X-MEN / GIANT SIZE # 1 PAGE

[delekkerste]

Sorry to touch a nerve there, Mr. Glass/KK/Destro/BILL-O or whatever you're calling yourself this week. But, the proof is in the pudding, as you say - so long as auction results keep ending at 20% of your "predicted" prices while the high-profile pieces keep going to the same small circle of long-time die-hard collectors, I'm right and you're not. Simple as that.

[BILL-O-migration]

Sorry to touch a nerve there, Mr. Glass/KK/Destro/BILL-O or whatever you're calling yourself this week. But, the proof is in the pudding, as you say - so long as auction results keep ending at 20% of your "predicted" prices while the high-profile pieces keep going to the same small circle of long-time die-hard collectors, I'm right and you're not. Simple as that.

 

Just saying something is so, doesnt make it so.

[Artemaria]

But, the proof is in the pudding, as you say - so long as auction results keep ending at 20% of your "predicted" prices while the high-profile pieces keep going to the same small circle of long-time die-hard collectors, I'm right and you're not.

 

This is absolutely right.

 

As for this page, the only reason people are even thinking about paying $25K for a panel page (and a below average one at that) is that it is a rare piece from the one book that has the first appearance of the most popular team book in history (sorry JLA & Avengers fans).

 

Otherwise, it would be going for $2-$5K like the other panel pages from Cockrum's first run or far less than that for pages from his second run on the title.

[tentpeg06]

You forgot one other moniker from the past along the KK line:

 

Mustard69

 

I hope that BILL-O is not KK. Regardless, I find this thread interesting in the fact that we have gone from Cockrum to DaVinci. Things that make you go mmm.

 

Chiming in, here is my take on this GS page on eBay. Digressing first, as others have mentioned, a gentlemen from Ohio was (maybe I should type is) attempting to put X-Men 94 back together. I will not name him other than Ohioman, but many on this board probably know who he is. However, in my opinion, his attempt will never bear fruit unless two other owners of 94 pages drop dead and re-do their wills to name Ohioman as the beneficiaries of their 94 pages. You can observe an X-Men 94 page on the CAF from one of those owners in his tribute to Cockrum. He truly has an extraordinary collection of Cockrum pages. Now I will move back to the GS 1 topic.

 

In the same vein, Ohioman was attempting to put the first two chapters of GS 1 X-Men back together. Again, I doubt his quest will ever bear fruit. One of the same owners of a 94 page also owns several of the GS 1 pages that he needs in order to complete his quest. This page on eBay does not fall within his chapter ranges. However, I heard of a trade last year that Ohioman completed for one of his GS X-Men pages from a later chapter for the last page of X-Men 94 and a page from X-Men 105. I heard valuations tossed around, and this last page of GS 1 on eBay is about 20% north of that trade valuation from last year.

 

Someone will buy this page. I know the seller. Even if he does not get an offer at $25K, I am sure that there are people behind the scenes e-mailing him offers in the $20K range, maybe even someone from this board. Now, if the poster formerly known as KK is involved, then who knows how much this page is worth in the next 5 years? Could we be talking DaVinci numbers? Oh, wait. DaVinci paintings are priceless.....

Ciao!

PRC

[vodou]

Otherwise, it would be going for $2-$5K like the other panel pages from Cockrum's first run or far less than that for pages from his second run on the title.

 

Second run pages have (sadly) been moving up. A good panel page is now $750-$2k depending on content. Second run splashes and covers are another game, less and less being offered publicly.

 

I'm a second run guy. Ten years ago you couldn't beat those pages away with a broom! There were too many at $150 each - - take your pick. Now you see a couple a year going $750+ on eBay.

 

Price is one thing but these days it's the selection that suffers...you gotta take what pops up as the drought is on!

[Artemaria]

Hey Michael -

 

I just checked out your CAF.

 

Wow! You are quite the artist.

 

I must say, it certainly seems to me like you have wide ranging influences, from Klee, to Rothko, to Johns, to Warhol, and last, but by no means least, there's some Picasso in certain pieces.

 

Very very nice!

 

- A

[tth2]

[i agree with you. I was thinking just the other day that Da Vinci should not have placed Jesus at the center of the last supper but just a guy named 'Joe' surrounded by some friends. The significance of that painting is to tied to much to religiousity & surely Da Vinci could have gotten across his most famous master piece using less "distracting" figures.

Actually, DaVinci's most famous masterpiece is just a chick named "Lisa", so it seems he was capable of producing a very valuable work without having to rely on any "religiousity".

 

Whereas, Kirby's cover of X-Men #1, particularly with his ridiculous rendition of Iceman with a big puffy ball of snow for a head? Please. It's only worth anything because of the significance of the comic book. Actually, considering how unpopular the X-Men were for most of their careers, if it weren't for GS X-Men #1 and X-Men #94 resurrecting the title, the OA cover of X-Men #1 would probably be worth about as much as the OA cover of TTA 27 or ST 101.

[BILL-O-migration]

[i agree with you. I was thinking just the other day that Da Vinci should not have placed Jesus at the center of the last supper but just a guy named 'Joe' surrounded by some friends. The significance of that painting is to tied to much to religiousity & surely Da Vinci could have gotten across his most famous master piece using less "distracting" figures.

Actually, DaVinci's most famous masterpiece is just a chick named "Lisa", so it seems he was capable of producing a very valuable work without having to rely on any "religiousity".

 

Whereas, Kirby's cover of X-Men #1, particularly with his ridiculous rendition of Iceman with a big puffy ball of snow for a head? Please. It's only worth anything because of the significance of the comic book. Actually, considering how unpopular the X-Men were for most of their careers, if it weren't for GS X-Men #1 and X-Men #94 resurrecting the title, the OA cover of X-Men #1 would probably be worth about as much as the OA cover of TTA 27 or ST 101.

 

You miss my point, chico. As I dont think I ever said DaVinci was incapable of producing quality art that had meaning apart from religious oriented themes.

 

What I was implying was that the 'text' cannot be separated from the 'token'. You take your art as you find it. Any isolating of particular characteristics for critique [ie: the significance in terms of con'text'/ or the 'tokens' selected] in OA is akin to saying 'The Last Supper' only has merit because of that Jesus guy was such a big deal. Again, this goes back to what Warhol's notion of a multi-texted art as a by-product of capitalism creating a new paradigm of what qualifies as art. Again,.... you take your art as you find it whether it is more meaningful to a large fantasy group or a small fantasy group is wholly separate issue [and not really relevant if you think of it in terms of 'how many' people 'get' a particular Lichenstein, Matisse, or Picasso.

 

Ultimately, the postulation that this art [OA] has limited meaning to a small pool of comic collectors only because they have read the 'source material' is in my opinion a very shallow examination of the art & the message. Anyone who thinks this way truly doesnt understand art generally and OA particularly. THAT WAS MY POINT.

[Artemaria]

Heee's baaaaack!

 

And by the way, its Roy Lichtenstein. Learn how to spell you pompous fraud.

[Mighty Hal]

Not that anyone cares...but I LOVED the name "Mr. Glass" for these boards.

 

I enjoyed reading Bill-O's reasoning behind ever-more-valuable comic OA. Bill-O is wrong, mind you, but I think he makes an interesting argument.

 

I agree that some collectors will buy comic OA because of the artistic hand behind it; I have at least six covers I love to comics I've never read. But the truth is, most collectors collect because of a personal connection to the artwork. They've read and love the comic and loved the artistic merit of the piece itself.

 

This is what drives prices of comic OA. Sometimes there's a "rarity" spike in prices or a "significance" spike...but, almost always, prices are driven by those who've read a comic, loved the story, and loved the artwork.

 

Bill-O seems to hope, naively, that the rest of the world will someday see that a Kirby FF cover has just as much or more merit than something by Roy Lichtenstein. I know that I'd rather have the Kirby...but the big money collectors, the investors in artwork, they don't know Kirby from Kitchenware. They know that Picasso is popular, that Warhol brings big auction prices, that Russian Art is HOT...and that comic art, if there is such a thing, somehow belongs at Toys R Us.

 

Sorry, Bill-O, but it's fans that drive comic art prices. Comic OA isn't socially-approved, it doesn't appeal to the elite, it lacks snob appeal. The time will never come that mainstream America is comfortable dropping 250G on a cover of a guy in tights and a cape punching out a monster.

 

Which isn't all bad. I will probably never be able to afford a second or third-rate Picasso. With luck, the day will soon come that I can afford a first-rate Bolland. And that makes me happy.

[Flee-Marquette]

Sorry to touch a nerve there, Mr. Glass/KK/Destro/BILL-O or whatever you're calling yourself this week. But, the proof is in the pudding, as you say - so long as auction results keep ending at 20% of your "predicted" prices while the high-profile pieces keep going to the same small circle of long-time die-hard collectors, I'm right and you're not. Simple as that.

 

Just saying something is so, doesnt make it so.

[Legion of Goom]

Which isn't all bad. I will probably never be able to afford a second or third-rate Picasso. With luck, the day will soon come that I can afford a first-rate Bolland. And that makes me happy.

 

Trust me, your walls will thank you if you forsake the third-rate Picasso for the first-rate Bolland. Most of his stuff that came after the "rose period" is too ugly to be shown, let alone pay millions for- but that's just my 2 cents.

 

I know you were just using him as a general example, but I couldn't resist taking an honest jab at his work. Maybe it's because I've seen too many people who think Picasso's the greatest because their art teacher told them so

 

 

[BILL-O-migration]

Not that anyone cares...but I LOVED the name "Mr. Glass" for these boards.

 

I enjoyed reading Bill-O's reasoning behind ever-more-valuable comic OA. Bill-O is wrong, mind you, but I think he makes an interesting argument.

 

I agree that some collectors will buy comic OA because of the artistic hand behind it; I have at least six covers I love to comics I've never read. But the truth is, most collectors collect because of a personal connection to the artwork. They've read and love the comic and loved the artistic merit of the piece itself.

 

This is what drives prices of comic OA. Sometimes there's a "rarity" spike in prices or a "significance" spike...but, almost always, prices are driven by those who've read a comic, loved the story, and loved the artwork.

 

Bill-O seems to hope, naively, that the rest of the world will someday see that a Kirby FF cover has just as much or more merit than something by Roy Lichtenstein. I know that I'd rather have the Kirby...but the big money collectors, the investors in artwork, they don't know Kirby from Kitchenware. They know that Picasso is popular, that Warhol brings big auction prices, that Russian Art is HOT...and that comic art, if there is such a thing, somehow belongs at Toys R Us.

 

Sorry, Bill-O, but it's fans that drive comic art prices. Comic OA isn't socially-approved, it doesn't appeal to the elite, it lacks snob appeal. The time will never come that mainstream America is comfortable dropping 250G on a cover of a guy in tights and a cape punching out a monster.

 

Which isn't all bad. I will probably never be able to afford a second or third-rate Picasso. With luck, the day will soon come that I can afford a first-rate Bolland. And that makes me happy.

 

http://comics.ha.com/common/view_item.php?Sale_No=817&Lot_No=6424&src=pr

[Mighty Hal]

See what I mean, Bill-O?

 

Bidders wouldn't even spend 200G.

 

I appreciate your willingness to admit your error, though.

[BILL-O-migration]

See what I mean, Bill-O?

 

Bidders wouldn't even spend 200G.

 

I appreciate your willingness to admit your error, though.

 

"The time will never come" was your exact wording.

 

I know you have the imagination, my boy.

 

Connect the dots.

 

Come on.

 

You can do it!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Mighty Hal]

Since the particular piece you mentioned fetched $195,500, my argument does seem shaky. Of course, this particular piece of artwork isn't really JUST comic OA. It's Americana. I'd venture that there isn't five other pieces of existing comic art that have nearly the same resonance.

 

Sometimes comic OA isn't just comic OA. Sometimes it's a piece of cultural history.

 

But you got me, Bill-O. I did say NEVER. Maybe I should have heeded the words of Sean Connery and watched my phraseology.

[BILL-O-migration]

Since the particular piece you mentioned fetched $195,500, my argument does seem shaky. Of course, this particular piece of artwork isn't really JUST comic OA. It's Americana. I'd venture that there isn't five other pieces of existing comic art that have nearly the same resonance.

 

Sometimes comic OA isn't just comic OA. Sometimes it's a piece of cultural history.

 

But you got me, Bill-O. I did say NEVER. Maybe I should have heeded the words of Sean Connery and watched my phraseology.

 

These arguments are horrible Hal. You can do better than this. There arent five pieces that have resonance similar to the Batman #11?,..oh come now!

 

And your point about this being more than OA in some instances but cultural history supports MY thesis that this stuff is priceless & invaluable. You trying to be my side-kick?

 

Your better argument [to save your tail] would have been to state that the winner of the Batman #11 wasnt of Mainstream American ilk but a comic geek [i know who bought it - do you?]. This would have been a much stronger argument in terms of your original point. I would'a attacked ya anyways,...but it'd have been a stronger point.

 

Bill

[tth2]

[Artemaria]

Hal -

 

Two things.

 

One, congrats on being humble and tactful in the face of what was so well choreographed that it looked like a set up. (Was it a set up?)

 

Two, you are absolutely right. You just picked the wrong number ($250K). Your obvious point was that in comparison to fine art, OA is a frine hobby. And that is absolutely borne out by the numbers.

 

Auctions for high end pieces of fine art regularly break $100 million and almost always sell for tens of millions. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_most_expensive_paintings. That's alot of money.

 

These sales obviously don't consider paintings such as the Mona Lisa, the paintings in the Monet collections at MOMA, or other such pieces, and there are many, that - have - no - price - whatsoever. They cannot be bought. There is not enough money in the world. Billions? Doesn't matter. Not for sale. That's the price of the best of fine art. Priceless.

 

In comparison, the best of OA - the very best available - fails to break the $200K barrier. As BrillO states, there are maybe five pieces with the resonance of that Detective cover, but the top five in OA has a price <$200K.

 

What does this tell you? This tells you that just like gasoline, butter and milk, the cost of OA is going up. But because it is a fringe hobby, it does not shoot through the stratosphere like fine art and it will never generate the type of interest that fine art does.

 

Also, what happens when the current crop of collectors is no longer around? Comic sales, while up from disasterous years, are nowhere near their historic peaks. Also, comics face much more competition for the youth's and the public's imagination than ever before in history.

 

Clearly, this is not the best circumstance for a future of higher and higher OA prices. Fine art is taught in prestigious colleges, people obtain majors in art history, there are entire museums dedicated to fine art. Fine art has withstood the test of time, it has been around for centuries. OA is relatively new. If OA grabs a temporary exhibit in a gallery, it is considered a major victory.

 

Another question is what happens when the OA collectors are gone, and comics go to all digital drawing with no OA? Will the price of the existing originals go up (because of perceived rarity) or go down because after a generation and a half, there will be no one left to care? This also may not bode well for the future of OA.

 

To summarize: Fine Art - best=priceless (billions are not enough). OA - best=<$200K.

 

So, looking at the big picture, Hal, you are absolutely right, OA is, and (despite my most ardent hopes) likely will always remain, a fringe hobby primarily driven by a select few well heeled collectors.

 

Best regards.

 

- A

[BILL-O-migration]

Blah, Blah, Blah,

 

Did you read Delicatessen's play book or something?

 

Reading your post one would think fine art ALWAYS was worth millions of dollars & came off the painters brush as a commoditized assett.

 

Reading your post one would think the hero genre is dead, and that Spider-man 1, 2, 3 and X-men 1, & 2, Fantatsic Four 1 & 2, Sin City, Heroes the TV show are irrelevant to the discussion of the IDEA of the comic. I can think of lots more examples delineating all the NEW & RENEWED interest in the comic genre but you want to look at sales of the published comic as a pre-condition for the franchsies success when that postulation/ pre-condition is proven as meaningless to franchse success. You wanna believe comics need to survive for OA to survive,...keep on believing it....but where the hell did you pull this theorem from - your ?

 

You are a sloppy thinker...and I have no time for sloppy thinks!

 

L8R