marktom

If by "more interesting" you mean a horrible drawing that Schulz never touched, then yeah it's that.

I'm all for more art being offered for sale and I hope things go well for them. But I'd suggest that next time one of the Dealmakers offers up a page for $1400 they should check to make sure it's not still listed for sale on the other Dealmaker's site for $595 - like this Paul Neary Captain America page is: https://www.nostalgicinvestments.com/comic-art/captain-america-292-p21

Here's one the Rude pieces in my collection. I've owned it for about 20 years. Love his work!

That's an easy one for me - skip them both. Something else will turn up. -- Mark

Unless that's one of the worst copy/scans I've ever seen, there's no way that's the original cover.

The fees associated with Heritage are just looked at as advertising costs. If you have enough art of a similar kind , or are trying to establish new highs in the market, Heritage fees can be a small price to pay. It's a fairly widespread practice unfortunately - at least from a legitimate buyer's/collectors perspective. It's been going on for years and has graduated from being accomplished by word of mouth, to the more effective (and expensive) use of auction results data. In a lot of instances it's not that hard to spot.

Another call looking to buy (or possibly trade for) DC/Marvel/Archie/Harvey Comics Hostess ad art. Highest prices paid. -- Mark

All 3 are extremely nice examples. So I'm not really knocking any of them. But of those three I'd go with the first (pin-up). It presents well, and has some nice DD images on it. No action as you said, but it's not an action styled, story piece. The splash is nice, but the angle that DD is depicted at isn't as interesting to me - though it is very "Colan-esque". The DD #27 page is a great action page.And I love spider-Man. But for me, I'd want to have at least 1 panel featuring DD on a Colan DD page. That's the character he's most identified with........As I said though, they're all nice and arguments can be made for each one. Congrats on owning the #27 page!

I'd love to, and would. But when you don't follow the prevailing consensus of thought on that forum board, the moderators choose to no longer allow the ability to post or search past topics. I'll leave it at that. But if you're that interested it's there. Look back a few years. The subject dealt with the proposal of laws requiring payment to artists for future sales of art sold and a moral obligation for sellers of art bought prior to the law.

Byrne's made that stand numerous times on his Forum over the years - though admittedly I don't read his forum anymore based on what it turned into and the role the moderators play in it. But I doubt he's changed his mind. He didn't go as far as BWS by requiring a signed contract dealing with resale of his art. But he was a proponent of all future sellers of his (and others) art giving a percentage back to the original artist - which I have a real problem with if implemented after the artist has already sold the piece.

Funny to hear Byrne take this stand when it's directly in conflict with his belief that a seller of his art has a moral obligation to send him a percentage of the profits from the sale.

Great to hear that Mitch! For those thinking about consigning to Mitch, I can offer him the absolute highest possible recommendation. ....I'll be in touch Mitch. -- Mark T

Going back aways (to the early 90's), Mitch I. had it for sale in one of his Graphic Collectibles catalogs. $150 if I remember correctly. -- Mark T

If it's a fake it's one of the best I've seen. I'm confident that it's legit.

I don't think this has any effect at all. It's still all done by the artist's hand on the paper - just with a different colored pencil essentially. Now when a machine is involved, and lines are copied mechanically on a page without the artist touching the art, that's an entirely different matter. Those pages aren't something I personally want.