• When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.

The Official Feb 22-24 Heritage Auction Thread
4 4

Started by jjonahjameson11,

552 posts in this topic

jjonahjameson11

jjonahjameson11

Posted
  • Author
Posted
1 hour ago, Rick2you2 said:

I was wondering what is driving the bidding on this one: 

John Byrne Wonder Woman V2#108 Story Page Original Art (DC, 1996)....   

Right now, bidding is at $440 plus buyer's premium. In 2009, the same piece went for $107.55, with the BP. It's not an action shot, although it does have WW in it (with a mediocre Phantom Stranger image), and the art is nice. But that's quite an increase, even if WW art is hot these days, particularly with the closing so far away. And if anyone is wondering, I'm not one of the bidders.

 

I think you've answered your own question

Link to comment
Share on other sites
vodou

vodou

Posted
Posted
3 hours ago, Rick2you2 said:

I was wondering what is driving the bidding on this one: 

John Byrne Wonder Woman V2#108 Story Page Original Art (DC, 1996)....   

Right now, bidding is at $440 plus buyer's premium. In 2009, the same piece went for $107.55, with the BP. It's not an action shot, although it does have WW in it (with a mediocre Phantom Stranger image), and the art is nice. But that's quite an increase, even if WW art is hot these days, particularly with the closing so far away. And if anyone is wondering, I'm not one of the bidders.

 

 

1 hour ago, jjonahjameson11 said:

I think you've answered your own question

And I remember when Conrad Eschenberg was selling his Byrne WW covers for $500 and I got mine from Jim Warden for only $300...in 1998. That information has just as much to do with today's Byrne WW cover market as your 2009 data and a barely Phantom Stranger appearance has to do with this auction lot's current bid and final hammer ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
malvin

malvin

Posted
Posted
4 minutes ago, vodou said:

 

And I remember when Conrad Eschenberg was selling his Byrne WW covers for $500 and I got mine from Jim Warden for only $300...in 1998. That information has just as much to do with today's Byrne WW cover market as your 2009 data and a barely Phantom Stranger appearance has to do with this auction lot's current bid and final hammer ;)

yeah, I wasn't sure what the 2009 sale price had to do with anything either.

Malvin

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Greenlake

Greenlake

Posted
Posted (edited)
5 hours ago, Rick2you2 said:

I was wondering what is driving the bidding on this one: 

John Byrne Wonder Woman V2#108 Story Page Original Art (DC, 1996)....   

Right now, bidding is at $440 plus buyer's premium. In 2009, the same piece went for $107.55, with the BP. It's not an action shot, although it does have WW in it (with a mediocre Phantom Stranger image), and the art is nice. But that's quite an increase, even if WW art is hot these days, particularly with the closing so far away. And if anyone is wondering, I'm not one of the bidders.

 

Hopefully it's just two people who got into it early, though it would be kind of funny if someone's trying to prop up a market for 90s Byrne Wonder Woman.

(FWIW, I'm leading on a couple of other WW pieces but am not a bidder on this.)

Edited by Greenlake
Link to comment
Share on other sites
BCarter27

BCarter27

Posted
Posted
5 hours ago, Rick2you2 said:

I was wondering what is driving the bidding on this one: 

John Byrne Wonder Woman V2#108 Story Page Original Art (DC, 1996)....   

Right now, bidding is at $440 plus buyer's premium. In 2009, the same piece went for $107.55, with the BP. It's not an action shot, although it does have WW in it (with a mediocre Phantom Stranger image), and the art is nice. But that's quite an increase, even if WW art is hot these days, particularly with the closing so far away. And if anyone is wondering, I'm not one of the bidders.

 

Scribbly 2000s Byrne is not my favorite Byrne. (Was he inking his own stuff during the whole WW run?) But it's a decent shot of WW in two panels, I guess. The question is...

Is this the Byrne bump or the WW bump in effect? Or is it all just the Heritage bump?

If I saw this at a show, I wouldn't pay more than $350 for it. I think this is an example of somebody ticking off boxes in their head rather than looking at the art.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rick2you2

Rick2you2

Posted
Posted
4 hours ago, malvin said:

yeah, I wasn't sure what the 2009 sale price had to do with anything either.

Malvin

You work with what you've got, and that's what  found.

I probably should have mentioned that more recent Byrne WW pieces which are significantly better are still proportionately low compared to this one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rick2you2

Rick2you2

Posted
Posted
3 hours ago, BCarter27 said:

Scribbly 2000s Byrne is not my favorite Byrne. (Was he inking his own stuff during the whole WW run?) But it's a decent shot of WW in two panels, I guess. The question is...

Is this the Byrne bump or the WW bump in effect? Or is it all just the Heritage bump?

If I saw this at a show, I wouldn't pay more than $350 for it. I think this is an example of somebody ticking off boxes in their head rather than looking at the art.

That was my feeling, too, particularly when I looked around at the market. That's why I asked the question: this didn't make sense. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
vodou

vodou

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, Rick2you2 said:

You work with what you've got, and that's what  found.

I probably should have mentioned that more recent Byrne WW pieces which are significantly better are still proportionately low compared to this one.

Not when it's irrelevant, then you just throw it out. However your second liine, I'm not fact-checking though, if true is more pertinent. Maybe this page/issue is special to two bidders for some reason or somebodys will be watching the Superbowl tomorrow night and drinking excessively with friends...wife makes them put their full bid in early and takes their phone away during the game?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bronty

Bronty

Posted
Posted
12 hours ago, tth2 said:

But... but.. he said so publicly on these Boards! 

Oh he’s hardly the only one.   Just meant it as a general comment ;) not directed at him or anyone in particular

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rick2you2

Rick2you2

Posted
Posted
14 hours ago, vodou said:

Not when it's irrelevant, then you just throw it out. However your second liine, I'm not fact-checking though, if true is more pertinent. Maybe this page/issue is special to two bidders for some reason or somebodys will be watching the Superbowl tomorrow night and drinking excessively with friends...wife makes them put their full bid in early and takes their phone away during the game?

I don't think a 400-500% increase since 2009 is irrelevant. I did, however, take a second look at the Heritage pieces and I probably should not have been too emphatic. There are better pieces after 2009 which are more money, and newer than 2009 pieces which are less money (but also mediocre). I still think the piece is moving the market if it keeps going up, but it's not all that clear from the limited sample.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
jjonahjameson11

jjonahjameson11

Posted
  • Author
Posted

I want to switch gears a bit and focus on offerings from 'The Studio' artists in this auction...Jones, Kaluta, Smith, and Wrightson!

Link to comment
Share on other sites
vodou

vodou

Posted
Posted
3 hours ago, Rick2you2 said:

I don't think a 400-500% increase since 2009 is irrelevant. I did, however, take a second look at the Heritage pieces and I probably should not have been too emphatic. There are better pieces after 2009 which are more money, and newer than 2009 pieces which are less money (but also mediocre). I still think the piece is moving the market if it keeps going up, but it's not all that clear from the limited sample.

That % delta is insignificant in the under-$1k category. Seriously, anybody with even a limited financial background understands the problem of scalability (and thus the reverse of it too). And I think you already know this but didn't apply it to this case. Turning $100 into $500 over several (but not many years)...ez, 10,000 into 50,000 much harder (but not impossible, certainly not in hot-hot-hot mainstream superhero comic art!) This problem is why professional money managers close funds, limit withdrawals and the like. No matter how good you are, how good your opportunities, it gets impossible to duplicate that success (if you will) the longer the timespan and the bigger the pool of money you throw at it. The reality is this piece was $200 the day after it sold, that guy got a pretty good deal and should have doubled himself, if that's all that as about. Maybe he like it, wanted it, and held it for all these years though. Bad move...he watered down his ROI big time lol

Let's turn this on it's ear: what would you think of somebody (me) turning $75 into $350 same day? That's nearly 500% x 365 annualized. LOL. And doing so regularly. Wrap your head around that. Does that make one a financial genius, should I start writing books and book speaking engagements and selling out convention halls or...whatevs? (I'm going with whatevs, to keep my ego in check if nothing else!!) Trust me, it's actually just as irrelevant a data point beyond the exact example itself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rick2you2

Rick2you2

Posted
Posted
19 hours ago, vodou said:

That % delta is insignificant in the under-$1k category. Seriously, anybody with even a limited financial background understands the problem of scalability (and thus the reverse of it too). And I think you already know this but didn't apply it to this case. Turning $100 into $500 over several (but not many years)...ez, 10,000 into 50,000 much harder (but not impossible, certainly not in hot-hot-hot mainstream superhero comic art!) This problem is why professional money managers close funds, limit withdrawals and the like. No matter how good you are, how good your opportunities, it gets impossible to duplicate that success (if you will) the longer the timespan and the bigger the pool of money you throw at it. The reality is this piece was $200 the day after it sold, that guy got a pretty good deal and should have doubled himself, if that's all that as about. Maybe he like it, wanted it, and held it for all these years though. Bad move...he watered down his ROI big time lol

Let's turn this on it's ear: what would you think of somebody (me) turning $75 into $350 same day? That's nearly 500% x 365 annualized. LOL. And doing so regularly. Wrap your head around that. Does that make one a financial genius, should I start writing books and book speaking engagements and selling out convention halls or...whatevs? (I'm going with whatevs, to keep my ego in check if nothing else!!) Trust me, it's actually just as irrelevant a data point beyond the exact example itself.

As applied to this transaction, I see your point.

In the broader scheme, however, quite a few business models do well by making a small profit on a large number of transactions. Look at supermarkets. There are also some dealers like Anthonys who, I am guessing, make most of their money moving large numbers of smaller items at a lower profit margin than some of the others. 

A rising tide lifts all boats. I guess that's the best answer to why this piece is going up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
vodou

vodou

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, Rick2you2 said:

As applied to this transaction, I see your point.

In the broader scheme, however, quite a few business models do well by making a small profit on a large number of transactions. Look at supermarkets. There are also some dealers like Anthonys who, I am guessing, make most of their money moving large numbers of smaller items at a lower profit margin than some of the others. 

A rising tide lifts all boats. I guess that's the best answer to why this piece is going up.

Yes "rising tide" effect applies but also in comic art, at auction, for a specific piece, anomaly should not be ignored either. Step back and think of real estate - imagine the chaos if the entire country based their market (buying, selling, offers accepted and rejected against same) on a single family house transaction in Atlanta, GA that sold for 10x fmv expectations. One that just happened to be the former home of Adam Hughes and had original drawings (murals, really) of exceptionally sexy (and downright r- and x-rated sexual in many cases) situations covering all possible surfaces to a rabid AH! fan whose father is a Big Oil CEO (or is Elon Musk if you prefer ;) ). Obviously a ridiculously extreme example, but to make my point one that demonstrates how naive it is to even try to point to one before/after example and derive any sort of market logic/barometer/whathaveyou from it. We'll never get in the minds of two bidders pushing something much higher than recent comps, other similar examples in the same neighborhood (so to speak) for a lower fixed price, etc unless one or both of those parties decides to share "why" and isn't lying or lying by omission. Ah, what a read that all is, right? So much easier to just chalk it up to anomaly and move on. (At least until we see a number of other examples doing the same, see those 'same neighborhood' pieces all sell, see a trend developing.) Because of your very specific interest in Phantom Stranger (itself something of anomaly)...this is the only reason anybody is even looking, much, at this piece, beyond the highest bidder and under-bidder...everybody else is basically thinking "not a great piece, not a deal" and moving right by. As a generalization, naturally :)  Never forget that you yourself can/will also represent the anomaly interest, or an otherwise indeterminate aspect of it, where anybody else interested in this piece is comping/bidding based on Byrne, WW (how t/a is present? lol ), any villains present, key storyline page, etc. Pretty much nobody is thinking: WOWSERS!! finally that PS by Byrne in WW that I've been holding my breath two decades for!!!!!

Yes, there are two basic business models: commodity and luxury, each representing opposite ends of the market: sell a lot for a little and sell a little for a lot :) Any of the many times I've posted around here that there isn't enough arbitrage in comic art for me to play it that way anymore (and thus I've moved my arbitrage efforts elsewhere instead) it's because one can only sell for a little but cannot do it a lot. And you definitely can't sell a lot for a lot! Unless you're unloading a hoard developed at least ten and probably more like twenty or thirty years ago, proving my point: there aren't a "lot" of those either...those of us that have that ("old hoards") only have it once, and most not at all. Perhaps many pieces are present in that hoard, but as each one goes out...it cannot be replaced. A lousy business model then. Anthony is trying like heck to make it work, but his spread into comics and character collectibles (much like so many before him) speaks volumes (pun intended!) to how much he is not able to do it strictly in comic art. It just ain't happening, or at least not enough to cover his monthly nut and provide enough net income to meet his goal (assuming he has one larger than not going bankrupt!) None of us is privy to his internal financials, we have no idea what his margin is, what his debt service is, etc.

Knowing when to stop buying is just as important as knowing how to buy right to begin with. How to sell is much easier when it's a bull market, happy accidents, rising tide and all that ;) I like Anthony and wish him the best (for sure), but to some extent I'm also watching him as a barometer of the entire comics/OA "thing", to see if/when he falters, starts slashing prices, stops buying up collections and artists estates, because that will be the sign that he's hit a liquidity crunch and well...it will cascade outward.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rick2you2

Rick2you2

Posted
Posted
10 hours ago, vodou said:

WOWSERS!! finally that PS by Byrne in WW that I've been holding my breath two decades for!!!!!

Just to be clear, there is a lot of PS stuff I don't buy--including that Neal Adams piece someone bought and is now trying to flip. That's one reason I like commissions You can get good stuff by good artists. (By the way, I have a twice up pencil drawing of his, with Rubenstein on inks, so I wasn't that hungry for it). On rare occasions, I have also branched out, but there is usually a specific reason. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
vodou

vodou

Posted
Posted
36 minutes ago, Rick2you2 said:

Just to be clear, there is a lot of PS stuff I don't buy--including that Neal Adams piece someone bought and is now trying to flip. That's one reason I like commissions You can get good stuff by good artists. (By the way, I have a twice up pencil drawing of his, with Rubenstein on inks, so I wasn't that hungry for it). On rare occasions, I have also branched out, but there is usually a specific reason. 

 

Sure, my comment wasn't to say that you were WOWSERS!! either, just that if anybody was (for PS on that piece) it was you, and only you. I'm sure PS (a search trigger perhaps?) is why it caught your attention to begin with, no?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rick2you2

Rick2you2

Posted
Posted
36 minutes ago, vodou said:

Sure, my comment wasn't to say that you were WOWSERS!! either, just that if anybody was (for PS on that piece) it was you, and only you. I'm sure PS (a search trigger perhaps?) is why it caught your attention to begin with, no?

Believe it or not, there is at least one other person who also collects to this character, and some others who collect to the DC supernatural line. 

One thing I don't just do, however, is check for the name. Not everyone who posts art includes all the characters in a page. So, I gotta look around. 

For all it's worth, I also like ACG's Nemesis (only have one). The art isn't so hot, but some of the dialog and scenes are hilarious. If you weren't familiar with the character, which is from the 1960's, visualize a cross between a low powered Spectre and  a 1960's sitcom.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites
delekkerste

delekkerste

Posted
Posted (edited)
4 hours ago, Bronty said:

I'd guess that has a long way to go still

Yeah, $20K is not even on the same continent as to where this one should end up.  

The supply of great Stevens GGA covers has dried up.  What would it take to pry something loose from the Estate nowadays?  Or from someone like myself, Hari, Albert, etc.?  I think a lot of collectors' thinking on Stevens GGA covers (especially from the '80s; this Vampi is from the '90s) is stuck back around 4-5 years ago, since we've barely seen anything hit the market since then.  I may be talking my book a little, but, I think a lot of this material is now in the high 5 or even low 6-figure range in the current market environment.  Or, at least, that's what it would probably take to pry loose one of these covers from someone's collection (much as no one seems to be willing to sell a Byrne X-Men cover for less than $250K, even if some of them "should" sell for $150-$175K).   

Edited by delekkerste
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
4 4
Go to topic listing