• 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.

Comic Link Fall Featured Auction Nov 17
2 2

Started by Matches_Malone,

125 posts in this topic

PhilipB2k17

PhilipB2k17

Posted
Posted (edited)
On 12/7/2023 at 3:08 PM, Twanj said:

Screenshot2023-12-07at3_07_03PM.thumb.png.bbc15c64da16546c7cc55913e5033d7a.png

Screenshot2023-12-07at3_07_49PM.thumb.png.d332f1c878d32df841ecdc3eb2ba2446.png

2.5 years later.

Hakes to CL.

Theory. The 2021 auction was a year before Thor: Love & Thunder came out. And about a month after rumors started circulating that Hercules would be in the film. So, this page probably benefitted from a bit of speculation at that time. 

Fast Forward to Wednesday night. Thor: Love & Thunder had been out for more than a year and had been disappointing. The MCU seems to be in crisis mode. Hercules was only a cameo. And this page reverted to a pure aesthetics buy, which dropped its value. This also explains why the owner is flipping it, because it's not a particularly great Kirby Thor example (with Colleta inks to boot), and he/she is probably clearing it out to buy other stuff. 

Edited by PhilipB2k17
Link to comment
Share on other sites
PhilipB2k17

PhilipB2k17

Posted
Posted (edited)
On 12/7/2023 at 2:42 AM, EXPhysiker said:

The TOMB RAIDER / WITCHBLADE SPECIAL #1 PAGE 9 & 10 DOUBLE SPLASH by Michael Turner has some history

image.thumb.png.802e027b7fc0d9d9a3dba689277da9be.pngy.

was sold at Heritage in sep 2021 for $2280

instaflip at CAF for $4000 or $4500 (did not remember the exact price) some months later, seller was Jordan who bought 4 pages from this issue. All were sold in one auction at Heritage 2 years ago

the new owner had it listed at CAF for $9000 two month ago

hammer price at Comiclink: $1791

I think the Michael Turner bubble is deflating. Except for maybe Supergirl, or pure cheesecake, stuff.

Edited by PhilipB2k17
Link to comment
Share on other sites
PhilipB2k17

PhilipB2k17

Posted
Posted (edited)
On 11/1/2023 at 10:04 AM, tth2 said:

I always thought she was based on Siouxsie Sioux, particularly because of the Egyptian eye makeup.

Looks more like Amy Winehouse to me, but that obviously can't be correct due to the date. Maybe she copied Death's look?

image.thumb.png.f2a400c3474acaa68c8442d49dca78a6.png

Edited by PhilipB2k17
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bronty

Bronty

Posted
Posted (edited)
On 12/7/2023 at 11:26 AM, delekkerste said:

I believe it was Rob Pistella who once told me over dinner, "Ours is a black & white hobby". 

As a big fan of illustration as well as comic book art, I used to wonder why color pieces so often played second-fiddle, being more attractive to many and closer to gallery/museum fine art (which obviously has a much higher ceiling in terms of financial value and critical acclaim). But, I agree with Rob - when people in the hobby (not outsiders) think about comic art, they think of B&W pieces. Not that there aren't great color pieces out there (some of my favorite pieces in my collection are color, and I definitely prefer it when it comes to illustration art), but, B&W is really what most collectors associate with the medium, given that color pieces only make up a small part of the hobby by quantity and an overwhelming majority of the better/best pieces are B&W examples. 

On the face of it, its such a paradox.     The same collectors that demand color in their printed comics and won't consider B&W printed comics (short of TMNT 1) demand the opposite (b&w only) in their OA collecting.   I've wrestled with understanding this effect as well, but over time I've come to see there are really several good reasons.    Off the top of my head:

1.  Comic artists (pencillers/inkers anyways) spend their lives drawing, not painting.    They often really aren't very good painters.    They can get by with adding a little watercolor to an ink drawing, but fully painted pieces?   Its just not what they spend their career doing.    They are rarely great at it.  

2.  OA collectors understand stats, white-out, authenticity, etc on b&W pieces.    They don't really understand painted pieces the same way - a little weird/intimidating/scary to them.    They know to what to look for on published b&W OA.    They may not be comfortable assessing authenticity on a painting (as you know a drawing is easier to forge than a painting, but that if they don't know what to look for, they don't know what to look for).

3.   Paintings take so much time.    Its difficult to have a broad body of comic book work if you're a painter (only).    People like Sienkiwiecz (sp?) that both painted and drew and did both have managed to have a big collectable body of comic art, but only by doing both. 

4.  Most critically of all, I think there is an overwhelming psychological reason.     People tend to bid on, support the value of, pieces similar to some way to something they already have.    Placing a premium on painted work would be really uncomfortable psychologically because it would require the collector to mentally accept that the b&w pieces in their collection - that they love and maybe paid through the nose for - are 'lesser' somehow.    Simply put, everyone is far too invested in b&w work (probably emotionally but *certainly* financially) to not have b&w trade at a premium.

Edited by Bronty
Link to comment
Share on other sites
RBerman

RBerman

Posted
Posted
On 12/8/2023 at 10:28 AM, Bronty said:

On the face of it, its such a paradox.     The same collectors that demand color in their printed comics and won't consider B&W (short of TMNT 1) demand the opposite in their OA collecting.   I've wrestled with understanding this effect as well, but over time I've come to see there are really several good reasons.    Off the top of my head:

1.  Comic artists (pencillers/inkers anyways) spend their lives drawing, not painting.    They often really aren't very good painters.    They can get by with adding a little watercolor to an ink drawing, but fully painted pieces?   Its just not what they spend their career doing.    They are rarely great at it.  

2.  OA collectors understand stats, white-out, authenticity, etc on b&W pieces.    They don't really understand painted pieces the same way - a little weird/intimidating/scary to them.    They know to what to look for on published b&W OA.    They may not be comfortable assessing authenticity on a painting (as you know a drawing is easier to forge than a painting, but that if they don't know what to look for, they don't know what to look for).

3.  Most critically of all, I think there is an overwhelming psychological reason.     People tend to bid on, support the value of, pieces similar to some way to something they already have.    Placing a premium on painted work would be really uncomfortable psychologically because it would require the collector to mentally accept that the b&w pieces in their collection are 'lesser' somehow.    Simply put, everyone is far too invested in b&w work (probably emotionally but *certainly* financially) to not have b&w trade at a premium.

I was looking over yesterday's European art auction results at Heritage. You can get some awfully nice 18th-19th century paintings for $10k-20k. But they don't have Wolverine (claws out!), and you didn't read them when you were eight years old.

We buy B&W art because almost all the published pieces exist as B&W art, and likewise all the famous/nostalgic pieces. The production process does not generate many color originals. Even today, thousands of new B&W pages enter the market every month. When the occasional color piece manages to acquire historical significance (e.g. Lynn Varley's Dark Knight cover), it sells quite well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bronty

Bronty

Posted
Posted
On 12/8/2023 at 11:52 AM, RBerman said:

I was looking over yesterday's European art auction results at Heritage. You can get some awfully nice 18th-19th century paintings for $10k-20k. But they don't have Wolverine (claws out!), and you didn't read them when you were eight years old.

We buy B&W art because almost all the published pieces exist as B&W art, and likewise all the famous/nostalgic pieces. The production process does not generate many color originals. Even today, thousands of new B&W pages enter the market every month. When the occasional color piece manages to acquire historical significance (e.g. Lynn Varley's Dark Knight cover), it sells quite well.

Sure, there's a familiarity there.    That's part of the psychological effect; its easy comfortable/familiar to collect the pieces that you know/understand and that are similar to what you already have.   

It IS a b&w medium for the most part.    That's okay, but it doesn't make a really good painted illustration any less compelling in person vs an ink piece, so comic OA ends up being this little island of b&w line art appreciation in the middle of a mostly color work world.    A b&w Gil Elvgren is going to trade for a steep discount compared to his paintings for example.   

At the end of the day, it is what it is, and the niches and artists known for color work are going to have color work that's prized, and the niches like comic OA known for b&w are going to have b&w be prized.     I don't see any of that changing any time soon, nor does it need to. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
cstojano

cstojano

Posted
Posted (edited)
On 12/8/2023 at 10:15 AM, Bronty said:

Sure, there's a familiarity there.    That's part of the psychological effect; its easy comfortable/familiar to collect the pieces that you know/understand and that are similar to what you already have.   

It IS a b&w medium for the most part.    That's okay, but it doesn't make a really good painted illustration any less compelling in person vs an ink piece, so comic OA ends up being this little island of b&w line art appreciation in the middle of a mostly color work world.    A b&w Gil Elvgren is going to trade for a steep discount compared to his paintings for example.   

At the end of the day, it is what it is, and the niches and artists known for color work are going to have color work that's prized, and the niches like comic OA known for b&w are going to have b&w be prized.     I don't see any of that changing any time soon, nor does it need to. 

Lots of adjacent parallels to consider. 

Animation art: generally there is line art pencils copied to acetate that s then colored, placed against and background and used to shoot the film. The pencils are worth very little. People want what is actually used to make the movie. This is the opposite of comic OA (the Varley DK pieces are basically animation cels in this analogy; they sell much discounted vs the bw art they are based on).

Toys: Prototype toys, I haven't followed as closely in recent years, BUT a prototype of an unreleased toy generally was a viewed as a "lost wave" type of thing and highly sought after vs the same type of prototype of a figure actually released. That's 3D art. With 2d art it is the same dynamic as with animation art. The piece most sought after would be the thing used to actually make the toy packaging, which could be as simple as a photograph of the toys with some light airbrushing. Something like this in comic OA would be considered trash. Even fully rendered art would place a much higher premium on the final product, say airbrush over an image or airbrush over a blue line, than the penciled version alone which would have little value.

Comic OA is an outlier.  

Edited by cstojano
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rick2you2

Rick2you2

Posted
Posted
On 12/8/2023 at 11:28 AM, Bronty said:

On the face of it, its such a paradox.     The same collectors that demand color in their printed comics and won't consider B&W printed comics (short of TMNT 1) demand the opposite (b&w only) in their OA collecting.   I've wrestled with understanding this effect as well, but over time I've come to see there are really several good reasons.    Off the top of my head:

1.  Comic artists (pencillers/inkers anyways) spend their lives drawing, not painting.    They often really aren't very good painters.    They can get by with adding a little watercolor to an ink drawing, but fully painted pieces?   Its just not what they spend their career doing.    They are rarely great at it.  

2.  OA collectors understand stats, white-out, authenticity, etc on b&W pieces.    They don't really understand painted pieces the same way - a little weird/intimidating/scary to them.    They know to what to look for on published b&W OA.    They may not be comfortable assessing authenticity on a painting (as you know a drawing is easier to forge than a painting, but that if they don't know what to look for, they don't know what to look for).

3.   Paintings take so much time.    Its difficult to have a broad body of comic book work if you're a painter (only).    People like Sienkiwiecz (sp?) that both painted and drew and did both have managed to have a big collectable body of comic art, but only by doing both. 

4.  Most critically of all, I think there is an overwhelming psychological reason.     People tend to bid on, support the value of, pieces similar to some way to something they already have.    Placing a premium on painted work would be really uncomfortable psychologically because it would require the collector to mentally accept that the b&w pieces in their collection - that they love and maybe paid through the nose for - are 'lesser' somehow.    Simply put, everyone is far too invested in b&w work (probably emotionally but *certainly* financially) to not have b&w trade at a premium.

I think it’s just the cleanliness of the line as compared to the subtlety of color. Some movies, for example, are best when not colorized, like film noire. They lose their grit. People also collect Chinese and other calligraphy where the pieces are purely black and white. Likewise, some of their scroll art falls into that category (not all), and often have more “sharpness” to them than the colored ones. 

Yet the more typical person doesn’t feel that way. I have a few colored pieces, and my better half invariably prefers them to black and white—even really good B&W. Same with my kids, when they have deigned to look at Dad’s art (mostly out of a sense of filial duty).

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Brian Peck

Brian Peck

Posted
Posted
On 12/8/2023 at 8:28 AM, Bronty said:

On the face of it, its such a paradox.     The same collectors that demand color in their printed comics and won't consider B&W printed comics (short of TMNT 1) demand the opposite (b&w only) in their OA collecting.   I've wrestled with understanding this effect as well, but over time I've come to see there are really several good reasons.    Off the top of my head:

1.  Comic artists (pencillers/inkers anyways) spend their lives drawing, not painting.    They often really aren't very good painters.    They can get by with adding a little watercolor to an ink drawing, but fully painted pieces?   Its just not what they spend their career doing.    They are rarely great at it.  

2.  OA collectors understand stats, white-out, authenticity, etc on b&W pieces.    They don't really understand painted pieces the same way - a little weird/intimidating/scary to them.    They know to what to look for on published b&W OA.    They may not be comfortable assessing authenticity on a painting (as you know a drawing is easier to forge than a painting, but that if they don't know what to look for, they don't know what to look for).

3.   Paintings take so much time.    Its difficult to have a broad body of comic book work if you're a painter (only).    People like Sienkiwiecz (sp?) that both painted and drew and did both have managed to have a big collectable body of comic art, but only by doing both. 

4.  Most critically of all, I think there is an overwhelming psychological reason.     People tend to bid on, support the value of, pieces similar to some way to something they already have.    Placing a premium on painted work would be really uncomfortable psychologically because it would require the collector to mentally accept that the b&w pieces in their collection - that they love and maybe paid through the nose for - are 'lesser' somehow.    Simply put, everyone is far too invested in b&w work (probably emotionally but *certainly* financially) to not have b&w trade at a premium.

I just prefer the bw inked original artwork. The use of light and shadow is what attracts me to many pieces that are from comic books I do not read. I love looking at the fine line work. Some inked art does take a longer time Mark Schultz is a perfect example, takes a longer time and has a much smaller body of work.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
cloud cloddie

cloud cloddie

Posted
Posted
On 12/9/2023 at 8:38 AM, vodou said:

I'm confused. Why is Colossus sporting wood (Man of Steel?) And just what exactly is Wolverine doing "back there"?

I’d be more confused if a guy named Cockrum didn’t draw a 7’5” metal dude in speedos with a little eye candy…

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Dr. Balls

Dr. Balls

Posted
Posted
On 12/8/2023 at 8:13 AM, PhilipB2k17 said:

I think the Michael Turner bubble is deflating. Except for maybe Supergirl, or pure cheesecake, stuff.

Turner was a phenomenal artist, but the majority of his layouts that pop up from time to time are very weak - at some point he really started leaning on the digital coloring to bolster his contrast and balance. That DPS is not an exemplary piece of his. His cheesecake work is always great because it's generally a focal point to the art and the subject matter pulls you in to see his inkwork and detail. This DPS doesn't really work that way.

The really great Turner pieces explode when they come to auction. Over the past year or two, I'd just been blown out of the water on a couple auctions - and they were stellar, well-balanced pages. That one shown above that went for $2200, then $1790 is probably normal for a Turner piece of that quality - and I'd say from the hammer price, other people see the same thing I am seeing with the composition.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Dr. Balls

Dr. Balls

Posted
Posted
On 12/9/2023 at 11:49 AM, KirbyCollector said:

There is no low, high or about right when someone spends 250K. There is only, "He could, and did."

The buyer seen leaving his house after buying that piece on auction:

bigballs-nuts.gif

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
2 2
Go to topic listing