What is the OA 'Kiss of Death'?

[Mister Trent]

Unpublished art. While not exactly the kiss of death, it is definitely worth less than published artwork.

 

Pencilled only pages come to mind as another factor involved in the devaluation of the art as well as pages without lettering although to a lesser extent.

 

We had this discussion on another topic.

 

For myself, as I've said before, I don't have a problem with unpublished art - providing the provenance is assuring. The handful of unpublished covers I have were bought for aesthetic reasons, as opposed to values (as I don't have any intention to re-sell). 'Kiss of Death' really doesn't figure, for me. In the other topic, I posted an unpublished Kirby/Sinnott FANTASTIC FOUR cover. The subject of potential value aside, the artwork is from a particular time-frame when Kirby had hit his stride, and even if the artwork went unpublished it still evokes a reaction of admiration for the masterful image.

 

As for penciled-only pages, I actually enjoy looking at pre-inked artwork. The tonal range of (someone like Mike Mayhew's) penciling is awesome to behold. To me, the addition of all-inks to Mayhew's work would have a detrimental effect to the pencil work (he's a genius with a pencil).

 

And on a similar note, some years back, Frank Frazetta completed a number of pencils-only illustrations for Russ Cochran's Comic Art Auctions. The work was absolutely gorgeous . . .

[westform]

How about a piece of art that has repeatedly been put up for sale, either on Ebay of Caf Galleries, that won't sell?

 

 

Mitch I.

 

Definately!! Aaack... I've been the 'victim' of that syndrome myself. It doesn't have to be overpriced. Could be bad timing or bad exposure; but if a piece comes up again and again, it goes nowhere but down as collectors put the blinders on. Case in point was my ASM 155 cover. It's just been for sale too many times over the past few years not just by myself but by several others before me.... the first shot out of the gate is always your best chance at a sale. Dan

[malvin]

How about a piece of art that has repeatedly been put up for sale, either on Ebay of Caf Galleries, that won't sell?

 

 

Mitch I.

 

I have actually benefited from that with the Veitch Kid Miracleman page, although there were other factors at work.

 

It does affect the value. My theory is, if you really want the page, but the first asking price is well above what you are willing to pay, you will watch with interest as the price gets lower and closer to your budget. However, when it is within your reach and no one is bidding, you might question your own valuation, and you might think that you can wait it out since it will only get lower and lower. If everyone thinks like that, then the selling price will definitely be low.

 

On a side topic, and I'm sure if it has been discussed here. If a piece is on CAF forever, not for sale but for viewing only, would that affect the price it would fetch when it goes on ebay one day? I don't mean exceptional pieces that people would crave for, but "typical" pieces. I can see how the first sign of something would create excitement, but as they say, the Mona Lisa is still worth tons and everyone sees it.

 

Malvin

[metropoliscomics]

On another thread, a member posted that unpublished covers were the "kiss of death" for an OA collector. There was some strong disagreement -- and some gorgeous unpublished covers shown -- before the thread dwindled away.

 

But it got me thinking about the factors that diminish collectibility of OA. Not a true k.o.d., just something that lowers the value of a piece of original comic art. And I remembered receiving a piece of comic art that instantly dropped in value as I took it from its packaging.

 

It was from a small press publisher and I'd contacted the artist directly. I admire the artist and I still enjoy the cover...but I do wish he hadn't written (in the body of the cover itself) "To Hal!, Best wishes --"....

 

Unpublished covers are great to look at. In terms of their desirability, they seem to be the orphan at the orphanage that no one seems to want.

 

Saw the "unpublished" cover to Captain America #6, by S&K, on display at the Jewish museum. For a 1941 cover, it was in great shape. Probably due to the fact that it was drawn in 1969 by Joe Simon.

 

S

[Mister Trent]

Unpublished covers are great to look at. In terms of their desirability, they seem to be the orphan at the orphanage that no one seems to want.

 

Saw the "unpublished" cover to Captain America #6, by S&K, on display at the Jewish museum. For a 1941 cover, it was in great shape. Probably due to the fact that it was drawn in 1969 by Joe Simon.

 

S

 

There's a subtle difference between 'unpublished' and 'forgery'.

[comix4fun]

Unpublished covers are great to look at. In terms of their desirability, they seem to be the orphan at the orphanage that no one seems to want.

 

Saw the "unpublished" cover to Captain America #6, by S&K, on display at the Jewish museum. For a 1941 cover, it was in great shape. Probably due to the fact that it was drawn in 1969 by Joe Simon.

 

S

 

There's a subtle difference between 'unpublished' and 'forgery'.

 

 

Well in the case mentioned it sounds more like a "reinterpretation" since it was done by the original artists and never passed off as the actual published cover.

 

If someone tried to pass it off as an unpubbed cover created at the time of the original that is wrong, but an artist re-imagining a piece of theirs at a different time in a different way is not what I call a forgery.

 

Chris

[Mister Trent]

Unpublished covers are great to look at. In terms of their desirability, they seem to be the orphan at the orphanage that no one seems to want.

 

Saw the "unpublished" cover to Captain America #6, by S&K, on display at the Jewish museum. For a 1941 cover, it was in great shape. Probably due to the fact that it was drawn in 1969 by Joe Simon.

 

S

 

There's a subtle difference between 'unpublished' and 'forgery'.

 

 

Well in the case mentioned it sounds more like a "reinterpretation" since it was done by the original artists and never passed off as the actual published cover.

 

If someone tried to pass it off as an unpubbed cover created at the time of the original that is wrong, but an artist re-imagining a piece of theirs at a different time in a different way is not what I call a forgery.

 

Chris

 

The way Stephen words it, makes it sound like the intent was to pass it off as a '1941' unpublished CAPTAIN AMERICA cover.

 

If you want to be pedantic, 'forgery' is perhaps not the best description, but if Joe Simon's intent was to pass a 1969 piece off as a 1941 piece, neither is 're-imagining'.

 

Stephen also says the 'unpublished' art was by Simon & Kirby - with no mention of Kirby's hand when he says the art was drawn in 1969 by Joe Simon .

 

'Fake' 1941 cover (in the sense the time-scale it's supposed to be is not genuine)?

[comix4fun]

The way Stephen words it, makes it sound like the intent was to pass it off as a '1941' unpublished CAPTAIN AMERICA cover.

 

If you want to be pedantic, 'forgery' is perhaps not the best description, but if Joe Simon's intent was to pass a 1969 piece off as a 1941 piece, neither is 're-imagining'.

 

'Fake' 1941 cover (in the sense the time-scale it's supposed to be is not genuine)?

 

Agreed it would be wrong to pass off a piece created almost 30 years later as a concurrently created piece.

 

Artists re-imagine their pieces all the time. BWS is the example that comes to mind most readily, Zeck is another...neither tries to pass them off as anything other than they are and I don't consider them "fake's". But I agree that it all hangs on the intent of the exhibtor.

 

I doubt that would be something Joe Simon would do, but it does sound like something that someone hanging it in an exhibit would mistakenly claim if they did not know better.

 

Chris

[metropoliscomics]

Unpublished covers are great to look at. In terms of their desirability, they seem to be the orphan at the orphanage that no one seems to want.

 

Saw the "unpublished" cover to Captain America #6, by S&K, on display at the Jewish museum. For a 1941 cover, it was in great shape. Probably due to the fact that it was drawn in 1969 by Joe Simon.

 

S

 

There's a subtle difference between 'unpublished' and 'forgery'.

 

 

Well in the case mentioned it sounds more like a "reinterpretation" since it was done by the original artists and never passed off as the actual published cover.

 

If someone tried to pass it off as an unpubbed cover created at the time of the original that is wrong, but an artist re-imagining a piece of theirs at a different time in a different way is not what I call a forgery.

 

Chris

 

The way Stephen words it, makes it sound like the intent was to pass it off as a '1941' unpublished CAPTAIN AMERICA cover.

 

If you want to be pedantic, 'forgery' is perhaps not the best description, but if Joe Simon's intent was to pass a 1969 piece off as a 1941 piece, neither is 're-imagining'.

 

Stephen also says the 'unpublished' art was by Simon & Kirby - with no mention of Kirby's hand when he says the art was drawn in 1969 by Joe Simon .

 

'Fake' 1941 cover (in the sense the time-scale it's supposed to be is not genuine)?

 

To be clear, this piece is being labeled as a 1941 piece of art which it is not. It is from the late 1960's. It is sitting next to a piece of art being called the original 1941 concept drawing for Cap and Bucky. It is a hoax in that this was drawn in the late 1960's as well.

 

S

[Mister Trent]

Unpublished covers are great to look at. In terms of their desirability, they seem to be the orphan at the orphanage that no one seems to want.

 

Saw the "unpublished" cover to Captain America #6, by S&K, on display at the Jewish museum. For a 1941 cover, it was in great shape. Probably due to the fact that it was drawn in 1969 by Joe Simon.

 

S

 

There's a subtle difference between 'unpublished' and 'forgery'.

 

 

Well in the case mentioned it sounds more like a "reinterpretation" since it was done by the original artists and never passed off as the actual published cover.

 

If someone tried to pass it off as an unpubbed cover created at the time of the original that is wrong, but an artist re-imagining a piece of theirs at a different time in a different way is not what I call a forgery.

 

Chris

 

The way Stephen words it, makes it sound like the intent was to pass it off as a '1941' unpublished CAPTAIN AMERICA cover.

 

If you want to be pedantic, 'forgery' is perhaps not the best description, but if Joe Simon's intent was to pass a 1969 piece off as a 1941 piece, neither is 're-imagining'.

 

Stephen also says the 'unpublished' art was by Simon & Kirby - with no mention of Kirby's hand when he says the art was drawn in 1969 by Joe Simon .

 

'Fake' 1941 cover (in the sense the time-scale it's supposed to be is not genuine)?

 

To be clear, this piece is being labeled as a 1941 piece of art which it is not. It is from the late 1960's. It is sitting next to a piece of art being called the original 1941 concept drawing for Cap and Bucky. It is a hoax in that this was drawn in the late 1960's as well.

 

S

 

Thanks for clarifying, Stephen.

 

Over to you, Chris?

[artdealer]

Malvin,

 

I get offered art from many collector's CAF galleries and I always pass.

 

If it has been shown there and hasn't sold in quite a while, why would I want it. It's not like I would get a good enough discount to buy the art.

 

Mitch I.

[Mister Trent]

Malvin,

 

I get offered art from many collector's CAF galleries and I always pass.

 

If it has been shown there and hasn't sold in quite a while, why would I want it. It's not like I would get a good enough discount to buy the art.

 

Mitch I.

 

Dealers' sites are looked at all the time. An individual's CAF Gallery can easily be overlooked as hundreds of new pieces are being added to the site on a constant basis.

 

Perhaps taking art on consignment (as Burkey does) is an option worth considering for you? That way, you don't have to shell-out any money up-front.

[malvin]

Malvin,

 

I get offered art from many collector's CAF galleries and I always pass.

 

If it has been shown there and hasn't sold in quite a while, why would I want it. It's not like I would get a good enough discount to buy the art.

 

Mitch I.

 

Hi Mitch,

 

But what if it was shown there for display only and not for sale? And one day, due to the usual reasons (life events, better art in sight, etc) the person wants to sell it.

 

Would the selling price be different because people have seen the art before? Put it another way, if 2 Breyfogle (just plugging in an example artist) Batman pages were on sale on ebay, both are equivalent, with a couple of panels showing Batman in costume, would they fetch the same price if one was on someone's CAF for years while another just showed up for the first time?

 

Malvin

[comix4fun]

Unpublished covers are great to look at. In terms of their desirability, they seem to be the orphan at the orphanage that no one seems to want.

 

Saw the "unpublished" cover to Captain America #6, by S&K, on display at the Jewish museum. For a 1941 cover, it was in great shape. Probably due to the fact that it was drawn in 1969 by Joe Simon.

 

S

 

There's a subtle difference between 'unpublished' and 'forgery'.

 

 

Well in the case mentioned it sounds more like a "reinterpretation" since it was done by the original artists and never passed off as the actual published cover.

 

If someone tried to pass it off as an unpubbed cover created at the time of the original that is wrong, but an artist re-imagining a piece of theirs at a different time in a different way is not what I call a forgery.

 

Chris

 

The way Stephen words it, makes it sound like the intent was to pass it off as a '1941' unpublished CAPTAIN AMERICA cover.

 

If you want to be pedantic, 'forgery' is perhaps not the best description, but if Joe Simon's intent was to pass a 1969 piece off as a 1941 piece, neither is 're-imagining'.

 

Stephen also says the 'unpublished' art was by Simon & Kirby - with no mention of Kirby's hand when he says the art was drawn in 1969 by Joe Simon .

 

'Fake' 1941 cover (in the sense the time-scale it's supposed to be is not genuine)?

 

To be clear, this piece is being labeled as a 1941 piece of art which it is not. It is from the late 1960's. It is sitting next to a piece of art being called the original 1941 concept drawing for Cap and Bucky. It is a hoax in that this was drawn in the late 1960's as well.

 

S

 

Thanks for clarifying, Stephen.

 

Over to you, Chris?

 

 

I really think we come down on the same side of this. I just think you are using the wrong language to explain it and that language is what I take issue with because it could lay some of the blame for this on Joe Simon.

 

BTW...Did you edit in an additional paragraph there? I don't remember seeing that "simon and kirby" bold face reference when I first responded...anyway...it is of no consequence.

 

I already said I agreed that labeling a piece created in 1969 as a 1941 piece is wrong. But I have to say Stephen's calling it a "hoax" is the best description in terms of accuracy that I have seen. It imputes culpability (and at the very least stupidity) on the exhibitor...and it doesn't include the artist.

 

Calling the piece a "Fake" imputes some sort of wrongdoing on the artist who created it.

Are the Commissioned recreations by Kirby and Ayers of the classic Marvel covers that were created and sold at auction in the 90's all fakes? Of course not. They were made as recreations and sold as such.

 

If someone takes those same recreations and exhibits or sells them now calling them "rare unpublished covers" does that make the recreations fakes? No, it simply makes the seller a liar or mentally challenged or both.

 

That is why calling it a hoax means one thing (a potential attempt at fraud by the exhibtor) and calling them fakes (an attempt at fraud by the creator of the new piece) is entirely different. Unless of course we are trying to say Joe Simon intentionally created a fake piece to attempt to pass it off as the original, which is not what I read and not what I understand from the explanation Stephen included.

 

Like I said we seem to come down on the same side of this, unless you are saying Joe Simon was involved, which I don't think you are.

 

Chris

[Mister Trent]

Unpublished covers are great to look at. In terms of their desirability, they seem to be the orphan at the orphanage that no one seems to want.

 

Saw the "unpublished" cover to Captain America #6, by S&K, on display at the Jewish museum. For a 1941 cover, it was in great shape. Probably due to the fact that it was drawn in 1969 by Joe Simon.

 

S

 

There's a subtle difference between 'unpublished' and 'forgery'.

 

 

Well in the case mentioned it sounds more like a "reinterpretation" since it was done by the original artists and never passed off as the actual published cover.

 

If someone tried to pass it off as an unpubbed cover created at the time of the original that is wrong, but an artist re-imagining a piece of theirs at a different time in a different way is not what I call a forgery.

 

Chris

 

The way Stephen words it, makes it sound like the intent was to pass it off as a '1941' unpublished CAPTAIN AMERICA cover.

 

If you want to be pedantic, 'forgery' is perhaps not the best description, but if Joe Simon's intent was to pass a 1969 piece off as a 1941 piece, neither is 're-imagining'.

 

Stephen also says the 'unpublished' art was by Simon & Kirby - with no mention of Kirby's hand when he says the art was drawn in 1969 by Joe Simon .

 

'Fake' 1941 cover (in the sense the time-scale it's supposed to be is not genuine)?

 

To be clear, this piece is being labeled as a 1941 piece of art which it is not. It is from the late 1960's. It is sitting next to a piece of art being called the original 1941 concept drawing for Cap and Bucky. It is a hoax in that this was drawn in the late 1960's as well.

 

S

 

Thanks for clarifying, Stephen.

 

Over to you, Chris?

 

BTW...Did you edit in an additional paragraph there? I don't remember seeing that "simon and kirby" bold face reference when I first responded...anyway...it is of no consequence.

 

Chris

 

Yes, I edited-in this after my original posting, as it was an important aspect I had overlooked.

 

Hoax . . . to deceive jokingly.

 

Can't say I'm terribly amused.

[metropoliscomics]

Unless of course we are trying to say Joe Simon intentionally created a fake piece to attempt to pass it off as the original, which is not what I read and not what I understand from the explanation Stephen included.

 

 

 

Bingo. Joe Simon wanted people to think he created Cap America. That is why he created the 1941 concept drawing in 1969.

 

As for the "unpublished" Cap #6 cover, don't know why that one was created.

 

S

[comix4fun]

Yes, I edited-in this after my original posting, as it was an important aspect I had overlooked.

 

Hoax . . . to deceive jokingly.

 

Can't say I'm terribly amused.

 

 

It would be even less amusing if they were trying to sell it that way and not just display it that way...

 

C

[Ares]

All this discussion of the item on dispaly affectign Value is Krazy TalK

[artdealer]

Malvin and Mr. Trent,

 

I meant the art that is for sale on the CAF Galleries.

 

I get art on consignment all the time from collectors. The difference between Burkey and I, is that I won't take art that has been around for ages. I'll only deal with "fresh to the market" art.

 

Mitch I.

[bluechip]

Re: <<<<<<<<<<There's a subtle difference between 'unpublished' and 'forgery'. >>>>>>>>>>>>>

 

 

It always feels strange when there comes a need to state something that's obvious, but in case the writer of that opinon is not joking, let's take a momet to state what should be obvious and poiont out that there's a HUGE difference unpublished and forgery.

 

Any forgery is, by definition, unpublished.

 

But there are many covers that were created at the same time and by the same artists who worked on the published version. The siimply didn't make the cut, or the company decided to change the cover for some reason.

 

Think about the origial cover version for Young Allies 1, which was drawn depicting Stalin as a villain on the cover alongside Hitler. But before the book hit the stands, Hitler invaded Russia and suddenly we knew the soviets were going to be our "allies" (if only for a short time) and so the cover was pulled and a new one hastily drawn uo.

 

If the opriginal art were to turn up for that unpublished cover, I would hardly call it a forgery. In fact I would consider it more desirable, and possible also more valuable, than the published cover.

 

Marvel often ordered several versions of covers rroutinelly. MAny of them still exist. They are not forgeries. They're just unpublished version of covers created at virtually the same time.

 

, i