• 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.

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

X-men 1 original Art..Wow.

44 posts in this topic

DAM:

 

well... this is a pretty well thought out response... I had no idea I'd have to respond to something with a lot of thought, so let's see where this goes since it's the end of the workday....

 

Your analysis is broken down into particular areas the first of which is to question the valuation of original art:

 

I checked out the piece that you found on ebay for $3,150 and although the piece is a cover, it's a cover by Kirby during a time when his work was not considered at it's peak, and it's a cover to a Treasury edition, not a full comic. Analyzing Kirby's art by examining this piece as a linchpin in the mathematical formula makes it in my mind inherently flawed. Adding 3 times the value and multiplying by the number of pages does not account for two things: first, as someone else noted, this is a complete book, not just a single page or cover; second the historical significance of this book, being from Kirby's 1963 body of work, makes it one of the seminal pieces in all of comicdom. Therefore, I agree with the question you pose of How do you value original art?

 

This same question could be posed with regards to any artform. What makes a Warhol or Van Dyck or original Da Vinci sketch or Monet or for that matter, a Thomas Kinkade (the guy at all the malls, ugh) more or less valuable. The value attributed to original art, comics, or anything else stems from the value that others place into it. Thus, the questions we normally ask with regards to a piece of art stems partially from it's rarity of getting a similar piece by a similar artist but also the significance it poses historically. There is no way to say: Yes, this is worth $700k... but those that could afford to pay this kind of sum for these pieces, but the question of value does not turn upon how many can afford the given piece, but what it's value is to those that can. For instance, you used a piece of Manhatten real estate as an example and while there are millions more of people that would rather have that than 23 pieces of X-Men art, does it change the intrinsic value of the property or art itself? No. The property is valuable because while many people desire such a large space in Manhatten, only a very few can actually afford it. And while many people desire the original art to X-Men #1, only a very few can afford it. Yes, one is a hobby and the other is an apartment, but when we get to expenditures of this kind, it depends on the individual spending the money where the value is actually placed.

 

I have to disagree with the underlying analysis and the formula presented because I don't think there is a way to accurately gage such a unique piece, and that the only way to measure it is to allow the market to decide. I don't have a firm enough grasp of the original art market to say what similar key pieces of art have gone for, but consider that this is an entire issue, and I've never heard of anything remotely similar ever offered for auction.

 

While everything in original art is indeed an original, some things have more desirability because of their rarity. Yes, Neal Adams art with a big Batman splash is rare and expensive... but there are other beautiful Batman pieces out there done by Adams... probably hundreds (although very few for sale) and so it is possible to attain a similar, but not the same. The target of collector is to obtain a Neal Adams Batman piece, but if it is not one particular piece it can be another.

 

This is not true with regards to the X-Men #1 complete story. There is not another, that I know of, Jack Kirby key piece. No FF#1 original art complete, Journey Into Mystery complete etc. The target for the collector is in fact, to obtain this one piece and he/she cannot get something even remotely similar in kind.

 

It frankly doesn't matter what an average person or me or you earn in this discussion. Our wealth is not nearly enough to make such a purchase. Only a multi-millionaire with significant disposable cash and high interest in the subject would/could obtain this piece. Just like the Action 1 or Det. 27 in 9.4, the same is true here. No of course not, most people can't afford a piece like this, but how many can afford many luxury items of exorbanent (sp?) expense. We are talking about a very narrow few... but let's say there are a dozen people interested with the appropriate level of funds... more than enough to entice a market and to spark interest because the people involved have a completely different valuation placed on their wealth. We are not talking about the average, or even intense collector. We are talking about a select few. And it is a select few who can afford to pay 2 million dollars for an original monet too.

 

The original X-Men might not be the genesis for the new intensified interest in the X-Men, but the book is undeniably important for starting a series. Plus, it is, as I have said, a complete book of Kirby art. You and I because of our age may value GS #1 or X-Men 94, but there's more of those out there in High grade than X-Men #1s in 9.4, and so while more interest in the bronze, there's also more copies.

 

Yes, JP is showing off. But I can tell you that if I had the cash, it wouldn't matter what else I could buy on the outside, cause I could already whether I bought those pages or not. I think many multi millionaires have collections of one sort or another... if I was multi millionaire, this would be a piece I would definitely want and would try and obtain. The question of valuation and worth becomes corollary to wealth, and thus why I disagree with the latter half of your analysis.

 

Geez, how long winded was that...

 

your turn DAM

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Excellent response!! grin.gif

 

The value attributed to original art, comics, or anything else stems from the value that others place into it. Thus, the questions we normally ask with regards to a piece of art stems partially from it's rarity of getting a similar piece by a similar artist but also the significance it poses historically.

 

I definitely agree - rarity and historical significance are very important and probably the most important is eye appeal. This is debatable, but to use your Adams example - I would rather have a full page Breyfogle splash than a Adams panel page with no Batman. Wouldn't you 893scratchchin-thumb.gif

 

 

but the question of value does not turn upon how many can afford the given piece, but what it's value is to those that can.

it seems then that this piece of art is clearly not worth $700K if no one has bought it then, right? the people that "can" value it, obviously don't value it at $700K since it is still on the market . . .

 

For instance, you used a piece of Manhatten real estate as an example and while there are millions more of people that would rather have that than 23 pieces of X-Men art, does it change the intrinsic value of the property or art itself?

Intrinsic value is tricky because how do you compare a piece of art with a piece of real estate? Well, as Aristotle would say - through the universal medium of exchance, ie cash. $700K will be tough for those pieces . . .

 

but when we get to expenditures of this kind, it depends on the individual spending the money where the value is actually placed.

Definitely agree - an object is worth only what someone would pay for it. My comic collection might have a higher cash value than all of my photo albums / family pics, but if I had to part with one, you know what I would part with . . . (yes, the comics). However, you would probably not value the pictures at all . . .

 

I have to disagree with the underlying analysis and the formula presented because I don't think there is a way to accurately gage such a unique piece, and that the only way to measure it is to allow the market to decide. I don't have a firm enough grasp of the original art market to say what similar key pieces of art have gone for, but consider that this is an entire issue, and I've never heard of anything remotely similar ever offered for auction.

I definitely agree - my argument is now that the price is too expensive. I guess you would agree because using the above statement, the fact that it hasn't sold for this kind of cash means that the market doesn' value it as such? 893scratchchin-thumb.gif

 

 

Just to wrap up really quickly, and this is courtesy of Gene who is alive and well and working quite a bit these days, but if you were to view this as a potential investment (aside from emotional attachment) what do you think the price potential is? Wasn't it mentioned earlier that this piece has been advertized for the last 10 years at $1.0mm? So if now it is at $0.7mm isn't that a $0.3mm loss?

 

From a collectability standpoint of course I would love to have this book, who wouldn't, but at that kind of money it isn't worth it. There is too much outside of comics that I would rather have with that kind of coin . . .

 

DAM

Link to comment
Share on other sites

starting off... yeah, I'd rather have a breyfogle piece with bats in it than an adams piece without...

 

But the whole idea is that if you could afford to drop $700k on comic art, the question of what you'd rather spend it on may not be quite as relevant.

 

To bottom line this though, I do think that in 10 years there's potential for these pieces to increase in value, and over the longer haul, to increase even more.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm going to have to side with DAM60, Murph and Shadroch on this one...I think the price looks high. At 23 pages and no cover, that works out to $30,435 per page (note: page #5 from Daredevil #1, by Bill Everett, sold recently on eBay for $7,069, just by way of comparison). Yes, it's early Kirby and X-Men #1, but that still seems very high, particularly without the cover (and it sure looks like it doesn't include the cover, as they keep referring to the complete *story* and not the complete *book* and the cover is conspicuously absent from the scans).

 

I'm not saying it won't sell (or won't appreciate in value), since all it takes is one determined buyer at any given point in time, but as Shadroch pointed out, the pool of potential buyers is limited at that price. Contrary to popular belief on this thread, $700K is a lot of dough and buys a lot of stuff, both comic-related and not...just because someone has the financial capability to spend that kind of dough on something as frivolous as comic book art (look, you and me may feel differently about it, but Joe Mega-Millionaire knows he will get a lot less flak buying a $10 million Monet than a $700,000 Jack Kirby), doesn't mean they will, especially if they haven't bought that third vacation home or garage full of Ferraris yet. It's not like the mega-rich got/stay that way by throwing money around at whatever catches their fancy. 893blahblah.gif

 

Plus, from a mathematical perspective, how much can this thing really appreciate from a starting point of $700K? At just 6% a year, the price of the artwork would double to $1.4 million in 2015, nearly $61,000 per single page of this issue. I just don't see that as being credible. I would think that you could handily beat the return on this artwork by "investing" elsewhere...most buyers shrewd enough to accumulate enough money to be able to afford this must surely realize that (not that all potential buyers would look at this as an investment).

 

If you still think all of this is still comparing apples and oranges, just think about how much prime comic original art you could buy for $700K...heck, just about anything and everything you could ever want...I bet you could pry loose some of the best original art in existence with that kind of cabbage.

 

Even if this artwork supposedly sells, who knows if it really will have sold at the asking price to a real buyer or whether we'll be left to speculate as with the Marvel Comics #1 Pay Copy... gossip.gif

 

Gene

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I really don't have the energy nor the drive to get into a long, drawn out discussion on some excellent points that were brought up allready. Kudos DAM60 ! - But consider this before we get all caught up in the price...about 4 years ago, Ebay ran an auction for the famous "Hornus Wagner" baseball card that came out of the tobacco packs in the teens. The final price was $ 1.5 million without buyer's premuim. So if a little thin, flimsy piece of paper with some unpopular player fetch that kind of money (mostly because of it's history and who has owned it. Wayne Gretsky co-owned it and it was once given away in a pack of baseball cards thru a Wal Mart promo- woman that won it had to sell it to pay the taxes on it) , then an assortment of art work from such a master like Kirby,( who is deceased, which all artists become more popular after they die) for a book as important as X MEN 1 should get stupid money. I know that GS 1 and X Men 94 are more important to the current popularity of the X Men and that the series was about to be cancelled...but, it's because of those books that # 1 is so important.

 

And that's the way it was...... 893blahblah.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I really don't have the energy nor the drive to get into a long, drawn out discussion on some excellent points that were brought up allready. Kudos DAM60 ! - But consider this before we get all caught up in the price...about 4 years ago, Ebay ran an auction for the famous "Hornus Wagner" baseball card that came out of the tobacco packs in the teens. The final price was $ 1.5 million without buyer's premuim

 

And that's the way it was...... 893blahblah.gif

 

I don't think you could classify HONUS Wagner as an unpopular turn of the century player (are you confusing him with Tyrus Cobb). I am sure the cardies would defend the value of that card (considering it got pulled early because Wagner didn't like cigarettes).

 

What I do believe in is that important pieces of comic book art are no different than a Monet or a Van Gogh etc etc. Painting is a product of a period, as are comics.

 

I think those pages still have good upside.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What I do believe in is that important pieces of comic book art are no different than a Monet or a Van Gogh etc etc. Painting is a product of a period, as are comics.

I think those pages still have good upside.

 

I tend to think so also. These are geniune one of a kind collectables and that fact that we have a whole issue here together adds to that uniqueness.

I also don't think that the original comic art market has peaked yet, possibly unlike the comic book market.

There are many collectors/investors that are yet to move from one medium to the other, and if they do prices are sure to rise on this type of artwork. It is after all, amoungst the cream of the crop.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

silly asking price----way more than its worth IMO. But thats JPs MO---show off that he owns hit; make up a ridiculously high price 30 years before its time; and IF someone steps up and buys it--great! If not---well, "look what I own--and you dont!"

 

As for the value of the complete story? IMO I dont really like or place a high value on regular panelled comic pages. Covers, splashes and pinups work for me. So to me, Ive got one great splash page, and that's it...except for any historically valuable pages with first appearances on them. So I'd rather just buy the splash or the cover to X-Men#1 than shell out for 22 more pages just to have the "complete book" for whatever premium that adds to the value.

 

Of course, if money were not an issue, Id love to own -- it like all of us would.

But the issue here is "Is 700K a good price?" I say emphatically 'NO.'

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have to agree with amanXXX. This set really should be split up

so it could be displayed as the centerpieces of 23 collections as

it deserves, rather than being mothballed in some oversized safe

deposit box.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have to agree with amanXXX. This set really should be split up

so it could be displayed as the centerpieces of 23 collections as

it deserves, rather than being mothballed in some oversized safe

deposit box.

 

I appreciate the pat on the back...although I wasnt saying exactly that. Just that I wouldn't pay an extra $650K for 21 pages of panels and tiny drawings. But if that frees up those pages for 21 other lucky collectors? well, shucks, maam 'twerent nuthin!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You guys covered a lot.

 

Just wanted to add that I have an older JP catalogue(2001?) and this art was in it on the last page. If I'm not mistaken, the asking price was $900,000. Unfortunetly, I can't verify for sure because my ex Girlfriend's Father has my copy of the catalogue(loaned it to him to look at the coins, never got it back when we broke up 893censored-thumb.gif).

 

All in all, it's a tough debate, and a tough call.

 

Dam: That's a damn fine appartment. Like you, I'd rather have the appartment. But keep in mind you(and I) are at a point in life were the choice between owning a beautiful home and a killer collectors piece, is not really a choice at all. As has been mentioned, this is something for a collector who has(or has access to) any material possesion they could want. And like Delekkerste said, having the money is not enough, especially if they have yet to really buy lots of [!@#%^&^].

 

Personally, I'm positive a deal will be made on this piece in the next year or 2. And if I were to guess, it will probably go to some form of business, not to a private collector. That can be a valuable thing for a dealer to have purely for the showcase/show-off value that JP is currently enjoying. To have something like that, is to be at the top of the heap, whether as a collector or dealer.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Seems like Geppi already cherrypicked the summer Heritage auction. He just paid an undisclosed sum for the original comic art to Action #15 earliest known Superman depicted on cover. How do u rank this against the $700k asking price of Kirby X-men #1 complete interior art?

 

http://www.heritagecomics.com/info/pressreleases/release.asp?ReleaseID=392&SID=B49481E8E6354910A970CB49470A6D00

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Seems like Geppi already cherrypicked the summer Heritage auction. He just paid an undisclosed sum for the original comic art to Action #15 earliest known Superman depicted on cover. How do u rank this against the $700k asking price of Kirby X-men #1 complete interior art?

 

http://www.heritagecomics.com/info/pressreleases/release.asp?ReleaseID=392&SID=B49481E8E6354910A970CB49470A6D00

 

go Steve go! The Disney artwork, being so historic and extensive (if not complete) are right up his alley. Glad to hear he's still buying since I keep reading on these boards that he's been only selling lately ....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Final Poll:

Art of Comics?X-Men #1 artmid grade copies of Action 1, Detectvie 27, Marvel Comics 1 and $250K worth of assorted books

Should be fun to see the results! grin.gifDAM
this choice is not really informative, because for allt of us who think the price asked for the XMen artwork is way too high, giving us a choice between just the artwork at that price and an equal dollar value of comics (that we all feel ARE worth 700K) leaves us all choosing the comics hands down.
Link to comment
Share on other sites