John Byrne

[RDK]

Man, I've been looking for a Byrne page to add to my meager collection and I can't believe the price spread on his OA. Vintage X-Men pages go for thousands, while his more recent work can be had for less than a hundred. Are his X-Men (and to a lesser extent FF) pages artificially high do to nostalgia or is it because his current work is held in such low regard? Any comments or advice?

 

Ray

[Thomas]

I hear you on this one. My guess is the nostalgia factor plus the fact that older stuff has changed hands many times thus everyone wanting to inflate the price a little each time on each subsequent sale and then over time those pages are pushed up in price? That's my guess on it.

 

I don't think the nostalgia factor should be underestimated though.

[otherworldsj33]

I don't like most of his art since about the date of around FF 255 or so. For me, his art is collectible for only a 3 year period or so from the late 70's, to the early 80's, with a few exceptions. And as far as his non X-Men art from the same period, I would not pay much more then maybe Buscema or Kane art from the same era.

[pkveronese]

This is a little off subject, but some of his stuff from X:Men: The Hidden Years is really nice, and its still relatively cheap too (i.e. you can get some decent pages for less than $200).

[heartened]

For most artists, there is an era that is considered their prime. For Byrne, the "magic" occurred during his run on X-Men. His art was fantastic back then, and the stories didn't hurt either! In my opinion, his art has never been the same. Nor should it: artists change over time whether they do it on purpose or not. Unfortunately, while some for the better (and, by better I mean popular appeal), others change for the worse.

 

For Byrne, his X-Men art will always hold a premium for this reason. And, yeah, I agree that the nostalgia factor does count for a lot too.

[pkveronese]

For most artists, there is an era that is considered their prime. For Byrne, the "magic" occurred during his run on X-Men. His art was fantastic back then, and the stories didn't hurt either! In my opinion, his art has never been the same. Nor should it: artists change over time whether they do it on purpose or not. Unfortunately, while some for the better (and, by better I mean popular appeal), others change for the worse.

 

For Byrne, his X-Men art will always hold a premium for this reason. And, yeah, I agree that the nostalgia factor does count for a lot too.

 

Excellent point.

[grider67]

Well, here's my opinion.

 

For X-Men, it was Austin's inking job.

 

That's why the pages are so high for covers and pages from Byrne/Claremont/Austin era.

[supapimp]

Well, here's my opinion.

 

For X-Men, it was Austin's inking job.

 

That's why the pages are so high for covers and pages from Byrne/Clairmont/Austin era.

 

true dat!

[rob_react]

In reference to the X-Men stuff, it's his best work, it's one of the most beloved runs in the history of superhero comics and it's THE most important run in X-Men history. Those are some significant factors.

[RDK]

Thanks for the comments. Interesting points.

[heartened]

Well, here's my opinion.

 

For X-Men, it was Austin's inking job.

 

That's why the pages are so high for covers and pages from Byrne/Claremont/Austin era.

 

I completely agree that Austin made a HUGE difference. Great inkers can make ALL the difference. Look at Miller, Byrne, Starlin, Kirby, and the list goes on and on!!!