Tom Morgan Punisher 2099 #1 auction result 0

[comix4fun]

On 12/23/2021 at 9:56 AM, Xatari said:

 

My thought process with any new addition is a follows: “Do I like the character(s)? Do I like the way the character is represented on the page? Does the piece have contextual importance to that character?”

I’m a “Character and Context” collector, and my pieces facilitate a connection with the character for me more than the artist, though both occur.

 

That's almost, word for word, exactly how I started in collecting OA. So, I understand completely. I'd been in comics from childhood and branched out to OA in my early 20's and I gravitated towards Hulk artwork. I had collected that title in comics and the progression seemed natural to artwork that way. I liked the character, I understood him well, I knew a lot of artists worked on the character and it was a fertile ground to collect a lot of different examples, eras, artists. I even had an artwork website (well before CAF existed) just for all my Hulk artwork. Eventually, over those first 7-10 years, other work caught my eye, which led me to the artists who created them, to appreciating the artists, to collecting those artists, etc. My focus kept evolving.

Then I broke up the band, so to speak, on Hulk artwork. A lot of that stuff worked in my (self-identified) art-collector-as-larvae stage but when I looked back on it some of it was, frankly, pretty ugly from an art standpoint. But it was easy to accumulate and not so much curate back in those days $20-100 published pieces everywhere. Towards the end of that "character driven" phase I was picking up pieces because they were Hulk primarily, without a real critical eye to aesthetic or quality, and it led to some "YIKES!" moments looking back through the portfolio.

I am not saying it's not impossible to stick with character-driven collecting but there's a danger there of not taking the quality of the work into account (maybe less so at today's prices which force a more deliberate pace) and I fell into that entirely on some work.
The stakes were much lower then, the late 80's and early 90's weren't a place you could get hurt on artwork purchases, at least not fatally, and even the fugly artwork appreciated as it was coming from a place of de minimis cost. 

It's the kind of progression a lot of my art collecting friends at the time went through. As collectors there's always a new shiny object on the horizon and where you end up as a collector bears almost no resemblance to the place you began. Guy who started as "I love the 80's titles" 20 years ago are now collecting Herriman or Schulz, and dozens of similar shifts. 

These days, though, you're right the cost of entrance to the hobby and these pieces demand a lot more care in decision making. What used to cost the same as a Hot Wheels car now costs the same as an actual car. 

Edited December 23, 2021 by comix4fun

[jsylvester]

On 12/23/2021 at 11:17 AM, comix4fun said:

That's almost, word for word, exactly how I started in collecting OA. So, I understand completely. I'd been in comics from childhood and branched out to OA in my early 20's and I gravitated towards Hulk artwork. I had collected that title in comics and the progression seemed natural to artwork that way. I liked the character, I understood him well, I knew a lot of artists worked on the character and it was a fertile ground to collect a lot of different examples, eras, artists. I even had an artwork website (well before CAF existed) just for all my Hulk artwork. Eventually, over those first 7-10 years, other work caught my eye, which led me to the artists who created them, to appreciating the artists, to collecting those artists, etc. My focus kept evolving.

Then I broke up the band, so to speak, on Hulk artwork. A lot of that stuff worked in my art-collector-as-larvae stage but when I looked back on it some of it was, frankly, pretty ugly from an art standpoint. But it was easy to accumulate and not so much curate back in those days $20-100 published pieces everywhere. Towards the end of that "character driven" phase I was picking up pieces because they were Hulk primarily, without a real critical eye to aesthetic or quality, and it led to some "YIKES!" moments looking back through the portfolio.

I am not saying it's not impossible to stick with character-driven collecting but there's a danger there of not taking the quality of the work into account (maybe less so at today's prices which force a more deliberate pace) and I fell into that entirely on some work.
The stakes were much lower then, the late 80's and early 90's weren't a place you could get hurt on artwork purchases, at least not fatally, and even the fugly artwork appreciated as it was coming from a place of de minimis cost. 

It's the kind of progression a lot of my art collecting friends at the time went through. As collectors there's always a new shiny object on the horizon and where you end up as a collector bears almost no resemblance to the place you began. Guy who started as "I love the 80's titles" 20 years ago are now collecting Herriman or Schulz, and dozens of similar shifts. 

These days, though, you're right the cost of entrance to the hobby and these pieces demand a lot more care in decision making. What used to cost the same as a Hot Wheels car now costs the same as an actual car. 

This isn’t true for all collectors though. I started collecting OA for nostalgia and the love of the stories I collected. The art from these stories dried up so I started collecting from other periods and artists. I recently had to make a decision on what I should sell for money I thought I needed. I didn’t touch one page from the stories of my childhood. 

[comix4fun]

On 12/23/2021 at 10:30 AM, jsylvester said:

This isn’t true for all collectors though. I started collecting OA for nostalgia and the love of the stories I collected. The art from these stories dried up so I started collecting from other periods and artists. I recently had to make a decision on what I should sell for money I thought I needed. I didn’t touch one page from the stories of my childhood. 

That's a great point. I think your story and mine are very similar. I disbanded the Hulk artwork eventually but not the stuff I had personal nostalgia for and from the books I read as a kid (same with X-men artwork, kept all that too ). The stuff I moved were pieces that I bought just because it was the character and not for nostalgia or for quality or artist. So I totally agree with you on that on the nostalgia front. It is and will likely always be the primary mover in hobbies like ours. 

 

[Bronty]

On 12/23/2021 at 10:13 AM, comix4fun said:

To be clear I objected to the take that a page from a first appearance book with no trace of the character who appeared in that book for the first time (making it worth so much money) should easily be worth as much as a top graded book (in this case ASM #129 at $43k for a 9.8). I have no problem with first appearance covers or pages being worth more regardless of artist or aesthetics....because you and I both know THAT'S ALWAYS BEEN THE CASE. I've bought more than a few first appearance pages and the premium for those pages above other pages from other books without first appearances has always been multiple and that's going back more than 25 years at this point. But the character is always on the page. Without that character the page is "meh" on the "first appearance price range scale". 

Like any other take on whether something is worth it, or analysis of sales data to discern the "why did it sell for X?",  there's a healthy (unhealthy?) amount of marketing or "pump" that has to occur to gain wide enough acceptance of the theory or idea for it to take hold and either be proven accurate or become a self-fulfilling prophecy which is the child of its own marketing campaign. 

People have been convincing themselves (often with some help) for as long as they've been collecting things that the price they are paying is "worth it". It's a psychological self-comfort mechanism that prevents people from panicking that they paid $1,000 for a figural bank that cost $1 when it was original sold or pretty much any 12cent comic that's any price above 12 cents, and on and on. 

In some ways I respect the cry of "nostalgia" more than a stats breakdown across differing hobbies with their own markets and own drivers....because "nostalgia" simply means this was their childhood, they don't care if it's expensive, they acknowledge there's no inherent value, no utility beyond emotional, and it's just worth it to them personally. It's honest, it's transparent, it's not couched in any pseudo-analytics to salve the wounds of pyrrhic auction wins with a spreadsheet or powerpoint and it's not meant to convince anyone else of an untapped market that's sitting there waiting to be mined. 

And to be clear, this idea that a page from the book, or even the cover of the book, has to be worth more than the book itself, whether its a non character page or not, has no merit.

We all use it as a rule of thumb as its sort of an easy sell, but let's be honest.    Its no more valid than saying the blueprints for a phone should be worth more than a phone.   They are just different things with different markets, and so the comparison and discussion is BS from the get-go.

We all like the art side of the equation or we wouldn't be here, but the "reasons" we work with for valuation aren't cast in stone.   They can change right out from under us at any time, and that's some of what we are seeing here.

Edited December 23, 2021 by Bronty

[Guest Race]

Slightly OT but I would pay to hear a panel discussion like this at a con... I think it would be good for comics and OA collecting to air these thoughts in public... appreciation of any particular art is advanced by rigid criticism and debate

[comix4fun]

On 12/23/2021 at 12:08 PM, Race said:

Slightly OT but I would pay to hear a panel discussion like this at a con... I think it would be good for comics and OA collecting to air these thoughts in public... appreciation of any particular art is advanced by rigid criticism and debate

You're invited to our SDCC or NYCC or Baltimore dinners if we can ever get them going again. The SDCC ones are range from 5 in a friendly discussion to 20 in an unruly festival reminiscent of a dwarven feast straight off the pages of The Hobbit. 

 

[jjonahjameson11]

On 12/23/2021 at 11:35 AM, comix4fun said:

That's a great point. I think your story and mine are very similar. I disbanded the Hulk artwork eventually but not the stuff I had personal nostalgia for and from the books I read as a kid (same with X-men artwork, kept all that too ). The stuff I moved were pieces that I bought just because it was the character and not for nostalgia or for quality or artist. So I totally agree with you on that on the nostalgia front. It is and will likely always be the primary mover in hobbies like ours. 

 

As the lucky recipient of a great example from your former collection, I thank thee. 

Edited December 23, 2021 by jjonahjameson11

[jsylvester]

On 12/23/2021 at 1:17 PM, comix4fun said:

You're invited to our SDCC or NYCC or Baltimore dinners if we can ever get them going again. The SDCC ones are range from 5 in a friendly discussion to 20 in an unruly festival reminiscent of a dwarven feast straight off the pages of The Hobbit. 

 

I picture food fights

[Xatari]

On 12/23/2021 at 8:45 AM, Bronty said:

And to be clear, this idea that a page from the book, or even the cover of the book, has to be worth more than the book itself, whether its a non character page or not, has no merit.

Sure all values for art are somewhat arbitrary. My point was simply while I don’t collect that way, I understand the reasoning behind valuation of prospective buyers and collectors who do. If I were given the choice between a 9.8 copy of a key first appearance issue or a page of OA, I’d prefer the page even if it didn’t have said character. 

Also, I agree with @Raceabout a live conversation. It would be fun to do a CAF live stream or even a zoom/YouTube conversation. 

I love engaging with the community and discussing topics relevant to what we are all seeing. I greatly value perspectives of seasoned collectors even when I see the hobby differently. 

[glendgold]

On 12/23/2021 at 10:17 AM, comix4fun said:

You're invited to our SDCC or NYCC or Baltimore dinners if we can ever get them going again. The SDCC ones are range from 5 in a friendly discussion to 20 in an unruly festival reminiscent of a dwarven feast straight off the pages of The Hobbit. 

 

The Hobbit, but with the dramatic tension of consistently wondering whether the next bite of fish is the one that's going to poison you.

Edited December 23, 2021 by glendgold

[Rick2you2]

On 12/23/2021 at 11:17 AM, comix4fun said:

That's almost, word for word, exactly how I started in collecting OA. So, I understand completely. I'd been in comics from childhood and branched out to OA in my early 20's and I gravitated towards Hulk artwork. I had collected that title in comics and the progression seemed natural to artwork that way. I liked the character, I understood him well, I knew a lot of artists worked on the character and it was a fertile ground to collect a lot of different examples, eras, artists. I even had an artwork website (well before CAF existed) just for all my Hulk artwork. Eventually, over those first 7-10 years, other work caught my eye, which led me to the artists who created them, to appreciating the artists, to collecting those artists, etc. My focus kept evolving.

Then I broke up the band, so to speak, on Hulk artwork. A lot of that stuff worked in my (self-identified) art-collector-as-larvae stage but when I looked back on it some of it was, frankly, pretty ugly from an art standpoint. But it was easy to accumulate and not so much curate back in those days $20-100 published pieces everywhere. Towards the end of that "character driven" phase I was picking up pieces because they were Hulk primarily, without a real critical eye to aesthetic or quality, and it led to some "YIKES!" moments looking back through the portfolio.

I am not saying it's not impossible to stick with character-driven collecting but there's a danger there of not taking the quality of the work into account (maybe less so at today's prices which force a more deliberate pace) and I fell into that entirely on some work.
The stakes were much lower then, the late 80's and early 90's weren't a place you could get hurt on artwork purchases, at least not fatally, and even the fugly artwork appreciated as it was coming from a place of de minimis cost. 

It's the kind of progression a lot of my art collecting friends at the time went through. As collectors there's always a new shiny object on the horizon and where you end up as a collector bears almost no resemblance to the place you began. Guy who started as "I love the 80's titles" 20 years ago are now collecting Herriman or Schulz, and dozens of similar shifts. 

These days, though, you're right the cost of entrance to the hobby and these pieces demand a lot more care in decision making. What used to cost the same as a Hot Wheels car now costs the same as an actual car. 

I’ve always collected to the character, but back off a little on rigidity for about 10-20% of my collecting fever. Bought my first Phantom Stranger art in 1980, and followed it up in 1981 with a title page from the Spirit and a Sunday section of the Phantom by Sy Barry. Then, back to the Phantom Stranger, and so it goes.

I also don’t mind buying art which some of you would consider dreck. If it is published, it has some merit whether I see it or not. That’s part of the learning curve. I have also found that artists sometimes grow on me—or shrink—in interest over time. The more there is covering the same subject matter, the more I find has merit. I don’t buy with resale in mind. I save those sorts of buys for the stock market. 

[Dick O.]

On 12/24/2021 at 4:32 AM, Xatari said:

Sure all values for art are somewhat arbitrary. My point was simply while I don’t collect that way, I understand the reasoning behind valuation of prospective buyers and collectors who do. If I were given the choice between a 9.8 copy of a key first appearance issue or a page of OA, I’d prefer the page even if it didn’t have said character. 

Also, I agree with @Raceabout a live conversation. It would be fun to do a CAF live stream or even a zoom/YouTube conversation. 

I love engaging with the community and discussing topics relevant to what we are all seeing. I greatly value perspectives of seasoned collectors even when I see the hobby differently. 

Here's my analysis of first appearance OA:

https://comicbookinvest.com/2016/12/30/first-appearances/

 

[tth2]

On 12/23/2021 at 12:37 PM, rsonenthal said:

Trying to equate comic prices to a page of original art reminds me more of PT Barnum than Billy Beane.

As it was said above, not the way I personally collect.

I think there’s more of a correlation than some here might be willing to admit, but it goes only in one direction.

Basically, a comic that is expensive will almost always result in its OA pages being more expensive than comparable pages from a non-expensive issue.  In fact, I can’t think of a case where that’s not true.  It doesn’t mean that every page from that issue will be equally valuable, of course, but I do believe that a non-descript non-character Romita page from ASM 129 will go for much more than a non-descript non-character Romita page from ASM 128 or 130 (I’m not an ASM or Romita collector, so if it turns out that he didn’t do the art for 128 or 130, don’t jump all over me; I think you get my point).

But the correlation doesn’t go the other way.  OA being expensive doesn’t mean that the comic will be expensive (KJ, Watchmen, etc).

[Xatari]

@ O.Great article. Really appreciated the insight and seems to be in line with what I’ve heard from other collectors. 
 

@tth2Also a very important point. Sometimes a book that was mass produced (ie early X-Force, Jim Lee X-Men, Death of Superman, Knightfall, etc) may have been widely popular and nostalgic. While the value for the comic itself may not be great due to mass supply, because OA is 1:1, it almost bolsters the art price given its wider recognition and appeal. 

[jsylvester]

On 12/24/2021 at 1:12 AM, tth2 said:

I think there’s more of a correlation than some here might be willing to admit, but it goes only in one direction.

Basically, a comic that is expensive will almost always result in its OA pages being more expensive than comparable pages from a non-expensive issue.  In fact, I can’t think of a case where that’s not true.  It doesn’t mean that every page from that issue will be equally valuable, of course, but I do believe that a non-descript non-character Romita page from ASM 129 will go for much more than a non-descript non-character Romita page from ASM 128 or 130 (I’m not an ASM or Romita collector, so if it turns out that he didn’t do the art for 128 or 130, don’t jump all over me; I think you get my point).

But the correlation doesn’t go the other way.  OA being expensive doesn’t mean that the comic will be expensive (KJ, Watchmen, etc).

This doesn’t apply to 90s comics due to the high print runs. It amazes me how these 90s books shot up in value. I’m sure they’ll correct but the OA will do well even if the books are worthless.

[jsylvester]

On 12/23/2021 at 10:11 PM, O. said:

Here's my analysis of first appearance OA:

https://comicbookinvest.com/2016/12/30/first-appearances/

 

There are so many variables with first appearances. I personally only chase first appearances from stories of my childhood. I don’t get excited over characters I don’t have a nostalgic connection to. That said I can see value in A list character first appearances.

[tth2]

On 12/24/2021 at 3:34 PM, jsylvester said:

This doesn’t apply to 90s comics due to the high print runs. It amazes me how these 90s books shot up in value. I’m sure they’ll correct but the OA will do well even if the books are worthless.

Like I said, expensive OA doesn’t automatically translate to expensive book, but expensive book will always translate to expensive OA.

Although I’m open to hearing about cases where the latter isn’t correct.

[comix4fun]

On 12/24/2021 at 1:55 AM, tth2 said:

Like I said, expensive OA doesn’t automatically translate to expensive book, but expensive book will always translate to expensive OA.

Although I’m open to hearing about cases where the latter isn’t correct.

You're right on about that, and I think the "expensive book" aspect is and has always been usually due to what's happening in that book. The first appearance and first issue value premiums are as old as the comic hobby. So, of course the pages from more "important" and in demand issues will be more in demand. People aren't looking for the first time Daredevil did his taxes but they'll pay up for the first time he fought Bullseye (in comic and art format). So it's more two tangentially and thematically related hobbies, running parallel to each other, and seeing demand for certain issues (or pages & images when it comes to artwork) based on somewhat similar subject matter reasons.

However the valuation of each (dollars to dollars) on the comic side is impacted by factors and variables not present on the art side. Print run, total circulation, age/era, print quality leading to high or low amount of high grade copies extant, percentage of the original run preserved in high grade, and on and on and on. 

For every ASM 129 in 9.8 selling for $43k there's a Superman #423 in 9.8 for $150....where good pages are 125x that figure (works for dozens of runs bronze and forward and the closer you get to modern where everything is basically 9.8 that number can be 100X or more art to comic). That's where value of a comic/value of a oa page cross-hobby analysis breaks down and it becomes clear that it's more valuable to examine art-specific variables and market trends and artist-value trends over what the comic is selling for to determine where a current value range my lie. 

 

Edited December 24, 2021 by comix4fun
fixed my multiple