Profiles in History Dec 2019 2 2

[artdealer]

9 minutes ago, delekkerste said:

I just got the sale catalog and am wondering if anyone has seen the Frankenstein wraparound cover in person recently?  Because it looks very clean/white in the digital PDF catalog for the sale, but, looks like it's been hanging out in the tanning salon a bit too much in the physical catalog:

When I originally sold it for Bernie, the art was off white. 

[The Voord]

Oh, Jeez, I'm only just opening up this PIH catalogue and I'm seeing five of my old EC stories plus two Ditko ASM pages I used to own, which included a Kurtzman EC War story.  Most of these I sold to an American collector named Jim Young who was working in London at the time he purchased art directly from me.  I got above FMV value for the art I sold at the time, though it will prove very interesting to me to see what they'll now fetch in auction.  My biggest regret, mentioned in another thread on these boards, is that I didn't keep one of those Ditko Spidey pages (maybe one day I'll find another . . . who knows?).  I haven't read all the small print of the auction, just flipped through the pages (and, in any case, the writing's too small).  If it's a one-man collection, it must be Jim's.  Nice guy, I met him a couple of times on trips to London.  A real blast from the past!

Edited November 22, 2019 by The Voord

[TheLostDreams]

I was blessed to be able to view this piece with the first owner and then the second owner...it looked incredible both times.  And the patina was about off-white when I viewed it with each owner...both displayed the piece out of direct sunlight.  I was even given a high quality giclée by the first owner which is pretty much like viewing the original given the resolution of the scanning that was done...definitely Bernie at the absolute peak of his abilities, skill and craft...  

[Cleangone]

Here's an in-person pic of the Wrightson at PIH, taken at an angle for obvious reasons (i.e. I'm not taking that thing out of the mylar... :)

The condition is not as bad as it looks online or the printed catalog, but it is noticeable.  It's something the buyer will have to come to terms with, and IMO, will affect the price.

[exitmusicblue]

At least it's not freakin' sepia/tan, phew!

[Bronty]

It is almost 40 years old now.    Time flies.

[ESeffinga]

Call me crazy, but this is especially one of those works where I feel like it looking like old paper makes it cooler. It ties into the time period, the content of the material, etc.

I get that it might not be ideal for posterity, or for folks that want their art to be all pristine, or would be worried about their investment's value... but right now I think it's neat looking.

 

And FWIW, neither of those reproductions seems to do it a lot of favors, but the PDF on the left is obviously closer than the printed catalog at right. It's getting harder to get good quality color printing these days. Especially in the subtleties of what are essentially neutral and off-white tones. It takes extra time and effort, and everyone tends to want fast and cheap, over accuracy so...

Edited November 26, 2019 by ESeffinga

[The Voord]

2 minutes ago, ESeffinga said:

Call me crazy, but this is especially one of those works where I feel like it looking like old paper makes it cooler. It ties into the time period, the content of the material, etc.

I get that it might not be ideal for posterity, or for folks that want their art to be all pristine, or would be worried about their investment's value... but right now I think it's neat looking.

Totally agree with you.

[NelsonAI]

This seems like a job for Rob Dennis.  

 

[vodou]

5 hours ago, NelsonAI said:

This seems like a job for Rob Dennis.  

 

I sure hope not. Bone white = just get a poster print for $100.

[Bronty]

9 hours ago, The Voord said:

Totally agree with you.

I hear what you guys are saying but I don’t agree, it’s turning a fair bit already, what will it look like in 20 years.   I wouldn’t mind hints of toning, and this isn’t horrible, but I’d prefer it was whiter. Of course it’s up to the guys bidding..:

[grapeape]

On 11/20/2019 at 8:06 AM, delekkerste said:

I just got the sale catalog and am wondering if anyone has seen the Frankenstein wraparound cover in person recently?  Because it looks very clean/white in the digital PDF catalog for the sale, but, looks like it's been hanging out in the tanning salon a bit too much in the physical catalog:

Orange is the new black and white 

[The Voord]

48 minutes ago, Bronty said:

I hear what you guys are saying but I don’t agree, it’s turning a fair bit already, what will it look like in 20 years.   I wouldn’t mind hints of toning, and this isn’t horrible, but I’d prefer it was whiter. Of course it’s up to the guys bidding..:

Nothing a bottle of concentrated bleach couldn't fix . . .

 

[ESeffinga]

Well if you can lighten it now, but it looks acceptable now, why not wait 20 years and see if it gets darker?

I have to imagine whatever tips and tricks Robert Dennis has now, someone will have even better archival ones 5, 10, 20 years from now.
Plus I still say it looks more "period" this way. I think the stark white version would not be an improvement (in my eyes). But as Bronty says, it's up to those bidders, not me. I can only say if I were spending this money, the toned paper would make me dig it more not less.

So easy to spend other people's money!

[Bronty]

Mental note:   Buy lemon juice to sell Eric artificially toned art 

 

 

Edited November 26, 2019 by Bronty

[BCarter27]

37 minutes ago, Bronty said:

Buy lemon juice to sell Eric artificially toned art

Tea baths are what all the cool forger kids are using. And props to Jeremy Bastian for "aging" his prints this way. Very cool.

[Taylor G]

I just wonder how it has been stored in the past.  Beyond the obvious damage from light, the evident tanning around the edges of that piece of art is a red flag, if it's an accurate depiction of its condition, it makes me wonder if they did something like use cardboard backing  when they framed it.

Apologies to the original consigner if this is not the case, I'm just going by what I see above.  I've just seen some atrocious amateur-hour framing of $$$ art.  We are after all only the curators for this art.

Edited November 26, 2019 by Taylor G

[Bronty]

1 minute ago, Taylor G said:

I just wonder how it has been stored in the past.  Beyond the obvious damage from light, the evident tanning around the edges of that piece of art is a red flag, if it's an accurate depiction of its condition, it makes me wonder if they did something like use cardboard backing  when they framed it.

Apologies to the original consigner if this is not the case, I'm just going by what I see above.  I've just seen some atrocious amateur-hour framing of $$$ art.  We are after all only the curators for this art.

Well, it was 1983.   I’ve yet to see a framing job from that era that didn’t use materials we wouldn’t approve of today.   

[aokartman]

To me, at my laptop, it looks like moderate aging and toning, no mat line.

Never framed?

Curious.

David

[ESeffinga]

Here’s a piece drawn on repurposed paper from the early 1800s.

https://www.comicartfans.com/gallerypiece.asp?piece=1328794

 

tje edges look like maybe they were in contact with a frame. They were not ever in contact with a mat or frame. It’s just the way some old acidic papers tend to tone. More along the edges. Some almost like there were mats there. 

So take that for what it’s worth...