Will_K

Cover "con": Depending on the times, the top 1/4 to 1/3 of the real estate is reserved for logos, trade dress, price, corner box art, publisher's logo, etc. It's more or less a dead zone for art. At the bottom you have the box for the bar code of whatever. X-Men 137, a landmark issue, cover art by a major artist... how much "art" is really there ??

It might depend on if the "original" is available for tracing. Also it might depend on the size of the recreation. If you're "serious" about it, lightboxing a scan could work. Or if you're want to go really large, use a projector (a common brand is Artograph). There's also the issue with reproducing brush strokes. I'd say it's impossible. You'd have to build up the line using a fine point like those 005 Microns.

I'm not sure how many of those cards you have for commissions that weren't delivered. There's plenty of stories about correspondences (i.e. "proof") regarding work that wasn't delivered. In the end, I don't put any responsibility on Spencer. He was only involved after the fact. Spencer was doing me a favor by following up with Maguire. He was doing Maguire a favor by making sure he didn't become known for not getting his commissions done. Spencer did mention that Maguire said he was going to finish all outstanding commissions by such-and-such time and apologized. Any way after a couple follow-ups, that was it for me.

NYCC 2010. Kevin Maguire was doing those cool headshots. Paid for mine. Said he couldn't get to it. Gave him my contact info so he could send it to me. Asked him if he'll remember. He said he would. Did not get it. Was talking to Spencer Beck, Maguire's once upon a time rep, later in 2010. Spencer asked me to send him note to remind Maguire. Sent a note to Spencer. And a couple more follow-ups. I assume Spencer forwarded the reminders to Maguire. Anyway, did not get the art. But in 2012, a headshot popped up on CAF that looks amazingly like what I asked for. I've written off Maguire.

It's a weird kind of advertising. When you think about it, we promote art that other people are selling.

Even with the mark-up, I think the fact that @romitaman accepts time-payments might make it worthwhile to some buyers. I got a piece from him because it wasn't offered to me. And as far as I know, it was never actually "on the market". So I didn't buy from Mike just because I wanted to pay more. The fact that I was able to make time-payments was nice.

Signed art is good. Some may argue about signing on the art vs bottom margin. I think a discreet signature on the art is nice. Some kind of handwritten note (with signature) on the back of the art would be nice as well. If the art is colored by the artist, that should also be indicated. Sometimes another person may do the coloring work. So for example, "this is a recreation of Silver Surfer #4 drawn and colored by XXX" Who knows, some people may even want that on the front.

If I recall correctly, D ick Giordano's Flash cover was considered (by DC) to be their cover of the year.

I just wanted a hint about that mysterious art segment.

Hint ?? Is the art usually smaller than 11 x 17 ??

Agree. Whatever the cover, if it was being recreated, the odds are there is something special about it anyway (re: value). The commissioner could be asking for a cover that has a personal meaning. But otherwise, the cover would probably be popular. There's also a few people that are not the original artists but doing some nice recreations. There seems to be a few factors. The original is not thought to exist (or not be in collectible condition). Or the original is not on the market or prohibitively expensive. But why commission someone to redraw it ? Maybe just scan the comic, drop the colors and clean up the line work. Or is it just "fun" to have a cover X originally drawn by Y and recreated by Z ?? I've kind of thought about it but couldn't bring myself to do it.

The last major thread on Lichtenstein... noone's mind was changed in one way or the other.

It looks like there are 4 sales but "only" 3 different pieces. One is signed on the back. One is signed on the art in the bottom right. Another is signed in the margin in the bottom right, it looks like that was auctioned twice.

I would get mine at an independent book store at the mall. They sold new comics and had a bunch of portfolios. They just sat there and you could open the envelopes. I took me a while before I bit the bullet and got the Black Widow. I'm not a Marvel guy and but really liked Gulacy's art. My local comic shop carried a small selection. Sal Q also did mail order. I don't specifically remember but I guess you could also get them at conventions.

I can't think of "significance/definition of published OA" being relevant to anyone but the "owner" of the OA. In a few other threads, we've debated the definition of "original art". Original ink over original pencils. Original ink over digital pencils. Stat'ed originals modified for publication. Digitally modified for publication. All digital. Etc. And what will define whether art was "published" ?? It seems that publication is supposed to give the art some "legitimacy". In some instances you may be able to cite a person's tweets on the gold standard. On the other hand, can you really cite Wikipedia in your research paper on cold fusion? If it was on Twitter, was it published ?? Whatever the situation, it'll be the prospective buyer(s) that determine the "significance/definition". If an artist teases/posts (/publishes ?) an image for a new character that becomes "hot", was it first published online (by the artist) or in the official online comic ?