Is it really hard to admit it ? 0

[Panelfan1]

15 minutes ago, Carlo M said:

Great thread!  I agree 100% that one should be honest when evaluating one's purchases....I personally have a rule whereby no purchases are allowed to me over a certain threshold unless they meet also aesthetic and popularity standards.  Below certain thresholds, well.... let nostalgia rule! (hence my overspending on Buscema Defenders!)

Carlo

Is that threshold moving up with the market?

[Mr. Machismo]

I have the gallery edition of Dark Knight Returns on my coffee table, with the iconic splash as the cover. When my wife first walked by it, she said "Ew! I can draw better than that!"

Edited June 25, 2017 by Mr. Machismo

[kav]

6 hours ago, JadeGiant said:

I agree. 

 

For me, I guess I can admit that others may have a different opinion of art than I do. It doesn't mean that I necessarily agree with them but I can easily concede on difference of opinions. It make me cringe when I hear people say they don't like Sal Buscema or that his art is "just house style and not very good", etc. but it doesn't impact the way I see the art. Different strokes. This will always be a subjective topic and we all will always see some things differently - it's not like we are ever going to see CGC slabbing art by levels of universally accepted quality. 

 

I do see the point of this thread and it is a great topic ... it probably is especially great for all the Liefeld collectors out there

I just really hate Sal's squint-grimace.

[Panelfan1]

43 minutes ago, Mr. Machismo said:

I have the gallery edition of Dark Knight Returns on my coffee table, with the iconic splash as the cover. When my wife first walked by it, she said "Ew! I can draw better than that!"

You got to get her in front of a portfolio review as soon as possible. Once she breaks in and takes the comic world by storm - guess who has the best access to fresh art?!  So lucky.

Edited June 25, 2017 by Panelfan1

[drdroom]

I don't think Romita Sr. is really very good, but I would be truly thrilled with a good Spidey page from the run that I bought off the stands (roughly #50-#70). If they were priced where a Colan DD page is I would likely have one. But for what they cost now, no way, even if I had it. You can buy immortal cartoon masterpieces for that money by Kirby, Foster, Herriman etc. 

I  have a Roger Brand page that I love for the pure underground vibe it represents, and a couple Golden Age pages that are crudely drawn but historically rich. I have a Kirby page that is great and nostalgiac but damaged by Colletta inks. I have a late Kirby that is past his drawing prime but the scripting is more brilliant than ever. 

So no, no problem to admit flaws in the artwork. Keeps things interesting. 

[Mr. Machismo]

16 hours ago, Panelfan1 said:

You got to get her in front of a portfolio review as soon as possible. Once she breaks in and takes the comic world by storm - guess who has the best access to fresh art?!  So lucky.

Hehe. She said the same thing when I received a Long Halloween splash and Dark Victory cover. 

[PhilipB2k17]

Here's my 2 cents, for what it's worth. 

I buy art that I find aesthetically pleasing. To me. It may not be pleasing to someone else, but they are not the ones buying it. I am. If I like it, that's all that matters. I do show my pieces to my wife, who sometimes likes it, and sometimes doesn't. But, in the end I have to like what I have. 

For example, I have been looking at some pages by James Stokoe lately, that are really terrific. I bought a nice page of his from Godzilla in Hell #1.  I loved the intricate line work of it and the cool Godzilla image. I could care less if he's a big name popular artist, or not. I really like his stuff.  It's a published comic book art page of a character that I like, by an artist who has a very cool, unique style that I enjoy. I realize that his work may not be the cup of tea for other collectors. But, I like it, so that's all that matters.

There are some big name, expensive artists who I do not like, and probably wouldn't buy a page of. John Byrne is one. Maybe I'd spring for a cool X-Men page, if I could get it for a decent price. But, I an not a huge fan of his art, and never have been. Even back in the 70's and 80's when he was regarded as a superstar artist, I never got it. Todd McFarlane is another one. Sure, he re-invented how Spider-Man is drawn, basically. And some of those images are cool. But, for the money it would take to own one of those pages, it's it's really worth it to me. 

A Brian Bolland or Dave Stevens page? Yep. Absolutely worth every penny. To me. 

As for Kirby, I have a newfound appreciation for his style, especially, the early to late 60's stuff when he was at the top of his artistic game. Was he technically proficient as an artist, or line drawer? No. Neal Adams called him a "primitive," (not meant as an insult, because he loves Kirby, obvious). But, his storytelling sense, and dynamic action was perfectly suited to the medium, and reinvented it, frankly. His imagination was second-to-none, and is creativity was off the charts. He's legitimately a genius. Are there some pages that are clunky and a bit schlocky by Jack? Yep. I wouldn't just buy any old page by him. I would want one that had his classic magic. And, yes, it would be pricey, but it would be worth it. Again, worth it...to me.

And let me add that there is a difference when you are considering the quality of an artists, between someone who is very highly technically skilled, who then ventures off into provactive, or experimental territory (see Bill Sienkiewicz, for example) and someone who really was never that skilled. Some people really don't like Bill's impressionistic stuff. Others think its brilliant. I'm in the latter category, but some others may not be. But, in that case, you know an artists is trying something new, and is not just a hack. The same applies to a lot of Frank Miller's later work. 

So, to sum up. I am not going to buy a piece of art that I do not enjoy, and find pleasing to look at. No matter who it is by, whether it be Frank Frazetta, Jack Kirby, or Joe Schmo. But, again, each person can do what they want. That's just me.

 

Edited June 26, 2017 by PhilipB2k17

[comix4fun]

40 minutes ago, Mr. Machismo said:

Hehe. She said the same thing when I received a Long Halloween splash and Dark Victory cover. 

That's  a rough critic. Have you considered gift certificates for Lasik? 

[PhilipB2k17]

13 hours ago, drdroom said:

I don't think Romita Sr. is really very good, but I would be truly thrilled with a good Spidey page from the run that I bought off the stands (roughly #50-#70). If they were priced where a Colan DD page is I would likely have one. But for what they cost now, no way, even if I had it. You can buy immortal cartoon masterpieces for that money by Kirby, Foster, Herriman etc. 

I  have a Roger Brand page that I love for the pure underground vibe it represents, and a couple Golden Age pages that are crudely drawn but historically rich. I have a Kirby page that is great and nostalgiac but damaged by Colletta inks. I have a late Kirby that is past his drawing prime but the scripting is more brilliant than ever. 

So no, no problem to admit flaws in the artwork. Keeps things interesting. 

The problem with this hobby, IMHO, is that a few well-financed collectors can distort a market and create bubbles. I think Romita Spider-Man art is one of those situations. I actually like his stuff, maybe more than you do, but I do think it's wildly overpriced due to the efforts of a small cadre of collectors who are obsessed with it. When you have collectors that just pay whatever a piece if priced at, just because they can and its a unique piece, than all rationality goes out the window.  There are probably thousands of Romita Sr. Spidey pages out there. I can't believe that those pages are in such high demand at the current price point, except for a few collectors.

[comix4fun]

Just now, PhilipB2k17 said:

The problem with this hobby, IMHO, is that a few well-financed collectors can distort a market and create bubbles. I think Romita Spider-Man art is one of those situations. I actually like his stuff, maybe more than you do, but I do think it's wildly overpriced due to the efforts of a small cadre of collectors who are obsessed with it. When you have collectors that just pay whatever a piece if priced at, just because they can and its a unique piece, than all rationality goes out the window.  There are probably thousands of Romita Sr. Spidey pages out there. I can't believe that those pages are in such high demand at the current price point, except for a few collectors.

I'm not sure how small a cadre it is at this point. The pool for all buyers above $10k a page is drastically smaller than at $2k, obviously. There are certainly niches, and price points, that have less participants than Romita ASM that are most likely far more "distorted" in terms of price per page. 

Romita Sr. on ASM is one of those runs where an artist and a title met and made some magic. It's that nostalgia/sense-memory thing I mentioned. When you've got the flagship character for a publisher, on his flagship title, and all those key stories and characters that Romita Sr. was the one to immortalize in images. Right off the bat, Goblin revealed as Norman Osborn, then 1st appearances of Rhino, Mary Jane, Shocker, Kingpin, and all those well-remembered arcs. 

His art is smooth and solid and he portrayed action well, but most of all he was working on the #1 character's #1 title. That run lasted years and is burned into the memory of so many comic fans. I can see there being competition to own a great example from that run. So even if it wasn't for the few people at the very top of the competition pool I don't see a drastic drop off in value given how broad his reach was. And this is coming from a guy that STILL doesn't own a page from that original Romita Sr. run. 

[PhilipB2k17]

21 minutes ago, comix4fun said:

I'm not sure how small a cadre it is at this point. The pool for all buyers above $10k a page is drastically smaller than at $2k, obviously. There are certainly niches, and price points, that have less participants than Romita ASM that are most likely far more "distorted" in terms of price per page. 

Romita Sr. on ASM is one of those runs where an artist and a title met and made some magic. It's that nostalgia/sense-memory thing I mentioned. When you've got the flagship character for a publisher, on his flagship title, and all those key stories and characters that Romita Sr. was the one to immortalize in images. Right off the bat, Goblin revealed as Norman Osborn, then 1st appearances of Rhino, Mary Jane, Shocker, Kingpin, and all those well-remembered arcs. 

His art is smooth and solid and he portrayed action well, but most of all he was working on the #1 character's #1 title. That run lasted years and is burned into the memory of so many comic fans. I can see there being competition to own a great example from that run. So even if it wasn't for the few people at the very top of the competition pool I don't see a drastic drop off in value given how broad his reach was. And this is coming from a guy that STILL doesn't own a page from that original Romita Sr. run. 

I like his stuff! And I would certainly not mind owning a nice page from that run. But, a run-of-the mill Spidey page from the Romita run (not one of the historic pages or covers) is wildly overpriced, IMHO. If others are willing to pay that price, then good for them. I'm not. We are also starting to see this on the Trimpe Hulk pages. Really? I like Hulk, and his run was cool and all, but I think that he's wildly overvalued due mainly to him being the co-creator of Wolverine and that two comic-arc of his introduction. There really was nothing all that special about Trimpe's Hulk run, frankly. But, it lasted a long time! And some big character were introduced during it! 

Edited June 26, 2017 by PhilipB2k17

[PhilipB2k17]

26 minutes ago, comix4fun said:

I'm not sure how small a cadre it is at this point. The pool for all buyers above $10k a page is drastically smaller than at $2k, obviously. There are certainly niches, and price points, that have less participants than Romita ASM that are most likely far more "distorted" in terms of price per page. 

Romita Sr. on ASM is one of those runs where an artist and a title met and made some magic. It's that nostalgia/sense-memory thing I mentioned. When you've got the flagship character for a publisher, on his flagship title, and all those key stories and characters that Romita Sr. was the one to immortalize in images. Right off the bat, Goblin revealed as Norman Osborn, then 1st appearances of Rhino, Mary Jane, Shocker, Kingpin, and all those well-remembered arcs. 

His art is smooth and solid and he portrayed action well, but most of all he was working on the #1 character's #1 title. That run lasted years and is burned into the memory of so many comic fans. I can see there being competition to own a great example from that run. So even if it wasn't for the few people at the very top of the competition pool I don't see a drastic drop off in value given how broad his reach was. And this is coming from a guy that STILL doesn't own a page from that original Romita Sr. run. 

I think the Romita Spider-Man run is kind of like the Curt Swan Superman run. He became the definitive artists of the character for a long time. So, if you want a representative example of Spider-Man comic art from that period. Romita Sr. is the preferable page to own. 

There have been other memorable artists runs on Spider-Man, obviously. I'd rather own a Ditko page, personally. (Who wouldn't?). Some prefer McFarlane. Others may like Bagley. Ryan Stegman is currently putting his own stamp on the Wall Crawler. It all depends on your preference. 

Edited June 26, 2017 by PhilipB2k17

[comix4fun]

Just now, PhilipB2k17 said:

I think the Romita Spider-Man run is kind of like the Curt Swan Superman run. He became the definitive artists of the character for a long time. So, if you want a representative example of Spider-Man comic art from that period. Romita Sr. is the preferable page to own. 

There have been other memorable artists runs on Spider-Man, obviously. I'd rather own a Ditko page, personally. (Who wouldn't?). Some prefer McFarlane. Others may like Bagley. Ryan Stegman is curently puttijg his own stamp on the Wall Crawler. It all depends on your preference. 

That was kind of my point. Putting an artist on a big book, with a big character, especially one that really accentuates the artist's style and you've got prices that look outsized compared to other artwork by the same artist. Look at Ditko prices on ASM, then look at them on Tales to Astonish, for example. McFarlane on ASM then McFarlane on Hulk. Bagley on ASM, then Bagley on New Warriors, etc. 

Preferences will usually follow age. Whatever age your discovered the character or the arcs you like the most will probably mean you've got a preference for that art or character, with some exceptions. 

[Weird Paper]

One word: Sekowsky. His figures are stiff and blocky. His faces all look the same. Ughh. But... if you grew up reading DC in the 60s, then you grew up loving his JLA. I've got multiple pieces by Frazetta, Adams, Wrightson and BWS in my collection, but my favorite piece is my JLA 21 page. It's blocky, stiff and beautiful and it drips with nostalgia... and I've always argued for quality-of-art over nostalgia as a purchasing motivator. 

[drdroom]

59 minutes ago, Weird Paper said:

One word: Sekowsky. His figures are stiff and blocky. His faces all look the same. Ughh. But... if you grew up reading DC in the 60s, then you grew up loving his JLA. I've got multiple pieces by Frazetta, Adams, Wrightson and BWS in my collection, but my favorite piece is my JLA 21 page. It's blocky, stiff and beautiful and it drips with nostalgia... and I've always argued for quality-of-art over nostalgia as a purchasing motivator. 

I love JLA pages in just the way you describe, and paradoxically they are pretty much the clunkiest and most primitive of all Sekowsky pages. I believe the inks by Bernie Sachs are a key element of the JLA alchemy. When I owned one of these pages () I looked at it closely. Sachs inking was incredibly careless with respect to the pencil line. Sekowsky draws the boot line across the calf, Sachs inks it down around the ankle, that sort of thing. It's kid lit that nearly has the quality of kid's drawing. I've just convinced myself that I need to get another one.

[The Shoveler]

On 6/26/2017 at 10:39 AM, PhilipB2k17 said:

I buy art that I find aesthetically pleasing. To me. It may not be pleasing to someone else, but they are not the ones buying it. I am. If I like it, that's all that matters. I do show my pieces to my wife, who sometimes likes it, and sometimes doesn't. But, in the end I have to like what I have.

The golden rule of original comic art collecting (at least for me).  Amen.

The art must stand on its own.  As interpreted by the buyer.  Period.  Exclamation point.

First appearances, "they're going to be in the next super-hero movie!!!", non-appealing work by famous (or any) artist, claims of historical value, artist before or after their prime (artist's assistant/spouse), unproven attributions that Frank Miller maybe might have possibly scratched a pencil mark somewhere on the backgrounds on that page, and "special" moments are completely meaningless if I'm not totally in love with the art.

If any inherent flaws (as perceived by the buyer) in anatomy, technique, condition of the page, potential claims to the art by an artist's progeny, selling price, etc. are so prominent as to distract from me fully enjoying the art, then I'm self-disqualified from the market for that page.  If it doesn't have characters that I care about or can relate to in some way, or if I don't like how the characters are portrayed, then I don't want the page.  As a practical matter, that means I'm out of the market for a lot of stuff that may be within my price range.  So be it.

 

On 6/26/2017 at 10:39 AM, PhilipB2k17 said:

Todd McFarlane is another one. Sure, he re-invented how Spider-Man is drawn, basically.

In the case of McFarlane’s Spidey, I’ve always considered “his” Spidey to be directly derived from Arthur Adams work on the cover of Longshot #4 (red & blue costume)(series published from Sep 85 thru Feb 86) and Web of Spider-Man Annual #2 (black costume) (Sep 86).  Here, Arthur Adams seems to be the pioneer of “spaghetti” webbing (distinctly visible on the Longshot cover, Web Annual #2 page 17 and elsewhere in that book), expanded the range of exaggerated poses, utilized big eyes on the mask which change to indicate emotion, drew human characters in a cartoonish fashion in contrast to the usual house style, added more webs to the pattern of the old red-and-blue costume, and made the black costume seem more menacing (at least in my eyes).

Web Annual #2 and Longshot #4 have always seemed (to me) to be the Bible that McFarlane started quoting from in ASM #298 (March 1988).  To McFarlane’s (considerable) credit, he picked great source material and then dialed it all the way to 11 while making it his own.  And he had the (considerable) guts to do it at a time when Marvel’s art was terribly static & boring at best and, at worst, consistently reached all-new low points each month (I had quit buying the new issues almost a year before ASM #298).

[Bronty]

Wow that's really compelling!   Thanks for sharing that; you've convinced me!  

[Panelfan1]

On 6/26/2017 at 0:12 PM, Weird Paper said:

One word: Sekowsky. His figures are stiff and blocky. His faces all look the same. Ughh. But... if you grew up reading DC in the 60s, then you grew up loving his JLA. I've got multiple pieces by Frazetta, Adams, Wrightson and BWS in my collection, but my favorite piece is my JLA 21 page. It's blocky, stiff and beautiful and it drips with nostalgia... and I've always argued for quality-of-art over nostalgia as a purchasing motivator. 

I have zero nostalgia for sekowski, but he's on my want list. I think his JLA art is charming and fun.

[PhilipB2k17]

1 hour ago, Panelfan1 said:

I have zero nostalgia for sekowski, but he's on my want list. I think his JLA art is charming and fun.

I think it depends, a lot, on who is inking Sekowsky. 

[PhilipB2k17]

6 hours ago, The Shoveler said:

The golden rule of original comic art collecting (at least for me).  Amen.

The art must stand on its own.  As interpreted by the buyer.  Period.  Exclamation point.

First appearances, "they're going to be in the next super-hero movie!!!", non-appealing work by famous (or any) artist, claims of historical value, artist before or after their prime (artist's assistant/spouse), unproven attributions that Frank Miller maybe might have possibly scratched a pencil mark somewhere on the backgrounds on that page, and "special" moments are completely meaningless if I'm not totally in love with the art.

If any inherent flaws (as perceived by the buyer) in anatomy, technique, condition of the page, potential claims to the art by an artist's progeny, selling price, etc. are so prominent as to distract from me fully enjoying the art, then I'm self-disqualified from the market for that page.  If it doesn't have characters that I care about or can relate to in some way, or if I don't like how the characters are portrayed, then I don't want the page.  As a practical matter, that means I'm out of the market for a lot of stuff that may be within my price range.  So be it.

 

In the case of McFarlane’s Spidey, I’ve always considered “his” Spidey to be directly derived from Arthur Adams work on the cover of Longshot #4 (red & blue costume)(series published from Sep 85 thru Feb 86) and Web of Spider-Man Annual #2 (black costume) (Sep 86).  Here, Arthur Adams seems to be the pioneer of “spaghetti” webbing (distinctly visible on the Longshot cover, Web Annual #2 page 17 and elsewhere in that book), expanded the range of exaggerated poses, utilized big eyes on the mask which change to indicate emotion, drew human characters in a cartoonish fashion in contrast to the usual house style, added more webs to the pattern of the old red-and-blue costume, and made the black costume seem more menacing (at least in my eyes).

Web Annual #2 and Longshot #4 have always seemed (to me) to be the Bible that McFarlane started quoting from in ASM #298 (March 1988).  To McFarlane’s (considerable) credit, he picked great source material and then dialed it all the way to 11 while making it his own.  And he had the (considerable) guts to do it at a time when Marvel’s art was terribly static & boring at best and, at worst, consistently reached all-new low points each month (I had quit buying the new issues almost a year before ASM #298).

Pretty convincing argument. And you can see that Adams. himself, was emulating Sienkiewicz a bit in those pages.

Edited June 29, 2017 by PhilipB2k17