Which is more valuable: Original art from Action 1 or Mint Action 1?

[codfish]

I have been open and frank here and on CPG as to my user names so you can give up your little conspiracy theory crybaby. Oh wait you never post in thecomic sections so you wouldn't know

[codfish]

If it reached the national news that a piece of original art from the birth of Superman had been found, think of the coverage it would cause.

 

Now, would it reach the world outside the comic collecting community if a MINT Action Comics 1 was found? Would the news be that big OUTSIDE of comic collectors?

 

I think you greatly overestimate the publicity the former would generate vs. the latter. Mint copy of Action Comics #1, the most valuable comic book in existence featuring the first appearance of Superman? That is an easy story for the media to sell. The original artwork, even the cover, of Action #1? Zzzzzz. Even if it were to fetch a million bucks or two, that's a pittance in the art world; who would really notice outside of a few Supes fans and comic art collectors (whose number is dwarfed by the legions of comic book readers & collectors out there)? I am metaphysically certain that many more people would care about the former vs. the latter - even I can see that, and I'm an OA guy!

I think the discovery of the Action OA wouldn't make a big stir to the outside world because the outside world would have been unaware in the first place that much of the OA for GA books has been lost. By the same token, I don't think the outside world would care about a copy of Action #1 being in mint condition.

 

In both cases, the outside world would only care if a public sale price broke the $1 million mark. Gene, although you're right that art goes for more than a million all the time, new record prices in certain genres still get attention. As I think the cover OA for Action #1 would without a doubt break $1 million, I think it would get a lot of press coverage, particularly if the buyer turned out to be a celeb like Spielberg or Lucas (or Nic Cage).

 

I would agree with this comment tth2

[jjeanius]

I am an OA collector first and foremost...and I would be more intrigued by the NM copy of Action 1 than by the OA. Action 1 is the grail of all comic book grails...and is the equivalent of the Honus Wagner T206 baseball card. Remember when Gretzky owned it, then it was given away in a Wal Mart sweepstakes? Big news. BIG news. National news. Whether or not you collect baseball cards, you probably saw or read something about it at the time. No matter what you collect (comics, baseball cards, beanie babies, tea cozies, whatever), everyone can relate to that one item that is more desirable than all others...and so you instantly have the attention of ALL collectors. And most americans grew up on comic books...so there is a nostalgia for that. People have memories of comics that are intrinsically linked to their childhood. There is no such attachment to original art. And Superman is a global icon. All of this together indicates that the comic book would get a LOT more press.

 

And given that at least one example of the interior art has already hit the market, it looks like the NM Action 1 might actually be the rarer of the two.

[dem1138]

And let's not forget that Steve Geppi, a multi-millionaire many times over, would pay a significant premium for a mint copy of Action #1. And I do believe that he would have competition...

[delekkerste]

I am an OA collector first and foremost...and I would be more intrigued by the NM copy of Action 1 than by the OA. Action 1 is the grail of all comic book grails...and is the equivalent of the Honus Wagner T206 baseball card.

 

Absolutely. If the original artwork to the T206 Wagner card was discovered, does anyone think that would create more of a stir in the media than what the recent sale of the former Gretzky-owned card did? Would it fetch more money? No and no. It may be "one of a kind" while there are numerous copies of both the T206 Wagner and Action #1, but this card and this comic, respectively, have a mystique that people are drawn to. They are the best of the best Holy Grails of their respective hobbies. The production art, as it were, would be decidedly less interesting to the vast majority of people out there.

 

If the finest copy of Action Comics #1 and the original cover art to the same both went up for sale in the same auction, I bet the former would garner more bidders, more interest, and a much higher price than the latter. The former would be the finest example of a collectible comic book in existence. You'd be hard-pressed to convince me that the cover of Action #1 would be the finest example of comic book art in existence - to be honest, I don't even know who the artist is and I bet the vast majority of comic books fans couldn't tell you either - is it Siegel or Shuster?

[NightGallery1]

Personally I would prefer the original art, but in this case I would expect the mint comic to fetch a higher price. The fact that there are so few Action #1's graded (33 with only two in VF) would seem to be the major consideration.

 

If, on the other hand, a mint copy of another highly influential comic - Fantastic Four #1 (590 total with what, 8 graded NM?) was located along with the original art, I would expect the art to generate a much higher price.

 

Just my two cents!

[dem1138]

That's an interesting spin - because the OA to the cover to FF #1 would NO DOUBT sell for more that a CGC 9.8 copy of FF #1. But Jack Kirby is a much more desireable artist among OA collectors than Joe Shuster and Jerry Siegel.

[tth2]

I am an OA collector first and foremost...and I would be more intrigued by the NM copy of Action 1 than by the OA. Action 1 is the grail of all comic book grails...and is the equivalent of the Honus Wagner T206 baseball card.

 

Absolutely. If the original artwork to the T206 Wagner card was discovered, does anyone think that would create more of a stir in the media than what the recent sale of the former Gretzky-owned card did? Would it fetch more money? No and no. It may be "one of a kind" while there are numerous copies of both the T206 Wagner and Action #1, but this card and this comic, respectively, have a mystique that people are drawn to. They are the best of the best Holy Grails of their respective hobbies. The production art, as it were, would be decidedly less interesting to the vast majority of people out there.

 

If the finest copy of Action Comics #1 and the original cover art to the same both went up for sale in the same auction, I bet the former would garner more bidders, more interest, and a much higher price than the latter. The former would be the finest example of a collectible comic book in existence. You'd be hard-pressed to convince me that the cover of Action #1 would be the finest example of comic book art in existence - to be honest, I don't even know who the artist is and I bet the vast majority of comic books fans couldn't tell you either - is it Siegel or Shuster?

I think the difference is that the cover of Action #1 is an iconic image in and of itself. Which trumps the fact that most people don't know who Joe Shuster is. The painting of Honus Wagner in the T206 is not an iconic image in any way.

 

It's very ironic that I, the comic guy, am arguing in favor of the OA, while you, the OA guy, are arguing in favor of the comic.

[Solar]

Actually, the litho that the T206 Wagner used was produced from a photo. An original print of the photo sold recently.

 

It's definitely not as closely related to the card as the cover art is to the comic, but it's kinda cool anyway.

 

I'm looking for the auction now...

 

EDIT: Found it. Link...

[topofthetotem]

Perhaps even though the OA market is a healthy market it is still quite young compared to comics.

 

I would still like to think that the cover would be worth more but the people capable of spending 2 million + a single collectable would want something that has a track record of demand/sales data and would be more comfortable with a Action #1.

[Legion of Goom]

I'd have to go with the cover art on this one. If someone asked me the same question about any of the historic books (Detective 27, Marvel 1, AF 15, etc) I'd go with the cover every time. Even if it attracted fewer bidders, it'd be the caliber of bidders that would be the difference. There's a few millionaires in the comics game right now...but that cover art would be enticing to enough people who invest in high end (and, relatively speaking, medium to low end fine art as well) to push that price tag over the top of the mint Action 1.

[tth2]

Actually, the litho that the T206 Wagner used was produced from a photo. An original print of the photo, which was first used for the 1903 e107 Breisch-Williams Wagner "rookie" card, sold recently.

 

It's definitely not as closely related to the card as the cover art is to the comic, but it's kinda cool anyway.

 

I'm looking for the auction now...

 

EDIT: Found it. Link...

Thanks. A mere $18,560.

 

Interesting that it didn't get any play in the media as the photo used for the famous Wagner card.

[delekkerste]

Thanks. A mere $18,560.

 

Interesting that it didn't get any play in the media as the photo used for the famous Wagner card.

 

I'm not surprised. The public barely cares about the T206 Wagner...why would they care about the photo used to create the drawing on the card?

 

As comic collectors, we think the public should naturally share our awe and appreciation of the Action #1 cover should it ever turn up, when the fact is that I'm sure they'd be more interested in the sale of one of the Batmobiles or Audrey Hepburn's dress from Breakfast at Tiffany's or any of the million other things they can relate more to than the production art used in the creation of a comic book almost 70 years ago.

[tth2]

Thanks. A mere $18,560.

 

Interesting that it didn't get any play in the media as the photo used for the famous Wagner card.

 

I'm not surprised. The public barely cares about the T206 Wagner...why would they care about the photo used to create the drawing on the card?

Because the card is worth over $1 million. That's why I would have thought that there would've been more publicity for the "underlying" picture.

 

As comic collectors, we think the public should naturally share our awe and appreciation of the Action #1 cover should it ever turn up, when the fact is that I'm sure they'd be more interested in the sale of one of the Batmobiles or Audrey Hepburn's dress from Breakfast at Tiffany's or any of the million other things they can relate more to than the production art used in the creation of a comic book almost 70 years ago.

Although I think you're wrong, it really doesn't matter because the price of the cover wouldn't be driven by the amount of publicity it got. It wouldn't be the general public bidding up the cover of Action #1, it would be the pros and deep-pocketed non-comic guys who know enough to appreciate the significance of the cover of Action #1 (e.g., Spielberg, Lucas), and I think they would be willing to pay more for the OA cover than for the Church Action 1. If Eric Roberts was willing to pay $250K for the TMNT OA, most of the value of which resides in the cover and not the interior pages, how much do you think he'd be willing to pay for the Action 1 cover, let alone complete interior art?

[delekkerste]

Although I think you're wrong, it really doesn't matter because the price of the cover wouldn't be driven by the amount of publicity it got. It wouldn't be the general public bidding up the cover of Action #1, it would be the pros and deep-pocketed non-comic guys who know enough to appreciate the significance of the cover of Action #1 (e.g., Spielberg, Lucas), and I think they would be willing to pay more for the OA cover than for the Church Action 1. If Eric Roberts was willing to pay $250K for the TMNT OA, most of the value of which resides in the cover and not the interior pages, how much do you think he'd be willing to pay for the Action 1 cover, let alone complete interior art?

 

I don't know - how much do you think he'd be willing to pay for a pristine copy of Action #1? I think he collects prime GA books as well. I can't speak for what he might or might not bid; none of us are privy to the extent and composition of his finances, specific tastes/preferences, etc. so I'm not going to speculate on him individually.

 

Also, it's one thing to lay out $250K for something vs. $2.5 million, even if you're rich. You and I both know that, for every reckless spending MC Hammer or extravagant Russian oligarch out there, there are far more wealthy people who are careful with their money. Even the likes of Spielberg and Lucas - we know they are fabulously wealthy and have an interest in the genre. Yet, do you see them scooping up prime OA and key books by the armload? Why is it that the best comic and OA collections reside with die-hard collectors and not Hollywood producers & directors? Even having the money and interest is not necessarily enough - I wouldn't take it for granted that these guys or other wealthy outsiders would all of a sudden show up and bid the comic and/or the cover to Action #1 to the stratosphere. Would anybody be surprised if these items were auctioned off and they ended up with the likes of Geppi instead of Spielberg?

[tth2]

Would anybody be surprised if these items were auctioned off and they ended up with the likes of Geppi instead of Spielberg?

Not at all. Which is why I said the cover would be bid up by "the pros" (i.e., the Geppis and Andersons of the world) as well as deep-pocketed fringe players.

[helionaut]

Keep in mind that when a collectible gets mainstream media coverage, it's most likely because there is a publicist at work, and/or there's another angle to it that viewers/readers can easily understand (the collector is otherwise famous, it's the most valuable whatever selling for a sum that's incredible to non-collectors, a truly iconic character is killed, etc.). It's not like there are news directors telling reporters to go out and dig up whatever news they can find on comics and cards, and when Joe Quesada appeared on Colbert, it wasn't simply because Elie Wiesel dropped out that night.

[Solar]

Just out of curiosity, does anyone have an example or two of a well known hobby outsider purchasing a truly top of the line collectible (other than fine art)?

 

I know Gretzky/McNall bought the Wagner at one point, but it went right back into the hobby on the next sale.

[delekkerste]

All this speculation about what the Action #1 cover might go for reminds me of when the original G.I. Joe toy prototype from 1963 showed up at Heritage a few years ago. People were speculating that that would go for 7 figures, would attract outside buyers and other heavy hitters, etc. Instead, the minimum bid was cut from $600,000 to $250,000 and it still didn't find a buyer at auction. It subsequently sold for $200K to Geppi in a private sale.

 

Just because people have money doesn't mean they'll spend it indiscriminately. If they did, the price of everything would be a lot higher! I'm sure Spielberg or Lucas could spend a few million on the Action #1 cover and not miss the money. But would they? Who knows, but I tend to doubt it based on the historical empirical evidence. There are plenty of wealthy people out there and even a decent number who enjoy comics...and yet the best collections are still owned by long-term, dyed-in-the-wool collectors with significantly less money. Go figure.

[vodou]

Just because people have money doesn't mean they'll spend it indiscriminately.

 

Money is funny. The more you've got...the less you want. The more you're able to spend/waste on non-essentials the higher the price tag of what you do want. Ask yourself if you prove these theories of mine in your own life. I do.

 

No longer do I collect toys (Robotech, G.I. Joe, Transformers), new (or old for that matter) comics, stamps, baseball cards, etc. All that stuff was very cool in my childhood and I wanted all that I could get - when I couldn't afford more than one or two items a month. And I lusted after all that which I couldn't see that I'd ever be able to afford...from the perspective of an 9/12/15 year old. ASM #1, Boba Fett with shooting missile, Optimus Prime, Don Mattingly Donruss rookie. Now I could sell one better original out of my collection and buy an entire 80s line of Robotech/G.I. Joe/Transformers, take your pick, toys all MIB. ASM #1. No sweat. And of no interest to me.

 

What am I now lusting after? The cra@p I can't and - from my current perspective - cannot ever afford...Basquiat (sure laugh! I see it even if you don't!!), Picasso, Lichtenstein (see I still like comics), Van Gogh, Rembrandt, Warhol and about a million other artists you haven't heard of - dead and alive. Take a run through any recent Sothey's or Christie's contemporary art catalog - about half of it I desperately want. Everything's got a $100k+ price tag on it. If I was Gates, Lucas, Spielberg, I could easily afford it and guarantee you I wouldn't want it. Too easy. It's the struggle that makes it "good." We all struggle with mid-tier to top-tier comic art. Steve Wynn struggles with getting more than a couple of Picassos and casinos - - why else would he try to sell one last year? I'm guessing to either reduce outstanding debt, finance another casino, or get another piece of art! This guy acts just like us.

 

It's about the struggle.