Mister Trent

It's . . . Ghastly!

My second 'Amen' of the day. Amen, Aman! (thumbs u

Amen . . . Jesus!

P.S. Does Fin Fang Foom use the same tailor as Simon Cowell?

Okay, I didn't have time to respond more fully earlier on, so here we go again: RHINO: "Here's the deal: You posted and addressed me in response to my post. Typically that means you're talking to me. But apparently now you weren't talking to me -- rather, you were philosophizing and opining about OA and stats for the benefit of all of comic-art-fandom." No, this is a forum. Although directly in response to your post, the subject was open for everyone to read and participate in. That consideration was to the fore of my mind when I responded . . . and parts of my post were also intended for the wider forum audience to consider. If everything in my post was intended directly for you alone, I would have sent you a PM. RHINO: "However, I flippantly called you an S.O.B, which was absolutely incorrect. I know nothing of your lineage. I should have called you an S.O.V (Son of Velcro) because it's obvious you're incapable of letting things go." Hey, that's not bad . . . for you! RHINO: "I think what you conveniently omitted, in your quite impressive deconstruction, is this quote of yours -- the one that got me bristled the most in the first place:" 'A stat is not OA. The uniformity of the printed blacks (which nearly always fail to capture the delicate line-work of the original) is not as good a representation of the original as you'd perhaps like to believe.' When discussing (for the consideration of the wider forum audience) the merits of OA vs Stat, I thought it important to draw attention to the limitations and shortcomings of the stat format. Just to keep things in perspective. It's not an attack, it's honest evaluation. RHINO: "Now, it seems I did make incorrect statements about your opinion of stat artwork. Based on your original initial post, it is quite surprising to me to find out that you bid on a stat cover because the tone of your post seemed to indicate to me that you don't hold stat covers in particularly high regard -- particularly because you qualify the statement quite clearly with 'for display purposes'." Whilst I don't have the same emotional attachment or appreciation for stat work as I do for OA, that's not to say I don't have any regard for stat covers. I do. I also have regard for Russ Cochran's EC Portfolios and the EC Library sets . . . which are series of copies shot directly from the original artwork. And my evaluation of Cochran's projects is still the same, i.e.: 'The uniformity of the printed blacks (which nearly always fail to capture the delicate line-work of the original) is not as good a representation of the original as . . . you'd perhaps like to believe.' No, not you, personally . . . you the general audience reading this post. So, despite the limitations of the stat format or high-quality copy, (as a comparison to OA), that's not to say I don't derive pleasure from looking at any form of reproduction. RHINO: "Maybe you're the one who should go back and digest your own posts, and see how I could have taken umbrage at that statement, and acknowledge that your tone came off a wee bit holier than thou." Had you adopted a reasonable tone (and not stooped to sarcasm, aggression and insults), I would have been happy to take on board your concerns and apologize for any unintentional offence caused you. But by responding the way you did, you lost the high moral ground . . . and any respect I once had for you. RHINO: "You also seem to take offense at me not agreeing with you about Romitaman's prices on that Stat TOS cover. You absolutely have every right to say you agree or disagree with the price. I think your problem is that I don't share your outrage. You say the price is outrageous, that it's not reasonable. But clearly it was reasonable to someone, just not to you. So what?" Indeed . . . so what? I couldn't give a damn if you share my thoughts or not. You're just another collector to me (and no doubt the same applies to me with you). RHINO: "Lastly, I really couldn't care what you think of me. Insulting my manhood would seem to be a cowardly and cheap last resort in an argument." Says you who started the business of insults (and continues them with things like "Son of Velcro") . . . RHINO: "Oh, I also don't carry a grudge. So if we ever meet up a convention, don't be surprised if I say, 'Let's go have a beer, you bloody brush-stroke nuance-appreciating stat-hater'." Thanks, and don't be surprised if I empty the contents over your head!

If my reply was solely for your benefit, I would have sent you a PM. By posting on this forum, the messages are for EVERYONE'S benefit. There is an AUDIENCE.

Which was the point of my initial post (which was totally lost on Rhino). A $7,000 stat is not a reasonable price. Instead of continuing the discussion in a reasonable manner, Rhino chose to go the route of aggression and insults. By calling me an S.O.B., he drags the memory of my late mother into the equation, by calling her a B.I.T.C.H. Terry, a couple things: 1. I certainly wasn't intending to insult your late mother. That's the last thing I'd do. I lost mine last year and would agree that my flippant use of of the term S.O.B was absolutely unwarranted. If you really and truly took my post as an insult toward your mother, then I truly and sincerely apologize for that. 2. Now, as far as your post goes, I do think it was presumptuous. First, becuase you contend that $7,000 is too high a price for a stat cover. If somebody bought that stat cover - and apparently someone did -- then the price was ok and the piece was worth it to them. You also go on to say it was an unreasonable price. So, who appointed you to be the judge of what's reasonable and what isn't? Romitaman can ask whatever he wants for a piece. If somebody pays it, then it's not unreasonable, whether it's a stat or not. It was apparently reasonable to someone because the piece is sold. 2B. I posted a pic of one of my stat covers. You then questioned what I'd be willing to pay for such a piece, alluding to the price of Romitaman's TOS cover. I said I wasn't really thinking about value, and you launched into a soliloquy deriding stat covers compared to "true OA", stat covers not being OA, blah blah blah, and it was in response to my post, and rather patronizing at that. I consider this thread as an opportunity to celebrate pieces of art shared by collectors on these boards. Seems to me you were disparaging stat covers and I had just posted one. So my response to that is "Screw you". I will apologize for calling you an S.O.B and invoking the memory of your dead mother. I'm not a complete lout. But I won't apologize for getting riled by your post which I thought was negative toward stat covers in general. Celebrate other people's art, don't pizz on it. Now, back to our regularly scheduled program of appreciating people's art. I apologize for derailing the thread further. Okay, let me summarize by repeating some elements of earlier posts in this thread - and append my observations on them . . . RHINO: "There has also been a lot of discussion of stat art and stats used in covers, especially since Romitaman sold that TOS cover that was a shrunken stat of a larger page." Here, you open a dialog on stat cover art and refer to an earlier thread where much of the focus was on the $7,000 price-tag of the TOS stat cover. So, why should you be so surprised when the same price discussion is re-visited? TRENT: "Nothing wrong with stat covers. For display purposes, they look fine. But would you want to pay $7,000 for one (i.e. the TOS cover)?" So . . what part of me saying, "Nothing wrong with stat covers. For display purposes, they look fine", is it you didn't understand? TRENT: "One of the allures of OA, for me, is the fact that one day out of the distant or recent past an artist sat in front of a blank illustration board and (with skill and imagination) transformed that area of nothingness into a work of art . . . be it a painting, illustration, comic book cover or continuity-strip. Owning that original is, for me, a kind of snapshot of that artist's career . . . a piece of his life, if you like. Looking at the artwork, I study the tell-tale signs of how the artist worked (traces of pencil lines . . . nuances of the inking, etc.). It gives me a warm feeling inside, knowing that the artwork I'm looking at was the fruit of the artist's creativity." Here, you seem to think that all of the above was solely for your benefit? Please don't flatter yourself; it wasn't. I was merely elaborating on what pushes my buttons on collecting OA. RHINO: "I get it. You don't particularly like stat covers. You'd obviously never own one yourself. But it certainly seems to me you have more of a disdain for them than just Mike's asking price for that TOS stat cover." No, you don't get it . . . Here, you try to put words into my mouth . . . despite me saying (above), "Nothing wrong with stat covers. For display purposes, they look fine." TRENT: "If a stat gives someone pleasure . . . I'm very happy for them. I certainly wouldn't pooh-pooh the idea of collecting such things. And if someone wants to pay $7,000 for a statted cover . . . there's nothing for me to begrudge. My disdain (referring back to the TOS cover stat thread) was for the $7,000 asking price - which was (and is) outrageous." And later: "I was recently the underbidder in Scotty Moore's eBay auction for the production cover to EXTRA # 2 (EC) . . . and I also have first-refusal to the production cover to MARVEL TALES # 17 (owned by a friend). So when you jump to conclusions about me not liking stat covers, or ever wanting to own one . . . you're obviously talking out of your azz! " So . . . if I competed in Scotty's eBay auction . . .and have asked for first-refusal on my friend's MARVEL TALES stat cover, that hardly makes me a stat-hater, does it? And in answer to your present post . . . Apologies accepted about your S.O.B. remark. I mean, would you like it if I referred to you as a S.O.W (Son of a W.H.O.R.E.)? I'm sure you wouldn't. And as for me having an opinion on Mike's $7,000 price-tag for the TOS stat cover . . . it's just that . . . an opinion. I take it you've never looked at a piece of art (or stat) on a dealer's site and thought, "That's an outrageous asking price!"??? And, finally, whereabout in any of my posts do I deride stat covers? I don't. I make a distinction between a piece of OA and a stat, that's all. Before you launch into tirades against anyone, you ought to read things through properly and digest . . . but, sadly, you seem more interested in mis-representing anything I say, so I'll have to chalk you down as a waste of time and effort. You don't want to offer me any apologies beyond the S.O.B. business? That's fine. It takes a real man to hold his hand up and acknowledge his mistakes. I don't class you as that type of person.

Which was the point of my initial post (which was totally lost on Rhino). A $7,000 stat is not a reasonable price. Instead of continuing the discussion in a reasonable manner, Rhino chose to go the route of aggression and insults. By calling me an S.O.B., he drags the memory of my late mother into the equation, by calling her a B.I.T.C.H.

Well, from what I recall, the Rhino was never the brightest of vilains . . . he just sort of charged around hitting things with his head - which was presumably (me being a presumptious S.O.B.) the thickest part of his body. Insults directed at my intelligence and anatomy? Wow, I'm in grade school again! MK, this isn't a fight. This is just a sad attempt at macho posturing by Mr. Trent that I have to laugh at. lol And this is coming from a guy who didn't read my post properly . . . jumped to (wrong) conclusions, when he came back at me with an aggresive and insulting response. Pot calling kettle black? What a sad little man . . . He has my pity, not my contempt.

Well, from what I recall, the Rhino was never the brightest of vilains . . . he just sort of charged around hitting things with his head - which was presumably (me being a presumptious S.O.B.) the thickest part of his body.

Nothing wrong with stat covers. For display purposes, they look fine. But would you want to pay $7,000 for one (i.e. the TOS cover)? Would you have paid that for your MARVEL GREATEST COMICS stat cover? I don't really know if I'd pay $7000 for one. I certainly didn't pay that for mine. But if someone did, I wouldn't begrudge them that, especially if they loved the image and wanted to own a cover at a fraction of the price of a true OA cover. I wasn't really thinking about pricing when I made the post, just making the point that a lot of people pooh-pooh stat covers, which IMHO is unfortunate -- they can made a lovely addition to your collection! (thumbs u One of the allures of OA, for me, is the fact that one day out of the distant or recent past an artist sat in front of a blank illustration board and (with skill and imagination) transformed that area of nothingness into a work of art . . . be it a painting, illustration, comic book cover or continuity-strip. Owning that original is, for me, a kind of snapshot of that artist's career . . . a piece of his life, if you like. Looking at the artwork, I study the tell-tale signs of how the artist worked (traces of pencil lines . . . nuances of the inking, etc.). It gives me a warm feeling inside, knowing that the artwork I'm looking at was the fruit of the artist's creativity. That's why I'm prepared to indulge in this expensive hobby. On the other hand . . . A stat is not OA. The uniformity of the printed blacks (which nearly always fail to capture the delicate line-work of the original) is not as good a representation of the original as you'd perhaps like to believe. If a stat gives someone pleasure . . . I'm very happy for them. I certainly wouldn't pooh-pooh the idea of collecting such things. And if someone wants to pay $7,000 for a statted cover . . . there's nothing for me to begrudge. My disdain (referring back to the TOS cover stat thread) was for the $7,000 asking price - which was (and is) outrageous. Jeezus, Terry, you're a presumptuous SOB aren't you? You're making a lot of assumptions about what I think. Why? Because I own some stat covers? Go on with your bad nuance-appreciating self. I get it. You don't particularly like stat covers. You'd obviously never own one yourself. But it certainly seems to me you have more of a disdain for them than just Mike's asking price for that TOS stat cover. You don't need to lecture me on the differences between true original art and stat covers. I certainly DON'T make any assertions that they are OA. I have no idea why you would say "The uniformity of the blacks (which nearly always fail to capture the delicate line-work of the original) is not as good a representation of the original as you'd perhaps like to believe." I don't believe they are line-for-line or brush stroke-for-brush stroke representations of anything so there's no need to put words in my mouth or apply beliefs to me that I don't hold. I know what stat covers are. I'm not advocating that they are in any way the same categorically as an originally drawn piece of art. I have plenty of pieces of gorgeous, hand-drawn, delicately penciled and inked artwork with the artist's creative nuances oozing out of every pore of the paper. And I know the difference between them as originals, and a stat cover. But thanks for 'splaining it to me. (thumbs u Jeez, Steve, now you're trying to put words into my mouth . . . I was merely outlining my thoughts on the subject, not trying to offer some sort of evaluation on how I think you tick. Isn't this forum supposed to be an exchange of thoughts, ideas and beliefs? And, after all, it is supposed to be an Original Art forum. You're reading something into my post that was never my intention. If I said I have nothing against stats, or people that collect them, why do you want to go out of your way to contradict me? And as a quick afterthought . . . I was recently the underbidder in Scotty Moore's eBay auction for the production cover to EXTRA # 2 (EC) . . . and I also have first-refusal to the production cover to MARVEL TALES # 17 (owned by a friend). So when you jump to conclusions about me not liking stat covers, or ever wanting to own one . . . you're obviously talking out of your azz! So, like I say, it was the matter of outrageous pricing that was the focus of my post, eh?

Nothing wrong with stat covers. For display purposes, they look fine. But would you want to pay $7,000 for one (i.e. the TOS cover)? Would you have paid that for your MARVEL GREATEST COMICS stat cover? I don't really know if I'd pay $7000 for one. I certainly didn't pay that for mine. But if someone did, I wouldn't begrudge them that, especially if they loved the image and wanted to own a cover at a fraction of the price of a true OA cover. I wasn't really thinking about pricing when I made the post, just making the point that a lot of people pooh-pooh stat covers, which IMHO is unfortunate -- they can made a lovely addition to your collection! (thumbs u One of the allures of OA, for me, is the fact that one day out of the distant or recent past an artist sat in front of a blank illustration board and (with skill and imagination) transformed that area of nothingness into a work of art . . . be it a painting, illustration, comic book cover or continuity-strip. Owning that original is, for me, a kind of snapshot of that artist's career . . . a piece of his life, if you like. Looking at the artwork, I study the tell-tale signs of how the artist worked (traces of pencil lines . . . nuances of the inking, etc.). It gives me a warm feeling inside, knowing that the artwork I'm looking at was the fruit of the artist's creativity. That's why I'm prepared to indulge in this expensive hobby. On the other hand . . . A stat is not OA. The uniformity of the printed blacks (which nearly always fail to capture the delicate line-work of the original) is not as good a representation of the original as you'd perhaps like to believe. If a stat gives someone pleasure . . . I'm very happy for them. I certainly wouldn't pooh-pooh the idea of collecting such things. And if someone wants to pay $7,000 for a statted cover . . . there's nothing for me to begrudge. My disdain (referring back to the TOS cover stat thread) was for the $7,000 asking price - which was (and is) outrageous.

Nothing wrong with stat covers. For display purposes, they look fine. But would you want to pay $7,000 for one (i.e. the TOS cover)? Would you have paid that for your MARVEL GREATEST COMICS stat cover?

Very, very interesting. One of the things I admire about Heath is that his depictions of uniforms and hardware looked authentic. He did his research.

I have the original Russ Heath cover artwork to BATTLE ACTION # 3 (see link at bottom). Very interesting to see a page from the printed comic-book. New in to my collection this week is John Severin's original cover art to MARINES IN ACTION # 14: HOLY SMAKERAL....Does this mean that John Severin created an enlisted man named...ROCK??? There's a missing caption box on the original art. The printed cover shows us the character's name . . .'ROCK' MURDOCK. Wonder if Rock went on to do some boxing and father a son called Matt.

I have the original Russ Heath cover artwork to BATTLE ACTION # 3 (see link at bottom). Very interesting to see a page from the printed comic-book. New in to my collection this week is John Severin's original cover art to MARINES IN ACTION # 14:

Perhaps it didn't last long because it wasn't very good. I had a look at the cover image on GCD and wasn't too impressed with the drawing. Can't really see contents being worth very much, if the cover's anything to go by. Can you post a few example scans?

Patience is a Virue . . . Read my first post of this thread I did. You said, "Patience is a Virtue." Quote: "I dont want this to become another Michael Golden patience is a virture thing, and no its not Golden. " Big difference between 'Virtue' and 'Virue', don'tcha think?

Patience is a Virue . . .

Forever . . .

Original artwork:

Fantastic Russ Heath cover . . . one of my favourites! (thumbs u

And here's Mike Mayhew's unpublished cover art (pencils only, which is actually the finished work) originally intended for THE PULSE # 2: For myself, I own a wide variety of originals in various finishes, and I enjoy the opportunity of seeing detailed pencil work such as this one.

Here's a detail from one of Frank Hampson's handful of surviving MODESTY BLAISE tryout dailies (the earliest of all MB strips, pre-dating Jim Holdaway's work). This daily was left as pencils-only art, and provides an extremely rare glimpse into how the artist's pre-inked work looked (I know of no other pencils-only Hampson original art, so this is unique):