Official November 2017 heritage auction thread 3 3

[comix4fun]

19 minutes ago, PhilipB2k17 said:

You are letting the tale wag the dog. The reason why those comics (like X-Men #1, and TMNT #1) are worth so much is precisely because they are key books, and are scarce (overall in the TMNT #1 case) or in high grades (in X-Men's case).

The books are valuable in large part for the same reasons the art is valuable. That's why it's not unfair to look at the value of the book the art is from as a means of gauging its overall value. I did say that it was not entirely the same. There certainly is a lot of OA that is valuable that does not come from a comic that is also valuable. But, that is usually because of some other aspect of the art aside from its "keyness," such as the artist, and the aethsetic value of the piece, the character portrayed, etc.

And, if we are going strictly on monetary lines, it is possible that all the KLH art, including the covers, may value out more if sold entirely than the #TMNT pages, but I'd still rather have the TMNT #1 pages.

And, did that TMNT art include the cover? Because that makes a big difference. That may be worth all of the interior pages combined, or more.

Well, it would probably help the discussion if we were both on the same footing with the basic parameters of what's being talked about.

Yes, it's the cover and all pages for both piles of artwork. 

And the discussion thus far has fallen on the same lines as you state. One may or may not be worth more at this moment but personal choices may differ from straight market value. 

However, I really have to disagree about the conclusion you're making from the value of a comic book as something necessarily indicative of art value or desirability. We just can't look at a book's value in a vacuum and say "Oh, it's only selling for $100 in 9.8, the art's not worth much", which is why I said if TMNT #1 had a 500,000 copy print run like the ASM's in the Kraven's story you'd see copies of TMNT #1 sell for a fraction of its current value. However, given how important TMNT has become to the cultural landscape of the last 30+ years, the artwork to issue #1 would still be worth a massive amount. That's where the disconnect comes in the formula of "Comic is worth $X, Art has value attributable to $X" They run on parallel tracks that don't intersect. 

Take Watchmen artwork, or DKR artwork....MASSIVE print runs, tiny comic valuations (especially for Watchmen) but MASSIVE cultural  impact, MASSIVE amounts of fans, and equally MASSIVE long term comic art value. The scarcity of the books, their value in OSPG, is utterly meaningless under the weight of all the other factors. 

It's not the value of the comic that drives the value of the artwork upwards it's the broadness of appeal to the largest possible pool of potential fans and eventual purchasers that drives the prices for both. The value of the comic is strictly tied to the supply and demand of copies to the number of fans that want them. The same goes for artwork. It's a basic tenet of the collectibles valuation. 

 

Edited October 25, 2017 by comix4fun

[Pete Marino]

19 minutes ago, PhilipB2k17 said:

You are letting the tale wag the dog. The reason why those comics (like X-Men #1, and TMNT #1) are worth so much is precisely because they are key books, and are scarce (overall in the TMNT #1 case) or in high grades (in X-Men's case).

The books are valuable in large part for the same reasons the art is valuable. That's why it's not unfair to look at the value of the book the art is from as a means of gauging its overall value. I did say that it was not entirely the same. There certainly is a lot of OA that is valuable that does not come from a comic that is also valuable. But, that is usually because of some other aspect of the art aside from its "keyness," such as the artist, and the aethsetic value of the piece, the character portrayed, etc.

And, if we are going strictly on monetary lines, it is possible that all the KLH art, including the covers, may value out more if sold entirely than the #TMNT pages, but I'd still rather have the TMNT #1 pages.

And, did that TMNT art include the cover? Because that makes a big difference. That may be worth all of the interior pages combined, or more.

This only has marginal usefulness at best.

 

I can buy Superman 75 for about $1.  That has 0 bearing on the price of the OA.

There are countless examples of dollar bin books with covers and interiors that would have huge values.

 

Edited October 25, 2017 by Pete Marino

[delekkerste]

1 hour ago, comix4fun said:

I really don't know any longstanding veterans in artwork that gauge their valuation of art by the valuation of the comic book. Artwork is key or it's not. 

You are right about that, and, the more recent you go (as with your DKR and Watchmen examples, for instance), the less relevant the value of the book is vis-a-vis the art.

That said, as my eyeballs roll into the back of my head looking at the current prices of AF #15s, I do think there is some merit in comparing the price of art vs. the price of books in some instances.  Not necessarily from the same books, but as a related, cross-collectible comp.  For example, an AF #15 8.0 sold for $261K this year (IIRC).  That's equal to or more than a lot of Ditko ASM splashes.  More than a lot of classic Spidey covers.  You can probably even buy a lesser Spidey twice-up cover for that price.  And, because of sales like these, someone is trying to sell a 7.5 (of which there are 40 Universal labels in the Census, plus another 3 Sig Series) for the low $200Ks (I forget the exact price...$210K?  $220K?), which is not out of line with the 8.0 sale.  That's more than some of the most iconic small art Spidey covers would fetch, including my recent ASM #98 cover purchase.  Not that I, for example, as an art collector, am at all interested in owning an AF #15.  But, I do think there is some merit in comparing these prices.  To me, the thought that a 7.5 AF #15 could be worth more than the Spidey #98 cover is  and I think it's a valid debate to compare the relative merits/scarcity/value of the two collectibles. 

(Not that I don't understand that some prefer comics over art - it's different strokes for different folks.  We all grew up coveting the actual comics as kids, not the original art.  So I'm not saying that the latter is inherently better.  I mean, if you were talking a 9.0 AF #15 vs. a great Spidey OA cover, I think that's a real comparison.  But 7.5s fetching more than classic pre-#100 ASM covers and 8.0s fetching Ditko splash and lesser twice-up ASM cover money?  Ridiculous, IMO.)  

All of which is a long-winded way of saying that I think it's not always irrelevant to compare the price of comics and art, or, indeed, of any other thing that might have broad appeal in the same price range, for that matter.   

[comix4fun]

3 minutes ago, delekkerste said:

 

All of which is a long-winded way of saying that I think it's not always irrelevant to compare the price of comics and art, or, indeed, of any other thing that might have broad appeal in the same price range, for that matter.   

It's not just the comparison i was referring to, it's the correlation drawn between price of comic to price of art, as if one's a driver of the other when they are both being driven by their individual markets and their individual supply/demand dynamics. 

 

[delekkerste]

2 minutes ago, comix4fun said:

It's not just the comparison i was referring to, it's the correlation drawn between price of comic to price of art, as if one's a driver of the other when they are both being driven by their individual markets and their individual supply/demand dynamics. 

 

Which I agree with. 

[PhilipB2k17]

1 hour ago, comix4fun said:

Well, it would probably help the discussion if we were both on the same footing with the basic parameters of what's being talked about.

Yes, it's the cover and all pages for both piles of artwork. 

And the discussion thus far has fallen on the same lines as you state. One may or may not be worth more at this moment but personal choices may differ from straight market value. 

However, I really have to disagree about the conclusion you're making from the value of a comic book as something necessarily indicative of art value or desirability. We just can't look at a book's value in a vacuum and say "Oh, it's only selling for $100 in 9.8, the art's not worth much", which is why I said if TMNT #1 had a 500,000 copy print run like the ASM's in the Kraven's story you'd see copies of TMNT #1 sell for a fraction of its current value. However, given how important TMNT has become to the cultural landscape of the last 30+ years, the artwork to issue #1 would still be worth a massive amount. That's where the disconnect comes in the formula of "Comic is worth $X, Art has value attributable to $X" They run on parallel tracks that don't intersect. 

Take Watchmen artwork, or DKR artwork....MASSIVE print runs, tiny comic valuations (especially for Watchmen) but MASSIVE cultural  impact, MASSIVE amounts of fans, and equally MASSIVE long term comic art value. The scarcity of the books, their value in OSPG, is utterly meaningless under the weight of all the other factors. 

It's not the value of the comic that drives the value of the artwork upwards it's the broadness of appeal to the largest possible pool of potential fans and eventual purchasers that drives the prices for both. The value of the comic is strictly tied to the supply and demand of copies to the number of fans that want them. The same goes for artwork. It's a basic tenet of the collectibles valuation. 

 

I probably didn't articulate my point very well, so I apologize for that. I don't actually disagree with you on this most recent point. The (over?)simplification of my argument is thus: The OA from all valuable comics will be valuable, but not all valuable OA will come from valuable comics.

And if you did a chart graph of the value of an important/key comic and the value of its OA over time, I suspect you will see a roughly parallel value track. Maybe even a spike for the OA, which would probably track closer to the value of a 9.8+ graded example of the comic its published in.

This is because the value of the comic, and the value of the OA from it in the former example, are increasing for mostly the same reasons.

That being said, I still believe that KLH is 3rd or 4th tier Spider-Man art, as compared to the literally most important TMNT art.

[PhilipB2k17]

45 minutes ago, comix4fun said:

It's not just the comparison i was referring to, it's the correlation drawn between price of comic to price of art, as if one's a driver of the other when they are both being driven by their individual markets and their individual supply/demand dynamics. 

 

Which is too neat a distinction, because those two things have a LOT of overlap.

[PhilipB2k17]

52 minutes ago, delekkerste said:

You are right about that, and, the more recent you go (as with your DKR and Watchmen examples, for instance), the less relevant the value of the book is vis-a-vis the art.

That said, as my eyeballs roll into the back of my head looking at the current prices of AF #15s, I do think there is some merit in comparing the price of art vs. the price of books in some instances.  Not necessarily from the same books, but as a related, cross-collectible comp.  For example, an AF #15 8.0 sold for $261K this year (IIRC).  That's equal to or more than a lot of Ditko ASM splashes.  More than a lot of classic Spidey covers.  You can probably even buy a lesser Spidey twice-up cover for that price.  And, because of sales like these, someone is trying to sell a 7.5 (of which there are 40 Universal labels in the Census, plus another 3 Sig Series) for the low $200Ks (I forget the exact price...$210K?  $220K?), which is not out of line with the 8.0 sale.  That's more than some of the most iconic small art Spidey covers would fetch, including my recent ASM #98 cover purchase.  Not that I, for example, as an art collector, am at all interested in owning an AF #15.  But, I do think there is some merit in comparing these prices.  To me, the thought that a 7.5 AF #15 could be worth more than the Spidey #98 cover is  and I think it's a valid debate to compare the relative merits/scarcity/value of the two collectibles. 

(Not that I don't understand that some prefer comics over art - it's different strokes for different folks.  We all grew up coveting the actual comics as kids, not the original art.  So I'm not saying that the latter is inherently better.  I mean, if you were talking a 9.0 AF #15 vs. a great Spidey OA cover, I think that's a real comparison.  But 7.5s fetching more than classic pre-#100 ASM covers and 8.0s fetching Ditko splash and lesser twice-up ASM cover money?  Ridiculous, IMO.)  

All of which is a long-winded way of saying that I think it's not always irrelevant to compare the price of comics and art, or, indeed, of any other thing that might have broad appeal in the same price range, for that matter.   

One could also take this example and argue that Ditko spidey art (and some Romita covers) might be relatively undervalued, and believe there is a lot of room for price appreciation. Or, it is possible that AF #15 is overvalued, certainly.

My point is that seeing this kind of disparity is one piece of information you can use.

As for modern art, there is some degree of speculation going on, as people are trying to buy the next Preacher or Walking Dead, etc, pages "cheap" before the value explosion. Not everyone, of course, but, just enough to drive the prices up beyond where they might have been a couple years ago on some newer books.

[PhilipB2k17]

1 hour ago, Pete Marino said:

This only has marginal usefulness at best.

 

I can buy Superman 75 for about $1.  That has 0 bearing on the price of the OA.

There are countless examples of dollar bin books with covers and interiors that would have huge values.

 

And you can buy Batman: White Knight for cover price right now. Yet, how much is the art selling for? Like I said, I don't disagree with you.

But, does anyone disagree with the proposition that: All original art from valuable comic books is valuable?

 

 

Edited October 25, 2017 by PhilipB2k17

[comix4fun]

2 minutes ago, PhilipB2k17 said:

Which is too neat a distinction, because those two things have a LOT of overlap.

There's coincidence or concurrent valuations and there's correlation. 

The same things that drive the value of a comic (Quality, cultural impact, demand, supply) also drive the value of Comic art, to be sure, they just don't impact each other's values.

From my time and experience in both hobbies there just isn't at much cross-participation (or interest or market influence) between the two sides of the comic hobby (art and the books themselves) as casual expectation might infer. And there's certainly not enough information to infer that a comic being worth $X alone impacts the value of artwork , or vice versa. The same market factors cause each, the comic and the art, to increase in value but they really aren't directly hitting the other as a direct influence to prices.

The price of each is the effect of the quality of the story, nostalgia, long lasting cultural impact, indelible place in pop-culture, and wide-spread appeal vs. supply....their places in the hierarchy are well established in such a way that people spending 4-5-6 figures are really not saying "Oh, that Kraven book is only worth $100 in 9.8....so the art isn't worth anything to me." or in reverse "Oh, people really want that X-men #1 comic, I guess the artwork is worth something."  These are established and separate markets.

[PhilipB2k17]

2 minutes ago, comix4fun said:

There's coincidence or concurrent valuations and there's correlation. 

The same things that drive the value of a comic (Quality, cultural impact, demand, supply) also drive the value of Comic art, to be sure, they just don't impact each other's values.

From my time and experience in both hobbies there just isn't at much cross-participation (or interest or market influence) between the two sides of the comic hobby (art and the books themselves) as casual expectation might infer. And there's certainly not enough information to infer that a comic being worth $X alone impacts the value of artwork , or vice versa. The same market factors cause each, the comic and the art, to increase in value but they really aren't directly hitting the other as a direct influence to prices.

The price of each is the effect of the quality of the story, nostalgia, long lasting cultural impact, indelible place in pop-culture, and wide-spread appeal vs. supply....their places in the hierarchy are well established in such a way that people spending 4-5-6 figures are really not saying "Oh, that Kraven book is only worth $100 in 9.8....so the art isn't worth anything to me." or in reverse "Oh, people really want that X-men #1 comic, I guess the artwork is worth something."  These are established and separate markets.

But, because the variables that drive value in both markets have so much overlap, the price increase track should also be similar. The price of a comic doesn't necessarily drive the value of the art from it, but it should track somewhat (if it is a valuable, key book).

[comix4fun]

6 minutes ago, PhilipB2k17 said:

And you can buy Batman: White Knight for cover price right now. Yet, how much is the art selling for? Like I said, I don't disagree with you.

But, does anyone disagree with the proposition that: All original art from valuable comic books is valuable?

 

 

Of course not. The disagreement comes from ascribing the value of the art to the value of the comic when it's really something entirely separate driving the value of both in the same way. The story, characters, and how well established or culturally impactful they have been are what makes each valuable...not their relative value to one another. Where the values diverge is supply and demand of the issues.

Inexpensive comic books are inexpensive because there are enough copies to sate demand, not because they are necessarily of a lesser quality than expensive books.

They can and did print comics into the millions of copies for some books. That will perpetually limit how much some comics (no matter how great, not special, how lasting in impact) will ever be worth, whereas there is always only one of any given piece of art. It skews the supply-demand model in such a way that makes them incomparable with each other. 

 

[Pete Marino]

46 minutes ago, PhilipB2k17 said:

And you can buy Batman: White Knight for cover price right now. Yet, how much is the art selling for? Like I said, I don't disagree with you.

But, does anyone disagree with the proposition that: All original art from valuable comic books is valuable?

 

 

Sure pages can get a bump from being in a key, but it's not an astronomical multiplier.

An Aunt May page in ASM 300 is not going to be that much more expensive than an Aunt May page in ASM 303.

But it's not like a spidey fight page in ASM 303 is going to go for less than an aunt may page in ASM 300. 

In OA, content is king.  UXM 266 is a key, and gets crazy prices for the quality of the art (IMO) but those pages still go for less than the average Jim Lee page from that same era.  Plus is Gambit is not on the panel in 266, very few want those pages at all.

Edited October 25, 2017 by Pete Marino

[Bronty]

43 minutes ago, PhilipB2k17 said:

But, because the variables that drive value in both markets have so much overlap, the price increase track should also be similar. The price of a comic doesn't necessarily drive the value of the art from it, but it should track somewhat (if it is a valuable, key book).

totally apples and oranges, but a better comparison if you were going to use one (I wouldn't) would be the market cap of the book (# in existence x price per copy) as opposed to the price of a single copy.     That's a greater indicator of whether or not the market thinks the comic has any significance.

 

Edited October 25, 2017 by Bronty

[PhilipB2k17]

1 hour ago, Pete Marino said:

Sure pages can get a bump from being in a key, but it's not an astronomical multiplier.

An Aunt May page in ASM 300 is not going to be that much more expensive than an Aunt May page in ASM 303.

But it's not like a spidey fight page in ASM 303 is going to go for less than an aunt may page in ASM 300. 

In OA, content is king.  UXM 266 is a key, and gets crazy prices for the quality of the art (IMO) but those pages still go for less than the average Jim Lee page from that same era.  Plus is Gambit is not on the panel in 266, very few want those pages at all.

It's a hypothetical, but all else being equal, would you rather have an Aunt May page from ASM #300, or #ASM #303? I'd guess the former, 9 times out of 10.

 

[PhilipB2k17]

1 hour ago, Pete Marino said:

Sure pages can get a bump from being in a key, but it's not an astronomical multiplier.

An Aunt May page in ASM 300 is not going to be that much more expensive than an Aunt May page in ASM 303.

But it's not like a spidey fight page in ASM 303 is going to go for less than an aunt may page in ASM 300. 

In OA, content is king.  UXM 266 is a key, and gets crazy prices for the quality of the art (IMO) but those pages still go for less than the average Jim Lee page from that same era.  Plus is Gambit is not on the panel in 266, very few want those pages at all.

It also depends on the Key.

A Sticky-Mitt Stimson page from Action Comics #1 (if it hypothetically existed) is probably going to be more valuable than a Wayne Boring superman page from Action Comics #146, just because its from Action #1. But that would be an extreme example.

[GreatEscape]

Great discussion.  

Edited October 25, 2017 by GreatEscape

[Mephisto]

7 hours ago, PhilipB2k17 said:

I'd take TNT #1 art in a heart beat. "Kraven's Last Hunt" only appeals strongly to a narrow group of nostalgia collectors who read the story at the time. When and if it ever gets turned into a film property, it may break out of that range. But the TMNT #1 art should trade at about the same rate as a 9.0+ copy of the book, per page. How much is a 9.8 Kraven's last hunt run?

Not true at all. I was 4 when that story line came out and didn’t read it till the late 90s. It remains one of my favorite super hero storylines along with the Starlin Warlock run.

[comiconxion]

Gene - Sorry, I missed the big Zeck get together in NY.  Hopefully everyone showed up with a copy of their Mike Zeck Artists Edition or Raw Fury exhibit book to facilitate the riot that I'm sure ensued.  If you give me more notice next time, I'm happy to organize another exhibit of Zeck's best art and maybe even convince Mike to show up so he can tell stories of how he sold all his covers for $40-50 back in the 80's!  

Apologies to anyone who I inadvertently angered by collecting Zeck's art.  If only Mike weren't such a nice guy as well as great artist!  As Michael mentions... there still is more Zeck art out there.  I don't have it all and I've tried my best to part with some pieces over the last few years (I don't want to be a complete hoarder).  

On a serious note though, I'm actually really glad we got an opportunity to display all 6 of the Kraven covers when they were together at the Cartoon Art Museum in SF back in 2014 and include them in the Zeck Artists Edition.  Now, at least collectors can appreciate the art in all its glory.  

Congratulations to Heritage on getting such an Zeck historic piece to auction.   And, congratulations to whoever the lucky winner will be!

Edited October 26, 2017 by comiconxion

[Pete Marino]

15 hours ago, Bill C said:

Wow, over 1.5K tonight at HA for the New Warriors #4 splash. Nice size panel with the full team, but curious if this price sounds normal to those who collect this stuff.

I don't have any New Warriors art, but i thought it was cool as a kid, so i keep an eye on those pages from time to time.  FWIW, I thought $1500 was going to be about the hammer on the page.  It's a really well done page, every main character, a title splash, heroic poses.  If someone was looking for their singular example, I'd say that was a great get.