Dick Ayers art question

[BrianR]

I've have been actively looking for a nice silver age page and I have noticed the Ayers art is consistantly a lot cheaper than others from the mid 60's ranging from 350-1100 with superheroes in costume. Does anyone know the reason for this?

[*paull*]

Because Ayers isn't viewed as one of the top Marvel Silver Age artists. That tier is occupied by Kirby, Steranko, Ditko, Romita, Colan, Buscema. Pages that sell for less include work by Heck, Ayers, Lieber, Severin, etc.

 

Original Art is ALL ABOUT the artist. Compare the prices of a Ditko Spider-Man page vs. one that was pencilled by Larry Lieber. The character has far less to do with the price than the artist who illustrated it.

[Mister Trent]

Original Art is ALL ABOUT the artist. Compare the prices of a Ditko Spider-Man page vs. one that was pencilled by Larry Lieber. The character has far less to do with the price than the artist who illustrated it.

 

Of course Original Art is ALL ABOUT the artist.

 

But then again, when it comes down to looking at an individual artist's body of work, CHARACTERS do play an major role.

 

Glen Brunswick has a really striking Neal Adams BATMAN cover up for sale with an asking price of $22,000 (BIN).

 

Within the past few years I bought myself a really striking Neal Adams TOMAHAWK cover for several thousand dollars.

 

To my mind, as an image, the TOMAHAWK's every bit as good as the BATMAN cover . . . but the huge jump in valuation/price is based on CHARACTER desirability.

 

Everyone knows BATMAN.

 

TOMAHAWK anyone . . ?

[*paull*]

Of course the character matters, but not nearly as much as the artist.

 

How about a Neal Adams Batman page vs. one by Frank Robbins?

 

Work done by an artist on his signature character will always go for more. For instance: Adams on Batman, Kirby on FF, Ditko on Spider-Man, Romita on Spider-Man, etc.

 

Adams' Tomahawk covers are awesome.... if you got one for a 1/8 the cost of a Batman cover, I call that a great deal.

[BrianR]

I usually look at the quality of the peice itself regardless of the artist. I've always loved Kirby due to my love for Fantastic Four and growing appreiciation for the early Thors. However I can relate more to Kirby's seventies style of art more. Its as if he developed his own style moved further away from a "house" style (Although all his work is typically great) plus I grew up in the 70's 80's. The later Thors that were inked by coloritta? spelling I feel is pretty horrible taking a long look at it. I feel its a case where the inker didn't flow with the penciller. Ayers art on some books are quite nice I enjoy his work on TTA. and Some Strange Tales books. Buscema's work on FF is IMHO as nice and sometimes better than some of Kirby's. Ditko, while I love his work on Spiderman his art tends to be a bit to rounded or bubbly looking. Yeah, Heck and Lieber should be at the boottom but I also think some of Colan work (not all) should be ranked lower. The top four should be Kirby, Steranko, Romita, Buscema followed by Ditko, Colan, Ayers and some Severin should be mid as well a couple others then the rest. Granted I am not talking about bronze age up because there are some fantasic artist that rank up there with Kirby etc. I never was really into DC but Adams and Wrightson two name a couple rank up w/ the kirby crowd.

[Mighty Hal]

I've learned alot from visiting these boards and it's changed how I look at and collect comic art. While I agree that the choice of artist can be of paramount importance, I don't think it's ALL about the artist. I think paull's argument is basically sound. I just think he worded it too strongly.

 

Although the artist involved definitely influences the bottom line, character is a key factor in a page's value. The Adams/Tomahawk vs Adams/Batman cover discussion was a prime example. ((By the way, would I love that Adams/Batman cover if I could get it without having to arrange for a second mortgage? Oh, yes, yes, I most certainly would.))

 

I would especially like the Adams/Batman cover because I REMEMBER that cover fondly. That plays into collecting, too. If it's a story that you liked, that you remember, you'll open the wallet a little wider. And because comics are words and pictures, the better artist producing stronger artwork often results in a more fondly remembered story. My theory, anyway.

 

One more thing: If the page reflects a significant event in the comics world -- say, a FF wedding, a death of a prominent character, that kind of thing, the piece has more value. Again, if you've got a Kirby-drawn death of a prominent character versus a Don Heck-drawn death of a character, Kirby value is higher. But if you've got a Kirby-drawn KAMANDI page that's missing Kamandi and any action of interest versus a Ayers-drawn death of one of the Howling Commandos...well, the dollar figures are gonna be much closer.

[*paull*]

I think those Adams Tomahawk covers are some of the best work he did, so Trent probably got a super deal. Of course it's nice to get work by an artist on his/her signature character, but I'm also very interested in getting that artist's best work. It's hard to make an argument that the Batman cover is worth 8 times what the Tomahawk cover is worth.

[mrpunch0]

Who did the piece is very important when determining what a piece will sell for.

 

What character is depicted is also a key factor. (Batman vs. Tomahawk is a great example)

And then there is the power of nostolgia. Nothing will drive a price up faster than two collectors with deep pockets who both "must have" the cover to X-Spinoff #22 because that was the first book they really loved.

 

Now when you add all three of those together? Look out.