?

I disagree with that. No one says that a Monet with a bridge in it is automatically more valuable than a Monet with a boat in it, or that a Monet with 2 boats is more valuable than one with 1 boat, or that the first Monet with a lily is worth more than the second Monet with a lily (I realize that I've just lost a lot of the audience here who are furiously flipping through their Overstreets trying to find this Monet guy ).

 

In fine art, it ultimately does come down to aesthetics. You may disagree with the aesthetic choice (perhaps you don't think Picasso's cubist period is all that great), but it does come down to aesthetics.

 

 

This is patently untrue. Works with subjects the artist is well known for usually command a significant premium to lesser known subjects.

 

So people would say a Monet with a lilly is worth more than one with a boat.

No, you're confusing the fact that one of his most famous series happens to be of water lilies with some inherent value of water lilies in Monet paintings. It's the color schemes and rendition that made those paintings so great and famous, not the subject matter itself. If he had catskills growing in his ponds and painted them instead, in the same style, the catskills series would be just as famous and valuable as the water lilies series currently is.

 

In contrast, the only reason the drawing by Trimpe are worth $600K+ is because it contains Wolverine. I can categorically say that if he made the same drawing of Wolverine, but Wolverine had never been resurrected by Chris Claremont in X-Men and become a global superstar, then that page would be worth no more (and maybe less) than any of the other pages in Hulk 180.