Dark Knight Returns prices

[jjeanius]

No intention of ever selling is one thing...but planning to be buried with it? Incredibly selfish and obnoxious.

[Lambo]

No intention of ever selling is one thing...but planning to be buried with it? Incredibly selfish and obnoxious.

 

Hi Court:

Why is it selfish and obnoxious? It's HIS art. He can do with it as he sees fit. If he wants to sell it, he can. If he wants to set fire to it, he can. If he wants to make paper airplanes out of it, he can. and if he wants to get buried with it, he can.

 

Just my opinion...

 

Lamb

 

and if he wants to give it to me, he can!

[mister_not_so_nice]

No intention of ever selling is one thing...but planning to be buried with it? Incredibly selfish and obnoxious.

 

Hi Court:

Why is it selfish and obnoxious? It's HIS art. He can do with it as he sees fit. If he wants to sell it, he can. If he wants to set fire to it, he can. If he wants to make paper airplanes out of it, he can. and if he wants to get buried with it, he can.

 

Just my opinion...

 

Lamb

 

and if he wants to give it to me, he can!

 

It's not his art , it's Frank miller's art. He is just some guy that purchased it and is now the current caretaker of it. I think anyone that owns OA has a responsbility to everyone else in the 'community' to care for it as best they can. If any piece you own means so little that you'd deface it(or bury it 6 ft underground) than you should sell/give it to someone who will appreciate it.

 

Mike

[DENNYCRANE-migration]

http://comics.heritagegalleries.com/common/view_item.php?Sale_No=819&Lot_No=6431

[Lambo]

No intention of ever selling is one thing...but planning to be buried with it? Incredibly selfish and obnoxious.

 

Hi Court:

Why is it selfish and obnoxious? It's HIS art. He can do with it as he sees fit. If he wants to sell it, he can. If he wants to set fire to it, he can. If he wants to make paper airplanes out of it, he can. and if he wants to get buried with it, he can.

 

Just my opinion...

 

Lamb

 

and if he wants to give it to me, he can!

 

It's not his art , it's Frank miller's art. He is just some guy that purchased it and is now the current caretaker of it. I think anyone that owns OA has a responsbility to everyone else in the 'community' to care for it as best they can. If any piece you own means so little that you'd deface it(or bury it 6 ft underground) than you should sell/give it to someone who will appreciate it.

 

Mike

 

Yes, Frank Miller and Klaus Janson created it. But you are wrong. It's not Frank Miller's or Klaus Janson's anymore. Whether you like it or not, the person with that DK cover is not merely a 'caretaker'. He is the owner of the piece. Frank cannot go to his house and demand the art back. Unless he specifies differently in his will, when he dies, the ownership of the art does not revert back to Frank, Klaus and certainly not the "community." It will go to his heir(s). If they want to sell it, fine. If they want to keep it forever? Well, it's their right to do that without someone calling them selfish and/or obnoxious.

 

BTW, I've been the 'caretaker' for almost 20 years of many of the pieces in my collection. I would not deface nor bury any piece in my collection. But I find it crazy that if I decide not to sell a particular piece in my lifetime and when I die, my daughters also decide not to sell that someone would think it appropriate to call that act 'selfish' and 'obnoxious'.

 

Lamb

[mister_not_so_nice]

Lamb,

Regardless of who owns a piece, it is still Miller's/Janson's art.

 

I don't think anyone on the boards begrudges anyone else for not selling a piece of art. I certainly don't. I have pieces that I fully intend to let my kids decide what to do with after I die. Maybe not as "historical" as DKR, but my PREACHER pages are off the market for the forseeable future. Anyone that criticizes another for not selling a piece would, by that logic, be obligated to sell anything in thier collection whenever someone made an offer to them.

 

I haven't been in this hobby as long as you, but I will say I am equally as passionate about it as you are. Not to speak for anyone else, but i think the 'selfish' comment was in response to someone taking an iconic piece and burying it. Can the owner do this legally? he sure can. Should he? I don' tthink so. I say, by all means, give it to his heirs, let them enjoy it, but to say, "When i am gone I want this piece destroyed(or covered with 6ft of earth)" is indeed selfish.

 

Mike

[october]

If he wants to set fire to it, he can. If he wants to make paper airplanes out of it, he can. and if he wants to get buried with it, he can.

 

Not necessarily true. I remember reading a case in law school about destruction/defacement of fine art and increasingly hostile judicial positions against a person's "right" to do with their rare possessions as they see fit. The tide is definitely turning towards fewer personal privileges attaching to "cultural" property. It's an interesting subject.

[Lambo]

If he wants to set fire to it, he can. If he wants to make paper airplanes out of it, he can. and if he wants to get buried with it, he can.

 

Not necessarily true. I remember reading a case in law school about destruction/defacement of fine art and increasingly hostile judicial positions against a person's "right" to do with their rare possessions as they see fit. The tide is definitely turning towards fewer personal privileges attaching to "cultural" property. It's an interesting subject.

 

Oh, now you're just going to get all those "fine art" and "not fine art" guys all riled up!

 

[VintageComics]

If he wants to set fire to it, he can. If he wants to make paper airplanes out of it, he can. and if he wants to get buried with it, he can.

 

Not necessarily true. I remember reading a case in law school about destruction/defacement of fine art and increasingly hostile judicial positions against a person's "right" to do with their rare possessions as they see fit. The tide is definitely turning towards fewer personal privileges attaching to "cultural" property. It's an interesting subject.

 

Oh, now you're just going to get all those "fine art" and "not fine art" guys all riled up!

They're all the same guy

[jjeanius]

If you read my post, you can clearly see that I have no problem with owning something with no intent to sell. I certainly have pieces in my collection that I plan on owning for AT LEAST the forseeable future. If I'm lucky enough, I'll be able to pass them along to someone else that might appreciate them at least a fraction as much as I do. HOWEVER, I am not more important than the artwork. I am fortunate enough to be the current "owner" of the artwork, but anything as important as the cover to DKR 2 obviously has much more historical significance than my personal attachment to it. By choosing to have something buried with you when you die, you are making the statement that you are more important than the art, and no one else should be priviliged enough to enjoy it as you have. Yes, that to me is the very DEFINITION of selfish and obnoxious.

[RDK]

If you read my post, you can clearly see that I have no problem with owning something with no intent to sell. I certainly have pieces in my collection that I plan on owning for AT LEAST the forseeable future. If I'm lucky enough, I'll be able to pass them along to someone else that might appreciate them at least a fraction as much as I do. HOWEVER, I am not more important than the artwork. I am fortunate enough to be the current "owner" of the artwork, but anything as important as the cover to DKR 2 obviously has much more historical significance than my personal attachment to it. By choosing to have something buried with you when you die, you are making the statement that you are more important than the art, and no one else should be priviliged enough to enjoy it as you have. Yes, that to me is the very DEFINITION of selfish and obnoxious.

 

[Nexus]

If you read my post, you can clearly see that I have no problem with owning something with no intent to sell. I certainly have pieces in my collection that I plan on owning for AT LEAST the forseeable future. If I'm lucky enough, I'll be able to pass them along to someone else that might appreciate them at least a fraction as much as I do. HOWEVER, I am not more important than the artwork. I am fortunate enough to be the current "owner" of the artwork, but anything as important as the cover to DKR 2 obviously has much more historical significance than my personal attachment to it. By choosing to have something buried with you when you die, you are making the statement that you are more important than the art, and no one else should be priviliged enough to enjoy it as you have. Yes, that to me is the very DEFINITION of selfish and obnoxious.

 

I believe it would be a selfish and obnoxious act, but it should still be his right to do so (all legal maneuvers aside).

 

To Fable:

 

Owning DKR OA has been a dream of mine for a while. I actually went through my trade and tried to numerically rank my favorite pages, from best to worst. It was impossible. So I then assigned a letter grade to each page (A to F). Suffice it to say, the worst grade any page got was a "C"...after all, it's still Miller and it's still DKR.

 

Most pages I've seen that are available are in the "B" category. I know of at least 15 "A" pages that are in one collection. Therefore, I tried to get the best "B" pages available. Personal ownership aside, it's actually quite easy to be objective when you've gone through the book like this.

 

I would say that the page on Heritage is a C+/B-. Eventhough there is no Batman, there is at least one major character, Robin. It's certainly better than the page with just the TV screens that sold earlier.

 

For me, it's been totally worth shelling out the big bucks for a piece of DKR. I've had to make sacrifices in my collection as you say you'll have to do to make it happen. I wish you luck in your quest!

 

Felix

[rob_react]

If he wants to set fire to it, he can. If he wants to make paper airplanes out of it, he can. and if he wants to get buried with it, he can.

 

Not necessarily true. I remember reading a case in law school about destruction/defacement of fine art and increasingly hostile judicial positions against a person's "right" to do with their rare possessions as they see fit. The tide is definitely turning towards fewer personal privileges attaching to "cultural" property. It's an interesting subject.

 

Oh, now you're just going to get all those "fine art" and "not fine art" guys all riled up!

They're all the same guy

 

Most definitely not. KK wasn't arguing with himself there...

 

Speaking of which, I saw a nice little comic display with things the Will Eisner biography, Scott McCloud's Understandinig Comics and the Masters of American Comic art show catalog at the Boston Museum of Fine Arts gift store on Christmas Eve.

[cheekyj2112]

Read this - there is a section on the OA and should answer most questions:

 

http://www.bookshelfcomics.com/backinthedaycafe/thedarkknightreturns.html

 

Hey everyone,

 

Season greetings etc. Just wanted to jump in and chip in with my tuppence; I don't think this article seems particularly accurate to me and there's a lot of conjecture. In the interests of setting the record straight the `legend` that Miller rang a kid up to trade the death of the Joker page is just that, a legend. Janson sold the last three page fight sequence to Albert Moy who traded it to a friend of mine (who was no `kid` even then) and he eventually let me have one and kept the other two.

I do remember seeing the cover to #2 on sale (for $2k if I remember correctly) and I never gave it a serious thought - I was far more concerned with the thought of tracking the splash to #3 (DK & Robin leaping across the sky)

 

Also no one appears to have commented on the acrimony surrounding DKR and Miller's unhappiness with Janson's inking which led to lanky Frank re-drawing a number of pages and panels. For collectors this may have been a blessing of sorts as it's probably the reason Janson off loaded his pages with such haste.

 

Anyhow, my quibbles aside I've been enjoying a number of the OA threads here which are far more on topic than the List these days.

 

Cheers

Joseph

[westform]

Regarding the ownership or guardianship of OA, I think it is an important discussion. Keep in mind that Steve Ditko reportedly has a 'mother lode' of his vintage art that he apparently uses as scrap paper, and that he may very well dispose of it someday before or after he passes. How does this affect the discussion? Is he entitled to do whatever he wants with it? He created it. Is he morally or ethically challenged...? Deranged? Does he have heirs? Or, are we just coming full circle.... the art started out as worthless, should it end up that way?

[jjeanius]

Hi Joseph, thanks for the info...that reminds me...from what I understand, Todd McFarlane actually helped ink a number of DKR pages. He was just starting out, and Miller needed help catching up on the workload, so McFarlane would just ink whatever random pages Miller gave him...at least, that's the way I heard it.

 

As for Ditko...it's a shame, but this is the one case where I feel the artist can say he's bigger than the art, and can do with it however he chooses. It's too bad he doesn't look more positively on his work, but if his work is to be destroyed, he's the one person who truly has a God-given right to do so. If Van Gogh han cut his own ear off, Ditko can scribble on the back of a Spidey splash....then crumple it up and play trashcan basketball with it.

[DeadpoolJr.]

Bumping for thoughts and opinions from 10 years ago to now. Some highlights

 

OK, I'm home now and have some time to chime in here....

 

Dark Knight pages are always highly coveted and tough to find. When they pop up on ebay, they garner serious attention. They NEVER make it to major auction houses, as they typically sell so fast that they don't need the exposure that those auctoin houses provide.

 

I agree with Solar. Run of the mill pages, otherwise known as "not much of an example, but an example nonetheless", typically will sell for around 3K. Pages with one character on them (Robin, Batman, Joker or Supes) will fetch between 6K and 9K. Nice pages (1/2 splashes, memorable scene, good action, multiple characters) would typically be priced at the 10-14K range. Finally, those truly stellar examples are very difficult to gauge; none have sold in years (at least not publically). I would venture that really nice examples would be over 20K, with the full splashes running over 30K.

 

Of course, I have no real data for splashes and the really nice interior pages, as none have been offered publically, and I haven't even heard of any selling privately in years. This is partly because of the 8 or so full splashes from the book, 4-5 of them are in one particular collection, and 1 is in another, and none have sold in years. Predominantely, it's the 3-15K pages that hit the market, and even these are few and far between.

 

Hope that helps. My best advice to you is to save up some money, and then get the word out (like you're doing) that you'd be interested in a page. Eventually, one will come your way, and you'll want to have the funds available when it does.

 

Best,

Prices sure have changed

 

Sorry to be a Debbie Downer, but the idea of shelling out $6-9K for a page that doesn't even have Batman on it, or $3-5K just to own a page for the sake of owning a page, doesn't seem all that compelling. So, you're really looking at $10-$15K according to Hari and others to put a nice, though unspectacular, example from the series in your collection (I dunno about you, but if I'm going to spend 5 figures for a piece, it had better be spectacular or pretty close to it). As much as I like DKR, spending that much just to have one representative page from the series doesn't exactly make me want to jump off the couch to grab my checkbook (and that would be even more true if I had to sell off a bunch of pieces to afford it). I'd much rather content myself with owning a nice CGC'd set of the comics and let the BSDs duke it out for the pages that come up for sale (I'd be wary about paying up for any pages that they passed over, anyway, if resale considerations are of concern to you).

 

And it's for that reason that I think prices on DKR will plateau and perhaps even soften over the coming years.

Boy were you two guys wrong. 3k seems unimaginable now, even if its not a good page.

 

I expect prices on KEY 80s art (Watchmen, Killing Joke, Dark Knight, etc.) to hold their strong holding, and in all likelihood increase further.

 

Time will tell, of course, but these are the blue chip items from that generation.

He knew.

 

[Solar]

Ah the good old days of the board; quality posters, interesting discussion, minimal whining...

[Cleangone]

Not too sure who sold it but the owner of issue 2 cover has had it since the late 80's and has no intention of ever selling

 

Uncle Jr's a tough old , but maybe he will go easy on his fact-checker.

 

TDKR #2 cover sold at HA several years ago for $470K. People were wondering if the house bought it, but stinkerinker said it was a real sale.

[Cleangone]

Not too sure who sold it but the owner of issue 2 cover has had it since the late 80's and has no intention of ever selling

 

Uncle Jr's a tough old , but maybe he will go easy on his fact-checker.

 

TDKR #2 cover sold at HA several years ago for $470K. People were wondering if the house bought it, but stinkerinker said it was a real sale.

 

Uhhhhh, never mind. Tell me again why it was a good idea to bump a ten year-old thread? Other than to smoke out the newbies, that is.