RabidFerret

Drew used photo reference for all of his work. I'm not sure there's an Indy or SW piece that wasn't based on a photo:) Interesting about the scar though...I hadn't noticed that before!! The descriptions could be clearer, but some of this is just terminology in a different industry. Read through Drew's website, books, or interviews and he uniformly calls them comprehensives. Does someone selling comic art need to explain to everyone what a panel page is? In this case the Escape piece can be googled in 2 seconds to explain it was done for the box cover of the 2003 DVD release: http://www.drewstruzan.com/illustrated/portfolio/?fa=medium&gid=782&com&gallerystart=1&pagestart=1&type=com That said, I agree more information in the listing would not hurt.

While the prices are high, I’ll just chime in to say Drew’s art is even more breathtaking in person than any scan or print appears, and if you can afford it, it’s worth it. Check out this detail: You can get seriously lost in his work in person:) The book covers especially are almost bargains given the poster prices. The only prices that truly surprised me were the Indy video games at $100+. That was impressive.

On heritage scans the trick I use is to throw it in photoshop and tweak the levels. You can usually get a clearer look when it's not as washed out. Seen below you can see stats and loads of whiteout, but I don't see anything that would indicate markers to me. My two cents.

A mix of both, sadly. Most of his work is with good ink and has lasted well, especially the figure work. The problem areas with marker seem more in the backgrounds or when he did touch-ups and filled in missed blacks. Here're some great examples from the game show 'Guess Where He Used Marker': https://comics.ha.com/itm/original-comic-art/todd-mcfarlane-the-amazing-spider-man-322-page-11-original-art-marvel-1989-/a/7066-93306.s?ic4=ListView-Thumbnail-071515 https://comics.ha.com/itm/original-comic-art/todd-mcfarlane-amazing-spider-man-322-splash-page-1-original-art-marvel-1989-/a/7169-91090.s?ic4=ListView-Thumbnail-071515 Interestingly, that's a surprise positive to the few random inkers who tried Todd's pencils - those pages often aren't fading:) This is similar to Liefeld too, whose NM87 inked by Wiacek looks pristine, whereas all issues inked by Liefeld have fading markers. Here's a piece of Todd's I have inked by Pennington - the non-fading inking is a HUGE appeal! The sharpie signature Todd added a couple years ago will fade before the art will.

I've been wondering about this topic recently as well, and while fire protection is one of my concerns, it's not the only one. On the most basic of levels - theft concerns me. Not that most people know what this stuff is when they see it, and they couldn't sell it publicly without drawing attention, but plenty of people still steal things for the thrill or because they like the pretty pictures. Water damage is another concern. Not that a safe solves that entirely, but it certainly seems a lot more watertight than a bookcase or whatever piece of furniture we store our art in. So I'm curious for thoughts from people who have bought safes for their art. Did you go with a gun safe or a burglary/fire safe? How big of a safe did you get dimension-wise? Any particular brand? Do you store the art in portfolios? Museum boxes? Do you store the art inside of plastic tubs inside the safe? Are you concerned about moisture inside the safe? Do you use desiccant bags to reduce moisture or does that risk drying out the art? In retrospect, was it worth it to you? Do you sleep easier? And anything else I'm overlooking that a safe owner may find important.

I think it would have been interesting to explore the larger stack of Lee art from that auction beyond just the two covers. There were 10 Jim Lee pieces in that auction and almost none of them fell how I expected them to. The 2 Williams inked Uncanny X-Men pages I felt were far better examples than the Thibert inked X-Men page, yet the Thibert more than doubled the Gambit page and was 50% more than the Colossus. I assume it was the Wolverine factor more than anything, but it was still surprising. By the same token, the Batman 615 DPS of batmobiles topped all the X-art, while the Hush wash piece(without Batman) also hammered for more than the Gambit. Combined with the Superman cover selling for $20k less than the FF, I found most of the Lee results to be a surprise.

I’m always amazed when I find anyone who doesn’t think this way. Regardless of if the piece is on Heritage or Comiclink my high bid is the same. If I’m willing to spend $1000 on a piece I bid $800 on Heritage + 20% BP and $1000 on Comiclink. Bid based on the art, not the house.

It took a few more weeks for my piece to finally show up, but in case anyone wanted to connect the dots of Luca's CAF post, here's that 'better page' page he mentioned. I'm not sure if either page is 'better' than the other though; they're both insanely epic!! I know I struggled between them and went back and forth. I think we both walked away happy:) http://www.comicartfans.com/gallerypiece.asp?piece=1465933

As someone who collects a lot of prime era Liefeld art I've been surprised at the bidding so far. I expected it to be strong, but figured it'd hammer for $25k or less. The page has already become the most expensive Liefeld ever listed on Heritage, passing the NM93 cover McFarlane inked by 50%. The only other DP art to have sold recently in public were XF2 & XF5 pages that hit $3-4k. The idea that this would've hit $50k seemed laughable to me 2 weeks ago. Now, I have no idea where it will end. It wouldn't surprise me to see it fly to $100k or never get another bid. It seems completely untethered from reality:) So the idea of FMV is out the window I think. This is going well above 'fair':)

Different page. I was offered this page for $3500 4 years ago, but the seller had second thoughts and later sold it to Fish when he bought the cover: http://www.comicartfans.com/gallerypiece.asp?piece=1096012 It was a bummer. Luckily, I already had the Deadpool trading card art from X-Force #1(http://www.comicartfans.com/gallerypiece.asp?piece=620611) which I had more personal nostalgia for, so the tears eventually stopped after a few weeks. Probably not worth as much though...

Better late than never;) you’re welcome:)

Hahahaha, I didn't even get a thank you.

I’m going to forever regret not only leading Fish to the cover, but also not locking down the deal for the panel page he later snagged($3500 deal was struck, but the seller had second thoughts and yanked it back). One of the most regrettable missed opportunities of my collecting career...

I'm assuming you're talking about Comic Connect since their auctions ended tonight. I put in my high bid early and didn't attempt to snipe. Turned out my high bid was triple what it hammered for. If they wanted to bid me up and cheat, they could have, but didn't.

A few years ago Marat Mychaels listed the cover to Youngblood #1 by Liefeld. It eventually sold. Does anyone know where it ended up?

Surprised the Jim Lee What If #13 cover didn't even hit $15k. That sold for $3k in 2003. Figured it would go a ways higher.

Yes. Exactly! All my best stuff, the stuff that I truly love, was always overpaying for. Almost across the board, probably 15 of my top 20 pieces will be in that situation of paying more than the market, more than other people, pushing prices, and biting the bullet and never regretting it. In most cases, the market eventually caught up to me and made it seem a bargain. In a few cases, it never did, but I still never regretted it. This stuff is so unique, if you truly love it, you need to chase it. You won't get the chance again. And strangely, it almost makes me love it more because I overpaid. It's like rescuing a puppy from the pound and being like, "I know nobody loved you the way I love you, so here's a good home where nobody will ever try to flip you*". * - Please do not attempt to flip puppies. They get dizzy.

I understand this sentiment entirely:) I love it when art is available at a set time and place for everyone, and I seriously appreciate that you do it - and honor it. I know some reps/dealers who say one time and the art appears early or late. You do plenty of things well, Felix, so don't take my comments as a wholesale attack on you. I am simply raising a concern I see and am scared about for the hobby at large. And as you pointed out, it's exacerbated far more by the speculation/investment sites that cater directly to those topics. And in fairness, that is exactly what I hope it is! I would love it if all of this art goes to permanent homes and is enjoyed and loved for a lifetime. I hate art that bounces around and gets flipped endlessly. I can only take so much ribbing before I need to rib back:) But I try to contain myself to snark. Thank you. I appreciate that. In person maybe these conversations would have a lighter air, but in a public forum they devolve quickly. And I seriously don't want to keep talking about this. We've beaten the horse to a pulp at this point:)

I think we all agree about Sean Murphy's view - he is clearly about speculation and investing and has said so himself on multiple occasions. And there is a whole thread of people outraged by it, so it's not like it's been slipping under the rug. What started the discussion in this thread, and why the conversation has centered around you, was your comment: "You'll be amused to know that the buyer of the EXTREMITY cover that dropped yesterday told me afterward that not only hadn't he read the issue that the cover was from...he hasn't read any of EXTREMITY at all. I still have a hard time wrapping my head around that...but have to admit it's way more common that I would have thought." Anyone objectively reading that statement has to wonder at the buyer's intent. Including you, who said you had a hard time wrapping your head around it. You later followed that up with: Despite not having read the book yet (he's a trade-waiter), he understood Daniel's art well enough that he recognized immediately why this was an "important" cover." So to be clear - a person who has never read an issue of Extremity bought a cover in part because he recognized it as "important". Not to say that this buyer didn't love the art as well, but in this example it feels a bit strange to dismiss the idea of speculation so quickly.

Going through only 2017, here are a few examples that drew my attention. Comments that play up the 'event nature' - the scarcity, the rarity, the fast selling nature. It's not speculating on the future value per se, but the "buy it quick before it's gone" type of speculation. The idea that you don't want to miss out or be left behind. A set of tactics almost identical to Marvel and Image in the 1990s. They never once advertised any of those covers as investments. They did the exact same thing you're doing - hyped up the rarity and made comparisons to successful books. And then claimed "hey, we're just offering up a product, it's on the consumer to decide if they want to buy it". How did that work out? 2017 Newsletters: "Beautiful stuff, get 'em before they blow up!" "All the art from #1 sold out, so don't miss your chance to grab a page!" "Available pages going forward are looking to be VERY limited, so don’t miss out tomorrow!" "As you can see from our previous EXTREMITY drops, the art is VERY popular...so set your alarms!" "Our latest Paul Pope original art sale was yesterday. 34 of 36 pieces sold in the first day!" "Incredibly, EVERY SINGLE PAGE from the ENTIRE series has now sold" "This will be your last chance to get any EXTREMITY art for a while as issue #6 will only be offered complete. As all pages from previous issues are also nearly sold out, so don't miss out tomorrow!" Those comments are not suggesting "buy for the love of art". They are suggesting "buy before it's gone". I'm not clear why you're making so many false assumptions here? None of what you're suggesting is true. And to be honest, it's a bit childish and offensive. Of course some people buy art because they like it, just like some people buy art to invest and flip, while others buy art to seem cool to their peers. There are many reasons people buy art. I'm not sure why you continue to push the narrative that nobody buying from you can possibly be investing? Of course some are. And my 'belief system'(that for some absurd reason you claim to know) is buying for life, which is why very little ever leaves my collection. I'm trying to have a rationale discussion about the hobby, not fight in the schoolyard. Given that I've never bought a page from you, I would hope it was clear that my interest in this topic is from a distance as an objective viewer. Again, I'm not sure why you're making so many false assumptions here? Or being so condescending? You are attempting to paint a picture of me that is not remotely accurate. I buy for life and for love and always have. I was buying Liefeld art I loved 15 years ago when the rest of the world did nothing but mock the man. This past year I bought a piece that had sat unsold on someone's site for 20 years and will never be worth what I paid for it. So please, stop these juvenile responses and have an adult conversation with the rest of us. Again, please stop making assumptions and putting words in other peoples mouths. I have never once said anything like that. Or close to that. Ever. The belief that I'm "projecting" is that your tactics are pushing the same speculative bubble as comics in the 1990s did. Does that mean everyone who bought comics in the 90s bought for investment purposes? Of course not. But like a moth to a flame those tactics drew in people who did not care about the hobby and wanted to fleece it for personal gain. And nobody in this discussion has said anything about any of those things. Again, what a condescending, inaccurate, and unprofessional response to criticism. Please stop acting like you have any idea of my "view of the hobby". You have made it very clear you do not.

Your copy-pasting skillz are extreme!! And you can use the bold font too! Your parents must be so proud But you still seem to be missing the point - you are comparing the artists you're selling to "the greatest DD story ever and the greatest Batman origin story ever". You can claim all you want that you're talking only artistic talent, but as Michael Douglas mentioned earlier, "how many examples are there where the collector base/marketplace has somehow overlooked supremely talented artists/works". To his exact point, if a comic book does become "the greatest XXX story ever", the marketplace will respond. By suggesting new works fresh off the shelves are comparable to "the greatest of all time", you are suggesting that they will be rewarded in the long term for being of such high quality.

You love using that bold font don't you? Hope you weren't waiting long. Please see my previous post.

It's not about overlooking them, just that there are plenty of examples of great artists who have produced wonderful work that has not moved to 5 figure valuations. Terry Moore? Rick Leonardi? Michael Lark? Paul Chadwick? The list could go on for a long ways of talented artists who are respected and appreciated and whose work has not gone up dramatically in value. I also find it to be easy to ignore hyperbole. But that's doesn't mean others don't, especially new people entering the hobby. And that's the concern - the unintentional effects of such language. Comics were destroyed by speculation in the 1990s and comic art runs that same risk if the hobby is not careful. In fact, it risks an even bigger bubble since the prices are far higher. My comments have simply been questioning whether Felix's salesmanship and hyping of books and limited windows and drop times may be having a speculative effect. It's not about what Felix's intent is, as much as how it's received. I think it's a valid question to ask, and even moreso when Felix makes comments like "This is a different crowd than who we interact with on the boards. They don't follow the hobby at large. Many don't bother with CAF. Most have no clue about the overall market...nor do they care.". That is a very strange set of comments to hear about who is buying his art and does not paint a clear picture of what their intent is. If anything, it clouds it. I don't disagree with this statement, but speculation is not always about money. You can be speculating about the desirability of a certain artist, the longterm importance of a character, the likelihood of winning awards, etc. As has many times been discussed on these boards there are certain marquis books and artists that add a gravitas to someone's collection. Plenty of people in this hobby want attention for what they own that others crave. Coulda fooled me;) This is the major point I've been trying to make and which makes Felix defensive. The responsibility is on both sides. His words and actions have an impact, even if it's not what he intends. You are reading too deeply into something that isn't there. I never called Felix a liar or even suggested that. In fact, I've gone out of my way to repeatedly suggest the opposite - that he has been very good about avoiding the suggestion of buying to speculate. What I have stated, repeatedly, is that "it's still possible that your actions paint a different picture you are not seeing or understanding". These two things can exist at the same time. This is exactly what you yourself wrote "the onus to communicate effectively is on the 'transmitter' but that doesn't absolve the 'receiver' from all responsibility either." Felix's intent may simply be to hype up artwork and artists he represents, but that doesn't mean people aren't seeing dollar signs.

This entire thread is about comic art. "Books" was clearly referencing the specific books you were mentioning such as Dark Knight, Born Again, Dr Strange 55, Year One, etc. Please stop intentionally misreading intent.

You sell artwork as a business. Your goal is to sell artwork for your clients. Stop defensively splitting hairs on insignificant things. As for DS55, I don't follow Golden, but given the lone example on Heritage selling for $10k in 2008, I'd imagine it would be worth quite a bit more today. So I'm still curious what 30 year old art you've been comparing your artists to on artistic merits only?