Too many variants these days! 1 1

[Sigur Ros]

On 10/19/2022 at 2:39 PM, Ken Aldred said:

The Black Label material can be a bit more extreme than the mainstream version. I see it as a bit of a replacement for Vertigo, but with a much greater emphasis on super-heroes, which Vertigo largely avoided.  Batman as well as Sandman.

Yea, I think while Vertigo was more of DC's "horror" genre, Black Label is just 17+ 

[Ken Aldred]

On 10/19/2022 at 3:24 PM, mephistopheles said:

Maybe Photoshop realism is a bad description, but compare copper and modern Wolverine covers:

 

You posted a 2000 era cover.

Here’s an absolutely hideous variant from around the same period.

 

It’s not all bad.

Edited October 19, 2022 by Ken Aldred

[Dr. Balls]

I’ve softened a bit on the whole variant craze - I think the underlying issue with all the variants is that we have an amazing amount of talented artists in the industry, and there’s plenty of art to showcase. People are collecting covers like small pieces of artwork - is that a good thing? I don’t know, time will tell.

Acetates still suck, though.

[Ken Aldred]

On 10/19/2022 at 8:43 PM, Dr. Balls said:

I think the underlying issue with all the variants is that we have an amazing amount of talented artists in the industry, and there’s plenty of art to showcase

Yup. That’s what I like about the variant cover section in trade paperback collections.

[COI]

Devil's advocate: why is buying a book solely for cover art such a bad thing? That's mostly what golden age collecting is based on, outside of key books, and the SA is also filled with "classic covers" that command a premium. I'm asking this purely for conversation; I don't own any variants.

Putting aside the economics of it, what's wrong with people buying solely for art, or specifically, cover art? Or collecting artists? There's lots of cognitive dissonance around this stuff. People will say b-b-b-but manufactured collectibles in the same hobby where almost every book of value is pressed and resubmitted multiple times to change the number on the label, and the "serious" vintage collectors decide what to buy based on those same numbers.

It all comes down to the classic "what I collect is great, what you collect sucks" as well as what I'll call "vintage bias", where people arbitrarily distinguish between the authentic collectible and the inauthentic collectible by waxing nostalgic about some era where men were men, collectors collected, and kids walked 10 miles to school in the snow.

 

[Ken Aldred]

On 10/19/2022 at 9:20 PM, COI said:

Devil's advocate: why is buying a book solely for cover art such a bad thing? That's mostly what golden age collecting is based on, outside of key books, and the SA is also filled with "classic covers" that command a premium. I'm asking this purely for conversation; I don't own any variants.

Putting aside the economics of it, what's wrong with people buying solely for art, or specifically, cover art? Or collecting artists? There's lots of cognitive dissonance around this stuff. People will say b-b-b-but manufactured collectibles in the same hobby where almost every book of value is pressed and resubmitted multiple times to change the number on the label, and the "serious" vintage collectors decide what to buy based on those same numbers.

It all comes down to the classic "what I collect is great, what you collect sucks" as well as what I'll call "vintage bias", where people arbitrarily distinguish between the authentic collectible and the inauthentic collectible by waxing nostalgic about some era where men were men, collectors collected, and kids walked 10 miles to school in the snow.

 

Good point.  Frazetta, LB Cole.

Not multiples of the same issue, but the same basic idea.

Edited October 19, 2022 by Ken Aldred

[mephistopheles]

On 10/19/2022 at 5:20 PM, COI said:

Devil's advocate: why is buying a book solely for cover art such a bad thing? That's mostly what golden age collecting is based on, outside of key books, and the SA is also filled with "classic covers" that command a premium. I'm asking this purely for conversation; I don't own any variants.

Putting aside the economics of it, what's wrong with people buying solely for art, or specifically, cover art? Or collecting artists? There's lots of cognitive dissonance around this stuff. People will say b-b-b-but manufactured collectibles in the same hobby where almost every book of value is pressed and resubmitted multiple times to change the number on the label, and the "serious" vintage collectors decide what to buy based on those same numbers.

It all comes down to the classic "what I collect is great, what you collect sucks" as well as what I'll call "vintage bias", where people arbitrarily distinguish between the authentic collectible and the inauthentic collectible by waxing nostalgic about some era where men were men, collectors collected, and kids walked 10 miles to school in the snow.

 

It sucks for completionists. It also brings out the worst in rampant speculation with people who would buy dog spoon splashed on an ASM if they thought it was a variant and could be flipped. Have you heard about the people that stood in line for hours at cons to get a variant only to have some dooshbag buy up all 100 copies leaving people without? There's nothing wrong with people buying solely for cover art, but variants are being pumped out more for dubious reasons imho. If every day is Christmas, then it takes away from the specialty of Dec 25th. 

Do I have vintage bias? You betcha!

[Axelrod]

On 10/19/2022 at 10:50 AM, mephistopheles said:

Compare that to the 1989 covers and my point still stands. It's like modern covers are all done on computer vs ink/paint on paper. I prefer  comic art that is whimsical/fantastical. Something changed around the early 2000's.

What I notice (and I'm sure this has been commented on many times before) is that, on older covers, there were (gasp) dialogue bubbles on them.  Like, characters speaking, usually having something to do with what the issue was about.  And if there weren't dialogue bubbles, then often some kind of blurb.  A caption of some sort.  Again, descriptive of what was happening.  Not all covers, obviously, but it was common. 

Now it seems it's all just about dynamic poses.  

Edited October 19, 2022 by Axelrod

[mephistopheles]

On 10/19/2022 at 7:30 PM, Axelrod said:

What I notice (and I'm sure this has been commented on many times before) is that, on older covers, there were (gasp) dialogue bubbles on them.  Like, characters speaking, usually having something to do with what the issue was about.  And if there weren't dialogue bubbles, then often some kind of blurb.  A caption of some sort.  Again, descriptive of what was happening.  Not all covers, obviously, but it was common. 

Now it seems it's all just about dynamic poses.  

Sometimes not even dynamic. Check out the latest ASM. This is just soulless banality.

[Cat]

On 10/20/2022 at 11:46 AM, mephistopheles said:

Sometimes not even dynamic. Check out the latest ASM. This is just soulless banality.

That appears to be a John Romita Jr cover. 

There's your answer why. 

[Juno Beach]

You should ignore stuff that bothers you. 

[mephistopheles]

On 10/19/2022 at 11:09 PM, Juno Beach said:

You should ignore stuff that bothers you. 

It's more therapeutic to complain anonymously on the internet,