Will OA prices ever surpass comic book prices ?

[tth2]

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,

.

 

 

 

Mr. Well? Let me introduce you to Mr. Once Too Often.

[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.

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.

 

Nope I am not, hence why I added in the cet par requirement. All other things remaining equal, desirable subject matter will win out. There is a value attached to subject matter.

[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,

.

 

 

 

Mr. Well? Let me introduce you to Mr. Once Too Often.

 

 

Were you referring to your argument?.....because it was at least twice too often if so.

[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?

 

What kinda info?

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

 

Just generally. What was traded for what, asking price etc

[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.

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.

 

Also your argument is inconsistent.

 

You have stated the only reason the Wolverine pages go for so much is because of his notoriety as a character. And the lilies value is because of the skill involved made them so famous.

 

So if you want to be consistent you should concluded that in both cases the subject attributes no value and it is in fact just the notoriety of that particular series that gives it worth.

 

But, that would be an absurd conclusion. Take as a limiting example a painting of a poo vs a lily. Of course a painting of some feces even if beautifully rendered and from an incredibly famous series would be less marketable than a painting of al lily which had the same technique, aesthetic quality and notoriety.

 

If you want to say that subject matter has no impact on prices in the fine art world you would have to also hold that all other things being equal you would expect a painting of a poo to fetch the same as a lily.

[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)

 

Just generally. What was traded for what, asking price etc

 

I dunno.

When Mike announced he had acquired the original art to ASM 33, I remember he wrote a short blurb about it -- he may have mentioned something about value but I was too busy drooling over the scans he posted to pay much attention to what he wrote.

He may have written a post about it here on these boards, it might be worth looking for.

 

This was shortly after he displayed the complete OA to ASM 20. One thing for sure, the guy has one heck of a Ditko Spidey collection.

[Unca Ben]

I found Mike's thread on the ASM 20 OA in which the ASM 30 OA is also mentioned.

 

http://boards.collectors-society.com/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Main=338386&Number=7636468#Post7636468

 

Nothing about price, though he does say he was busy selling some key artwork in able to acquire the ASM 20.

[The-Collector]

I found Mike's thread on the ASM 20 OA in which the ASM 30 OA is also mentioned.

 

http://boards.collectors-society.com/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Main=338386&Number=7636468#Post7636468

 

Nothing about price, though he does say he was busy selling some key artwork in able to acquire the ASM 20.

 

thank you.

[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.

 

 

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.

 

Nope I am not, hence why I added in the cet par requirement. All other things remaining equal, desirable subject matter will win out. There is a value attached to subject matter.

 

Tim would have you believe that the notion of a wolverine tax is offensive. I go back to portraiture. A pretty young girl gets a significant tax/premium and an ugly old man gets a discount. I'm sure the same would hold true in bronzes. There's so many examples one could cite, it's a waste of time to argue about it but hey Tim is always right he said so himself

 

Yeah drawings of wolverine sell for more, why not? They are part of a long standing narrative. You'd better believe that an illustrations from say Dr Suess books derive their value from the narrative body of work at least as much as from the pictures. For some reason Tim finds that offensive. To me, to ignore the narrative (or worse yet, be offended at the value the narrative brings) in considering the value of such a picture is to purposely ignore the very nature of a picture book whether it be Horton Hears a Who.. or the Avengers.

 

I don't think any of this is really about fine art, Dr Suess, or the Avengers. It's about Tim having a hard on to tell us what a bad artist Herb Trimpe is and being willing to say anything that underlines that point. Yeah Herb Trimpe sucks. We get it . It's still the first appearance of wolverine.

[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.

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.

 

Nope I am not, hence why I added in the cet par requirement. All other things remaining equal, desirable subject matter will win out. There is a value attached to subject matter.

 

Tim would have you believe that the notion of a wolverine tax is offensive. I go back to portraiture. A pretty young girl gets a significant tax/premium and an ugly old man gets a discount. I'm sure the same would hold true in bronzes. There's so many examples one could cite, it's a waste of time to argue about it but hey Tim is always right he said so himself

 

Yeah drawings of wolverine sell for more, why not? They are part of a long standing narrative. You'd better believe that an illustrations from say Dr Suess books derive their value from the narrative body of work at least as much as from the pictures. For some reason Tim finds that offensive. To me, to ignore the narrative (or worse yet, be offended at the value the narrative brings) in considering the value of such a picture is to purposely ignore the very nature of a picture book whether it be Horton Hears a Who.. or the Avengers.

 

I don't think any of this is really about fine art, Dr Suess, or the Avengers. It's about Tim having a hard on to tell us what a bad artist Herb Trimpe is and being willing to say anything that underlines that point. Yeah Herb Trimpe sucks. We get it . It's still the first appearance of wolverine.

 

Bronzes were something that came to my mind too. A beautiful woman (preferably scantly clad) always commands a premium.

[Dick O.]

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.

 

[Bronty]

Good post, thx for quoting it. Didn't see it until now.

[tth2]

Also your argument is inconsistent.

 

You have stated the only reason the Wolverine pages go for so much is because of his notoriety as a character. And the lilies value is because of the skill involved made them so famous.

 

So if you want to be consistent you should concluded that in both cases the subject attributes no value and it is in fact just the notoriety of that particular series that gives it worth.

 

But, that would be an absurd conclusion. Take as a limiting example a painting of a poo vs a lily. Of course a painting of some feces even if beautifully rendered and from an incredibly famous series would be less marketable than a painting of al lily which had the same technique, aesthetic quality and notoriety.

 

If you want to say that subject matter has no impact on prices in the fine art world you would have to also hold that all other things being equal you would expect a painting of a poo to fetch the same as a lily.

If you take most things to extremes, then you can get differing results (except in the case of who drew the first appearance of Wolverine, in which case the value will still be pretty much the same, unless it turned out that Picasso or Van Gogh drew it, I guess).

 

Some subject matter can have negative aesthetic value. People just don't want to look at it, no matter how skillfully rendered. I would put a piece of poo in that category, as well as an image of a child being disemboweled.

 

But taking something that's of relatively similar aesthetic value, or at least equally non-offensive value, such as water lilies versus catskills, or bridge versus boat, then I don't think fine art would get priced differently only because of the subject matter.

[Unca Ben]

I found Mike's thread on the ASM 20 OA in which the ASM 30 OA is also mentioned.

 

http://boards.collectors-society.com/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Main=338386&Number=7636468#Post7636468

 

Nothing about price, though he does say he was busy selling some key artwork in able to acquire the ASM 20.

 

thank you.

 

You're welcome.

Thanks for giving me an opportunity to feel useful.

[tth2]

[ 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

So if John Buscema , Jack Kirby, Neal Adams, Jim Steranko, BWS, John Byrne, Bernie Wrightson, Brian Bolland, some other equally hallowed artist, or even Frank Frazetta, had drawn the Hulk 180 page, how much more do you think the page would've sold for? I personally think it would've sold for exactly the same price, because once you got past the $300-400K mark, any artist premium that might've existed was already fully priced in.

 

Conversely, if it'd been drawn by Frank Robbins, Don Heck, Mike Sekowsky, Werner Roth, or some equally unpopular, I think it would've sold for exactly the same price.

[tth2]

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.

Yeah, but the reason the high value examples you point to sell for more than the low value examples, and the reason those periods are considered the artist's prime period versus a lesser period, is because the prime period is when the artist's best work, from an aesthetic point of view (which may include innovation/ground breaking-ness) was done.

 

In many cases, certainly with Rothko's color fields and Lichtenstein's comic reproductions, their work in this period is why they stood out from the crowd in the first place. Their other work? Eh, middle of the pack. Rothko and Lichtenstein would never have become famous because of their still lifes.

 

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.

Agreed.

[Silver Surfer]

[vodou]

I don't think any of this is really about fine art, Dr Suess, or the Avengers. It's about Tim having a hard on to tell us what a bad artist Herb Trimpe is and being willing to say anything that underlines that point. Yeah Herb Trimpe sucks. We get it . It's still the first appearance of wolverine.

As Tim wrote early on, the sucks -but it's Wolverine! part is an indictment of the hobby aesthetic (vs. fine art). Well that's what he's saying anyway. Don't paint me with that brush!

 

To my mind, the big difference between hobby art and fine art (if we have to draw a distinction) is that Monet owns water lilies. His get tens of millions. Anybody else's is a minor fraction of that, even if it's PICASSO. Likewise...if we ever found a secret closet cache of Monet cubist experiments, no matter how genius...they would always be viewed as derivative of Picasso/Braque. Because those two own cubism. Same as silkscreened paintings by anybody other than Warhol/Studio, Marilyns by anybody other than Warhol/Studio, broken plate paintings/constructions by anybody other than Schnabel, et al...all viewed as derivative, and much less desirable to virtually unsellable. That stuff is fine if you want decor art, but not fine if you're positioning yourself as a serious collector (of means) and expect others to agree with that. For that you'll need to buy at minimum a lesser piece by the artist that owns the niche. And then work on upgrading

 

Trimpe owns nothing. He certainly doesn't own Wolverine. Most of our hobby heroes don't own anything, and even those the hobby thinks do (Ditko Spider-Man, Kirby FF and the entirety of the early MU, etc) are plenty arguable cases because of there being so much pre-hero stuff around earlier, by the same artists in the same style, and similar prototype stories by other artists too much of it almost stereo-typically moralistic or oft told fairy tale in nature (basic good vs. evil, right vs. might, crime does not pay stuff). Even going back to Superman, the argument can be made that those two boys ripped off Wagner/Nietzsche. Now that's an debate of inspiration vs. theft but anyway...the difference is the the fine art guys (that command big bucks) tend to own their subject, just not the same in comic art. It's different, whether it's better or worse or doesn't really matter is rather subjective (imo).

 

The exception to the above being the Chris Wares and Robert Crumbs that have crossed over and (probably) eventually Dan Clowes and others. You see something by them, you know who did it, no need to search for the signature, and what to expect even without reading the word balloons. Occasionally you may be surprised, but not really, they own their output, even though many others came before using the same tools and graphic narrative sensibility. But nobody did it the way they do, it's unique to each of them. No different (imo) than Monet using oils and brushes (along with a whole lotta Monet) to own water lillies to such an extent that everybody (that is familiar with fine art) knows who did it without looking for the signature. Unless it's a skilled derivative or fake (and the market will suss that out and price much lower, accordingly).

[Bronty]

All that is fine, but shouldn't we value the narrative? It's just as interesting as the pictures. The hobby has it right IMO. To ignore the words/narrative that go with the pictures is discredit every writer that ever wrote a comic story.

 

On some level, all of us understand that as nice as Kirby 4th world is, there was never quite as much magic in his work as when it was paired with Stans words/direction/dialogue (whatever you want to call it based on whatever level of credit you give Stan).

 

The words matter. Otherwise comics are just page after page of wordless pinups.

[tth2]