• Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited


About bluechip

  • Boards Title
    FACT if I stop posting, trillions and trillions of transistors would be out of work.

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Splitting hairs is okay because in this case you are correct. (Although now I see NiCov's opine that it is a prelim. Interesting). I was riffing off the way some focus on published art to such extremes that they equate a vintage prelim or unused cover to any old commission which might have been done many years later when it wasn't a part of the original creation process and by which time the artist's style and technique had changed or even devolved. If you're a fan of Tin Tin, it has to be more interesting to you that this was made during the creation of the issue(s) you remember.
  2. "From a letter to the mailing list from Dear all, there’s a new record price for a PRELIM cover by Hergé: 2.6 plus fee = 3.000.000 Euro for 34 x 34 cm in gouache!" fixed it
  3. I have seen a lot of foreign versions of comics over the years, and every now and then one makes me smile (like the Peter and Gwen "marriage" in Mexico) or laugh -- like this "psycho spidey" from India. Decades after first discovering the Mexican Spidey comics I heard the story behind them. I'm not sure we'll ever know for sure why somebody thought Spider-man was a thrill-killer. In between those examples I'm sure there are many others I found intriguing as local artists put a spin on the cover, or something was clearly lost in translation. I just don't recall them all at
  4. That's a subjective supposition so it's hard to say without question it's not true (or true) because none of us ever were literally inside Stan's head. So all we can do is go by what he said and how he reacted to what other's said. He was quoted early in the silver age giving credit to others long before many of them even cared to have credit. As Marvel got more attention and much of that was put on Stan, he did not correct people every time one implied he was the "sole creator" but he did correct them often, and I would bet, if it were possible to tally up all the times people gave him to
  5. That is extreme, but so are your assertions that he did virtually nothing but edit and hype. He was a prolific and talented writer who had to master many genres over the years and the experience and talent prepared him uniquely to spearhead Marvel's silver age. Up until his end times he could, indeed, pull characters out of his hat -- but he would be the last person to say "every one of them was gold". I've never met or heard of anyone who was creatively both prolific and infallible. The biggest problem in Stan's latter years was not that he had "lost it" or was "jaded". Neither of those
  6. I see books all the time that I used to own
  7. Agree. People who talk about "too many shows" often forget that we're talking about entire seasons that can be (and often are) binged in a weekend or even a single day marathon.
  8. If you open a book to read it, you alter it and then you alter it again when you close it -- "restoring" it to its original state. If dust or crumbs gather on your book and you brush them off, you have restored it by cleaning it. If you bend the corner too much reading it and then bend it back again, you've restored it. Same thing if you put a weight on the book to flatten the bend by "pressing" it. But if you just put the book at the bottom of a stack of books for no particular reason, the same alteration will occur without it being "restoration" because you didn't put it there with the i
  9. I would be fine with them adding the word "original" if they use the word correctly, but creating another label would compound the problems already created by the colored labels, which may have started with the idea of identifying books which "aren't actually as nice condition as they appear to be" and quickly devolved into identifying books that are, in some purists' opinion, "desecrated" by actions which are "disapproved of". That's why we find ourselves in the arguments posited here, where the discussion is less than it should be about how good or bad a book appears, hardly at all about w
  10. Even though "production art" is a term that was created and used for decades before collecting of comic art was even a thing, and even though fine and modern art auctions often contain prints, I would be fine with production art pieces being described as "memorabilia". My personal appreciation for them is pretty much on that level, anyway.
  11. There may be a little too much emotion at work here. If people use the correct terms you should not get upset just because somebody likes it/values it more than you do. The headline omits the word "art" and the description couldn't possibly be more clear. As you point out, it says, unequivocally, "Not original art" Prelims aren't "closer to" art. They are art. Just not the final. You approve of bluelines more than you do "production art" even though neither is actually executed by the artist in pencil/ink and the production art is at least the actual PRINTED production ar
  12. The ebay has been flooded with so many fakes that it would ne nice to see one or more auction house (or even CGC?) get into the business of vetting the ones that are actually vintage and rare.
  13. when "relatively common" means hundreds of thousands of copies that virtually all people, including nearly all hobbyists would find indistinguishable from the one that sold for 15K. Some hobbyists would agree on the grade enough to winnow the hundreds of thousands down but there would still be tens of thousands of copies that seemed indistinguishable. A few hobbyists who are either top expert and/or purists and/or just arrogant would say they see enough difference to winnow the tens of thousands down to low five figures or maybe even high four figures. But any way you cut it there's no wa