Iron Fist 14 cover up for sale at CAF

[1407graymalkin]

Why does this have no Artist entry? It's a Cockrum cover.. or is he hoping some dope will just assume it's Byrne?

 

The cover artist on Iron Fist #14 was Al Milgrom, according to John Byrne over at the John Byrne Forum.

 

Probably would have been better (more valuable) if Cockrum was the artist, no? This is a very important piece of original comic art, but Milgrom's work tends to command much lower prices than Byrne, Cockrum, etc.

[jbud73]

Why does this have no Artist entry? It's a Cockrum cover.. or is he hoping some dope will just assume it's Byrne?

 

The cover artist on Iron Fist #14 was Al Milgrom, according to John Byrne over at the John Byrne Forum.

 

Probably would have been better (more valuable) if Cockrum was the artist, no? This is a very important piece of original comic art, but Milgrom's work tends to command much lower prices than Byrne, Cockrum, etc.

 

Well that was pretty cut and dried.

[pkveronese]

Why does this have no Artist entry? It's a Cockrum cover.. or is he hoping some dope will just assume it's Byrne?

 

The cover artist on Iron Fist #14 was Al Milgrom, according to John Byrne over at the John Byrne Forum.

 

Probably would have been better (more valuable) if Cockrum was the artist, no? This is a very important piece of original comic art, but Milgrom's work tends to command much lower prices than Byrne, Cockrum, etc.

 

Wow. That's kinda disappointing. I still love the cover, but I always thought it was Cockrum/Byrne.

[pinupcartoonguy]

 

Wow. That's kinda disappointing. I still love the cover, but I always thought it was Cockrum/Byrne.

 

I've never really understood this kind of thinking. The cover image hasn't changed, just the attribution. Why is it disappointing that it's Milgrom and not Cockrum/Bryne?

[blowout]

Why does this have no Artist entry? It's a Cockrum cover.. or is he hoping some dope will just assume it's Byrne?

 

The cover artist on Iron Fist #14 was Al Milgrom, according to John Byrne over at the John Byrne Forum.

 

Probably would have been better (more valuable) if Cockrum was the artist, no? This is a very important piece of original comic art, but Milgrom's work tends to command much lower prices than Byrne, Cockrum, etc.

 

Interesting, as it doesn't look like a Milgrom piece.

[gpanalysis]

Why does this have no Artist entry? It's a Cockrum cover.. or is he hoping some dope will just assume it's Byrne?

 

The cover artist on Iron Fist #14 was Al Milgrom, according to John Byrne over at the John Byrne Forum.

 

Probably would have been better (more valuable) if Cockrum was the artist, no? This is a very important piece of original comic art, but Milgrom's work tends to command much lower prices than Byrne, Cockrum, etc.

 

Shouldn't the image composition, style, final result, impact, use of inking and overall historical importance influence the price just as much as who the artist/inker was?

[blowout]

Why does this have no Artist entry? It's a Cockrum cover.. or is he hoping some dope will just assume it's Byrne?

 

The cover artist on Iron Fist #14 was Al Milgrom, according to John Byrne over at the John Byrne Forum.

 

Probably would have been better (more valuable) if Cockrum was the artist, no? This is a very important piece of original comic art, but Milgrom's work tends to command much lower prices than Byrne, Cockrum, etc.

 

Shouldn't the image composition, style, final result, impact, use of inking and overall historical importance influence the price just as much as who the artist/inker was?

 

I am sure it does up to a point, but in this case Byrne was the regular penciler on the series (interiors) and Cockrum was the regular cover artist. If a third party (Milgrom?) who had no other involvement in the title, did a random cover it would certainly be one of the less deriable in the run. Obviously IF #14 has other things going for it though...

[gpanalysis]

I guess the question is, would Byrne have drawn the cover any better?

[pkveronese]

Why does this have no Artist entry? It's a Cockrum cover.. or is he hoping some dope will just assume it's Byrne?

 

The cover artist on Iron Fist #14 was Al Milgrom, according to John Byrne over at the John Byrne Forum.

 

Probably would have been better (more valuable) if Cockrum was the artist, no? This is a very important piece of original comic art, but Milgrom's work tends to command much lower prices than Byrne, Cockrum, etc.

 

Shouldn't the image composition, style, final result, impact, use of inking and overall historical importance influence the price just as much as who the artist/inker was?

 

Yes, but with that in mind, wouldn't the artist as well?

 

Byrne/Cockrum are much more important in the Mythos of this piece - Byrne was penciling IF at the time and Cockrum was finishing his X-men run. Since this character became a reasonably large X-men villian, and the interiors were done by Byrne, the cover would have more appeal if it was by Byrne (or Cockrum as he is thought to have done the cover for Iron Fist #15 and was doing X-men covers after he left X-men). Also, could anyone here argue that they would rather have a relevant piece from this period by Cockrum or Byrne rather than Milgrom?

[gpanalysis]

 

Byrne/Cockrum are much more important in the Mythos of this piece - Byrne was penciling IF at the time and Cockrum was finishing his X-men run. Since this character became a reasonably large X-men villian, and the interiors were done by Byrne, the cover would have more appeal if it was by Byrne (or Cockrum as he is thought to have done the cover for Iron Fist #15 and was doing X-men covers after he left X-men). Also, could anyone here argue that they would rather have a relevant piece from this period by Cockrum or Byrne rather than Milgrom?

 

I understand your point - however the piece is what it is, and it was not done by Byrne - does the artwork fail in any other aspect, other than it was not drawn by Byrne?

[blowout]

 

Byrne/Cockrum are much more important in the Mythos of this piece - Byrne was penciling IF at the time and Cockrum was finishing his X-men run. Since this character became a reasonably large X-men villian, and the interiors were done by Byrne, the cover would have more appeal if it was by Byrne (or Cockrum as he is thought to have done the cover for Iron Fist #15 and was doing X-men covers after he left X-men). Also, could anyone here argue that they would rather have a relevant piece from this period by Cockrum or Byrne rather than Milgrom?

 

I understand your point - however the piece is what it is, and it was not done by Byrne - does the artwork fail in any other aspect, other than it was not drawn by Byrne?

 

Your point is well taken, but the fact is that Byrne and Cockrum are highly sought after BA artists and their covers will always attract more attention and higher prices. There are collectors who would want the piece purely as a Byrne or Cockrum collector ragardless of the content.

[pkveronese]

Someone else mentioned that they were in contact with Cockrum as to who he thought did the cover. I would really be interested to see what he says. I know the info coming from Byrne that Milgrom did the cover, but this seems inconsistent with the title at that time.

[joe_collector]

Wow. That's kinda disappointing. I still love the cover, but I always thought it was Cockrum/Byrne.

 

No joke. Al Milgrom is possibly the worst artist you could have attributed to this cover and it certainly does nothing for the resale value.

 

I'd still like to hear from Cockrum on the subject, as Byrne could just be pulling our legs. After all, who could be worse than Milgrom?

[Weird]

After all, who could be worse than Milgrom?

 

Don Perlin?

[blowout]

Wow. That's kinda disappointing. I still love the cover, but I always thought it was Cockrum/Byrne.

 

No joke. Al Milgrom is possibly the worst artist you could have attributed to this cover and it certainly does nothing for the resale value.

 

I'd still like to hear from Cockrum on the subject, as Byrne could just be pulling our legs. After all, who could be worse than Milgrom?

 

Am I the only one who doesn't think it's a Milgrom? I just don't see it at all.

 

Maybe he only inked over Cockrum pencils?

[pkveronese]

Wow. That's kinda disappointing. I still love the cover, but I always thought it was Cockrum/Byrne.

 

No joke. Al Milgrom is possibly the worst artist you could have attributed to this cover and it certainly does nothing for the resale value.

 

I'd still like to hear from Cockrum on the subject, as Byrne could just be pulling our legs. After all, who could be worse than Milgrom?

 

Am I the only one who doesn't think it's a Milgrom? I just don't see it at all.

 

Maybe he only inked over Cockrum pencils?

 

I think that (Milgrom inking over Cockrum's pencils) would be the most likely scenario if in fact Milgrom was involved with the piece at all.

[delekkerste]

Shouldn't the image composition, style, final result, impact, use of inking and overall historical importance influence the price just as much as who the artist/inker was?

 

I think that most of the value in comic art is derived from #1, who the artist is and #2, who the characters depicted are. #3 is probably importance to comic storylines/history and nostalgic appeal, while a distant #4 are the aesthetic factors that you mentioned. That's why a very rough Frazetta prelim that would not look out of place in a wastebasket can command hundreds or even thousands of dollars in price while a beautiful piece by an obscure artist may struggle to find a taker at the minimum bid on eBay (factor #1 vs. factor #4), or why Romita Spider-Man covers sell for tens of thousands of dollars while a Romita western or horror cover sells in the low-to-mid 4 figures (factor #2).

 

If the IF #14 cover is by Milgrom, let's face it, it gets almost zero points for factor #1. Factors #2 and #3 rank pretty high because of the first appearance of Sabretooth and #4 gets a decent score as well. But, the difference between Byrne and/or Cockrum having done the piece vs. Milgrom is many thousands of dollars and would be the case even if Milgrom had created a much superior image than he did here.

[gpanalysis]

Shouldn't the image composition, style, final result, impact, use of inking and overall historical importance influence the price just as much as who the artist/inker was?

 

I think that most of the value in comic art is derived from #1, who the artist is and #2, who the characters depicted are. #3 is probably importance to comic storylines/history and nostalgic appeal, while a distant #4 are the aesthetic factors that you mentioned. That's why a very rough Frazetta prelim that would not look out of place in a wastebasket can command hundreds or even thousands of dollars in price while a beautiful piece by an obscure artist may struggle to find a taker at the minimum bid on eBay (factor #1 vs. factor #4), or why Romita Spider-Man covers sell for tens of thousands of dollars while a Romita western or horror cover sells in the low-to-mid 4 figures (factor #2).

 

If the IF #14 cover is by Milgrom, let's face it, it gets almost zero points for factor #1. Factors #2 and #3 rank pretty high because of the first appearance of Sabretooth and #4 gets a decent score as well. But, the difference between Byrne and/or Cockrum having done the piece vs. Milgrom is many thousands of dollars and would be the case even if Milgrom had created a much superior image than he did here.

 

great points. It would be interesting to have a curator of illustration/pop-art who isn't necessarily into comic book art (and doesn't know much about characters, first appearances, etc) do a critique on some of the art we all buy - I wonder if one takes out some of the factors we all place importance on (in terms of value) whether a page/cover would still warrant the same standing. From purely an art/technique point of view.

[adamstrange]

Shouldn't the image composition, style, final result, impact, use of inking and overall historical importance influence the price just as much as who the artist/inker was?

 

I think that most of the value in comic art is derived from #1, who the artist is and #2, who the characters depicted are. #3 is probably importance to comic storylines/history and nostalgic appeal, while a distant #4 are the aesthetic factors that you mentioned. That's why a very rough Frazetta prelim that would not look out of place in a wastebasket can command hundreds or even thousands of dollars in price while a beautiful piece by an obscure artist may struggle to find a taker at the minimum bid on eBay (factor #1 vs. factor #4), or why Romita Spider-Man covers sell for tens of thousands of dollars while a Romita western or horror cover sells in the low-to-mid 4 figures (factor #2).

 

If the IF #14 cover is by Milgrom, let's face it, it gets almost zero points for factor #1. Factors #2 and #3 rank pretty high because of the first appearance of Sabretooth and #4 gets a decent score as well. But, the difference between Byrne and/or Cockrum having done the piece vs. Milgrom is many thousands of dollars and would be the case even if Milgrom had created a much superior image than he did here.

 

great points. It would be interesting to have a curator of illustration/pop-art who isn't necessarily into comic book art (and doesn't know much about characters, first appearances, etc) do a critique on some of the art we all buy - I wonder if one takes out some of the factors we all place importance on (in terms of value) whether a page/cover would still warrant the same standing. From purely an art/technique point of view.

 

It wouldn't warrant the same standing.

 

But as I continue to say, the buying of any comic related artifact is irrational so no need to sweat over smaller irrationalities within our tiny little market.

[gpanalysis]

 

But as I continue to say, the buying of any comic related artifact is irrational so no need to sweat over smaller irrationalities within our tiny little market.

 

I agree