Hey, Krazy Kat.....

[Red Hook]

So who would want to spend real money on beat up art that's half photostats and half brown dried up rubber cement? Money is much better spent on comics.

[Red Hook]

[Red Hook]

You agree, right?

[Red Hook]

[deathlok]

[heartened]

Hi Red Hook,

 

Was there a specific example that you are talking about, or just trying to bait KK? Personally, I agree that condition matters quite a bit to me when it comes to original art, but not as much as it does to those who collect comic books. When I was collecting comic books, condition was the #1 most important thing to me when searching out a specific book.

 

I, for one, will spend less on a piece of original art if it has significant condition issues that detract from its beauty, even if it's a piece of art that I truly covet.

[Red Hook]

Actually, I was repaying KK for spreading His Blockheadedness around the boards today, but seroiusly, the condition of the art would be a big deal to me, unless it was a major key. I've seen some pug-ugly OA that I wouldn't touch with a ten-foot pole at any price.

[heartened]

I totally agree. This is especially the case with 70s art, where oftentimes there were so many stats, paste-ons, white-out and yellowing that the entire piece becomes really an eye-sore to look at. Some collectors who grew up during that period will pay whatever it takes to get them, but not me!

 

Art from the 60s, 80s, and 90s seems to have been produced better, and therefore has held up better over time.

[krazykat-migration]

I dont mind pieces that arent 100 % Mint. This is not a comic book we are talking about for Pete's sake. This fact continually gets lost on alotta comic collectors.

 

Original Art is one of a kind !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

If for some reason the Cover to ASM # 3 were to have a bunch of glue stains, was matted,....and even had a minimal stat (less than 10 % of the art),..I wouldnt mind one bit.

 

It is,..what it is.

 

Just the fact that a piece has survived is a miracle in-itself.

 

THATS THE BEAUTY OF OA....AND IM WILLING TO BET TOP $$$ THATS THE TREND OF THE FUTURE.

 

KK

[westform]

I totally agree. This is especially the case with 70s art, where oftentimes there were so many stats, paste-ons, white-out and yellowing that the entire piece becomes really an eye-sore to look at. Some collectors who grew up during that period will pay whatever it takes to get them, but not me!

 

Art from the 60s, 80s, and 90s seems to have been produced better, and therefore has held up better over time.

 

I don't know about that Hari. I've seen many, many pieces of 60's cover art that were 'trashed'. A lot more of them however have been restored, repaired, etc. So, maybe overall they just look better. But, from what i've seen they didn't start that way.... and as an aside.... I've have seen some atrocious restoration jobs on art that have completely talked me out of ever owning them. I'd much rather have an unrestored piece, warts and all. DAn

[heartened]

Hi Dan,

 

I totally agree. I'd rather have an unrestored piece as well. That wasn't my point, of course. It just seemed like more art from the 70s (cover art) had stats and paste-ons that other eras, and thus they seem to be in worse shape. Since I don't believe in restoring things, I'm forced to take them or leave them as they are. And, personally, I tend to leave them. Not a difficult decision for me, since I grew up reading in the early 80s. I don't have any nostalgia for the 70s stuff.

 

Obviously, reading in the 70s, you are pulled by stronger nostalgia chords than I for that era.

[heartened]

I dont mind pieces that arent 100 % Mint. This is not a comic book we are talking about for Pete's sake. This fact continually gets lost on alotta comic collectors.

 

Original Art is one of a kind !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

If for some reason the Cover to ASM # 3 were to have a bunch of glue stains, was matted,....and even had a minimal stat (less than 10 % of the art),..I wouldnt mind one bit.

 

It is,..what it is.

 

Just the fact that a piece has survived is a miracle in-itself.

 

THATS THE BEAUTY OF OA....AND IM WILLING TO BET TOP $$$ THATS THE TREND OF THE FUTURE.

 

KK

 

Hi KK,

 

So you're telling me that you'd pay the same amount for the FF3 cover if it were in perfect condition as you would if it were partly stat, multiple stains, tons of caked on white-out, lots of yellowing, etc.? Condition doesn't affect art values in the same way as it affects comic books, not nearly so, but it does have SOME effect on value. Even a rare find like the cover to FF3 would be affected by condition to some extent. At the least, buyers would use it as a reason to try and get the seller to come down on price.

 

There's no question that had the Spidey 100 cover been in better condition, it would have gone for a higher amount. I don't know what the ultimate sale price was, but I do know that I and several other people would have thrown in bids if it were in better shape. Thus, there's a good chance that the final hammer price would have been higher. Certainly, you wouldn't argue that condition affects overall demand, even if it doesn't and cannot affect supply. Yes, they are one-of-a-kind, which inherently limits supply, but the demand part can be increased or decreased based on several factors, one of which is condition.

[westform]

Hi Dan,

 

I totally agree. I'd rather have an unrestored piece as well. That wasn't my point, of course. It just seemed like more art from the 70s (cover art) had stats and paste-ons that other eras, and thus they seem to be in worse shape. Since I don't believe in restoring things, I'm forced to take them or leave them as they are. And, personally, I tend to leave them. Not a difficult decision for me, since I grew up reading in the early 80s. I don't have any nostalgia for the 70s stuff.

 

Obviously, reading in the 70s, you are pulled by stronger nostalgia chords than I for that era.

Hari; yes, I collect nothing after 1978, so I'd sure say I was 'rooted' in the 70's. Of course, I have lots from the 40's thru 60's too! But, I'm just saying that most of the pieces I've seen restored are from the 60's. I see lots of immaculate covers from that time, but they are restored. The one's that aren't seem to be as bad or worse conditionwise than 70's covers. Dan

[heartened]

Hi Dan,

 

I totally agree. I'd rather have an unrestored piece as well. That wasn't my point, of course. It just seemed like more art from the 70s (cover art) had stats and paste-ons that other eras, and thus they seem to be in worse shape. Since I don't believe in restoring things, I'm forced to take them or leave them as they are. And, personally, I tend to leave them. Not a difficult decision for me, since I grew up reading in the early 80s. I don't have any nostalgia for the 70s stuff.

 

Obviously, reading in the 70s, you are pulled by stronger nostalgia chords than I for that era.

Hari; yes, I collect nothing after 1978, so I'd sure say I was 'rooted' in the 70's. Of course, I have lots from the 40's thru 60's too! But, I'm just saying that most of the pieces I've seen restored are from the 60's. I see lots of immaculate covers from that time, but they are restored. The one's that aren't seem to be as bad or worse conditionwise than 70's covers. Dan

 

Hi Dan,

 

You may be right. Most of the ones I've seen seemed to be in pretty good condition, but they certainly could have been restored already.