• 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.

FORBES can bite me

Started by Mighty Hal,

26 posts in this topic

Mighty Hal

Mighty Hal

Posted
Posted

In the December 25th issue, FORBES came out with their hot collectibles. Weather vanes, cast-iron banks, comic books and original comic art. Why OA? Because, in 2006, the cover to Amazing Spider-Man #43 sold at auction for $101,700.

 

That's pretty much all they said. Pick up OA because Silver Age material is "particularly beloved by boomer buyers". Well, yeah. I love Silver Age stuff, too. And I don't want FORBES pimping my hobby to people who don't know any better.

 

Because Silver Age stuff is going up (faster than a speeding bullet, according to the mag). What I most want, I can't afford already. I don't need a big money newbie, someone with no real love of OA, jacking the prices up further in a money grab.

 

It happened in '90s with Silver Age comic books. Worse, prices for those books never seemed to come back down....

Link to comment
Share on other sites
lmiller

lmiller

Posted
Posted

well i have to belive its already starting to happen. every time heritage had an auction it expose.s newer people to the hobby with some not being collectors. but person.s that look at original comic art as the new gold mine of the future.

 

larry ;]

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mighty Hal

Mighty Hal

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Yeah, Larry, I think so, too.

 

Still, if the newbies go on the FORBES article alone, they're going to be misled. The newbiASM cover isn't an accurate representation of current OA prices. Another Phil Weiss auction had a '67 Captain America vs Black Panther cover...by Kirby, I think...that went for a fraction of the '63 Rhino cover.

 

There's something about a Silver Age Romita-drawn Spidey cover that causes an insane jump in prices. If a Curt Swan/Superman cover of the same year went on the auction block, I'd be willing to bet money that it wouldn't draw anywhere near as many bidders. You can argue that John Romita produced iconic Spider-Man covers and I wouldn't disagree. But the combo of Curt Swan and Superman...or Jack Kirby and Captain America...produced as iconic images as well -- and nobody is arranging a $100,000 bank loan to pick up that OA.

 

So why exactly did Silver Age Spider-Man covers become the gold standard in original comic art?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
lmiller

lmiller

Posted
Posted

well i gotta think the movies have a lot to do with the sucess of all spidey art. where as the superman franchise do ok. but not nearly as good as the spidey movies. it just make sence .if the ghost rider movie done well . you cam bet all ghost rider art will go up. look at the fastatistc four. with the silver surfer in the next movie. watch those kirby and busema surfer page.s creep up a lil.

 

larry .]

Link to comment
Share on other sites
heartened

heartened

Posted
Posted
well i gotta think the movies have a lot to do with the sucess of all spidey art. where as the superman franchise do ok. but not nearly as good as the spidey movies. it just make sence .if the ghost rider movie done well . you cam bet all ghost rider art will go up. look at the fastatistc four. with the silver surfer in the next movie. watch those kirby and busema surfer page.s creep up a lil.

 

larry .]

 

Romita ASM covers were the top of the heap way before the movies came out. I think it has a lot to do with it being iconic Silver Age imagery and a solo character title, and also the fact that Spidey is the #1 Marvel character hands-down.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mighty Hal

Mighty Hal

Posted
  • Author
Posted

I could be blowing smoke -- I don't have sales figures at hand -- but it seems to me that the various X-titles are at or about the Spidey figures, month after month. The X-Men movies were very successful (not at the Spider-Man level, true, but hits nonetheless). X-Men covers don't bring Spidey numbers...although I could be wrong here. When was the last time a '63/'64 X-Men cover went on the block?

 

And I'm also wondering: Why exactly would a solo character title bring more money? No disrespect meant here, I'm just wondering -- why? I'm still stumped that there's a gorgeous Neal Adams' Batman cover that can be had for a fraction of the ASM 43 money -- and nobody is cutting a check for that artwork! (If I could afford the Adams' piece, I'd do it in a heartbeat.) Batman's a classic solo character that oughta demand something close to the Spider-cash.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
dem1138

dem1138

Posted
Posted

Romita covers have historically sold for less than the Ditko covers have sold for privately (the select few that have been unearthed). Perhaps the rarity of Ditko covers have driven the prices up of Romita covers as the next best thing available.

 

For whatever reason, Peter Parker/Spider-Man has come to represent the zeitgeist of the current generation over the X-Men and other characters - in addition - the movie franchise has been the higher consistent quality of the other franchises.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
tth2

tth2

Posted
Posted
I could be blowing smoke -- I don't have sales figures at hand -- but it seems to me that the various X-titles are at or about the Spidey figures, month after month. The X-Men movies were very successful (not at the Spider-Man level, true, but hits nonetheless). X-Men covers don't bring Spidey numbers...although I could be wrong here. When was the last time a '63/'64 X-Men cover went on the block?

I think there's two reasons. The first is that a lot of the X-Men covers from the 1960s, even the Kirby covers, aren't so great artistically. Many of the Ditko covers, on the other hand, are great, and although I'm not a big Romita fan, I have to admit that his Spidey covers were pretty good.

 

Second, X-Men from the 1960s doesn't generate the same kind of emotional response that Spiderman does. NO Marvel character elicits the 10-year old fanboy in many of today's middle-aged comic collectors the way that Spidey does. Plus, X-men was a lower tier title through the 60s and mid-70s that for most of its life was not nearly as popular as Spiderman. The sales figures you're referring to are a relatively recent phenomena, and I think it's safe to say that for most of its life, particularly when the title was the old X-Men, X-Men never came close to Spiderman's monthly sales figures. X-Men sales matching Spiderman's only became possible after the introduction of the new X-Men, and even then only after John Byrne started doing the art. So while there clearly is some emotional attachment between comic collectors and the Byrne X-Men (as evidenced by the very high prices realized for his OA), that same attachment just doesn't exist with old X-Men.

 

And I'm also wondering: Why exactly would a solo character title bring more money? No disrespect meant here, I'm just wondering -- why? I'm still stumped that there's a gorgeous Neal Adams' Batman cover that can be had for a fraction of the ASM 43 money -- and nobody is cutting a check for that artwork! (If I could afford the Adams' piece, I'd do it in a heartbeat.) Batman's a classic solo character that oughta demand something close to the Spider-cash.

I'm not sure why popularity/value should hinge on whether it's a solo character vs. a group. Should Fantastic Four (a group) therefore be more popular than Spiderman? In any event, you then compare Spiderman to Batman, who was also a solo character. confused-smiley-013.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites
malvin

malvin

Posted
Posted

If you already have the art, you will always welcome more people into the hobby that will increase the value of your collection, even if you are not looking to sell.

 

If you are looking to buy, then yes, you will definitely have more competition.

 

And who is to judge who should stay in the OA hobby, just because they have more money and can spend more means they should stay out because they are newbies?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
comicparadox

comicparadox

Posted
Posted
Yeah, Larry, I think so, too.

 

Still, if the newbies go on the FORBES article alone, they're going to be misled. The newbiASM cover isn't an accurate representation of current OA prices. Another Phil Weiss auction had a '67 Captain America vs Black Panther cover...by Kirby, I think...that went for a fraction of the '63 Rhino cover.

 

There's something about a Silver Age Romita-drawn Spidey cover that causes an insane jump in prices. If a Curt Swan/Superman cover of the same year went on the auction block, I'd be willing to bet money that it wouldn't draw anywhere near as many bidders. You can argue that John Romita produced iconic Spider-Man covers and I wouldn't disagree. But the combo of Curt Swan and Superman...or Jack Kirby and Captain America...produced as iconic images as well -- and nobody is arranging a $100,000 bank loan to pick up that OA.

 

So why exactly did Silver Age Spider-Man covers become the gold standard in original comic art?

 

Because Mike Burkey (Romitaman) cornered the market early, and there is a demand for Spiderman as Marvel's iconic figure.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mighty Hal

Mighty Hal

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Malvin, you misunderstand me. I've no problem with no collectors in the OA field; heck, without new collectors, the hobby would die. My problem is with people that jump into OA only as a money-making venture. If they have no interest or respect for the hobby itself, I'd rather they stay away.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mister Trent

Mister Trent

Posted
Posted
When was the last time a '63/'64 X-Men cover went on the block?

 

Other than KK's uncorfirmed contention to owning the X-MEN # 1 cover, I've never heard of any X-MEN covers from 1963/64 surfacing in collector circles.

 

Generally, Marvel superhero covers from the early 1960s are extremely scarce.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
irchooker

irchooker

Posted
Posted

Other than KK's uncorfirmed contention

 

I think you mean Matthew Ryan Riescher's unconfirmed contention.

 

Matthew Ryan Riescher?

 

That's KK's name. That or Matthew Riescher Ryan, depending on who you ask. AKA baby gravy, diver, et al.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
pinupcartoonguy

pinupcartoonguy

Posted
Posted
One (probably last) question: Is the wily Romitaman really the person primarily responsible for the run-up in John Romita-ASM covers?

 

He doesn't hoard the covers, only the interior pages. gossip.gif

 

He might hot hoard them but he does purchase them (he was the buyer of #100 a while back), and either trades them for interior pages or flips them. So he has an impact on the ASM cover market as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
comix4fun

comix4fun

Posted
Posted

Other than KK's uncorfirmed contention

 

I think you mean Matthew Ryan Riescher's unconfirmed contention.

 

Matthew Ryan Riescher?

 

 

This entire thread is a like a seance trying to raise the aforementioned KK from the banned/shill grave......dontcha think?

 

Candyman, Candyman, Candym.........................................

 

C

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Go to topic listing