2004 prices vs. today's prices

[Nexus]

I imagine the six Kraven's Last Hunt covers have much more upside than any of the Crisis covers.

 

 

Surprised by this statement. To each their own, of course, but I'm curious to hear whether others agree with this statement.

 

If Bocaratondefense means that KRAVEN'S has more room to appreciate vs. CRISIS...maybe. But we'll never really know until they come up for sale. As it stands now, there's upwards of a 10:1 ratio between the best CRISIS covers (estimated by some at $100K+) and the others (with #4 currently unsold at $9500). That's a huge range. I don't know if the range would be the same for the six KRAVEN'S covers.

 

Supergirl was a major character, and her demise was truly memorable in that issue. I agree the cover is a comon swipe since Michelangelo's Pieta (that's right, the homage is to Michalangelo, not any comic artist, including Byrne or Starlin). And, as for The Flash, Crisis was the end of the Barry Allen Flash, who was the first and most remembered, and around since Showcase #4.

 

Yes, the motif is common and had been used for comic book covers well before X-MEN #136 (if ultimate credit goes to Michaelangelo, then good for comics!). However, there's no doubt in my mind that CRISIS #7 was directly modeled after X-MEN #136.

 

 

 

I don't think any less of Perez as an artist. X-MEN #136 is a classic cover. To me, better to go all-out (you can superimpose Superman/Supergirl over Cyclops/Phoenix) than go half-way and claim originality. Anyhow, people can decide for themselves.

 

I'm a huge Kraven Last Hunt fan as well and had made a run (with others) for the six books when they were available, but was outbid at the time. Some of those covers are classic and memorable, but I think over time would not carry the same weight. They've gotten a bit of a boost with the pages/interiors moving recently, but again over time I'm not sure they are covers that'll continue to escalate to the same degree as the key Crisis covers. Just my opinion, but I think many would agree.

 

Strictly as a comics fan, CRISIS was more important to me than KRAVEN'S. I'll have to read them again to see what I think now. As to relative values, I think both are currently based in nostalgia. For future generations, how one does over the other will be determined by other factors.

[stinkininkin]

As to relative values, I think both are currently based in nostalgia. For future generations, how one does over the other will be determined by other factors.

 

This seems to be unshakably true to me, and this thread has once again driven home how nostalgia based comic art collecting is. I read both the Crisis and Kraven series when they came out, as well as Secret Wars, but none made a lasting impact on me, so my desire to own, much less pay the freight for one of these originals is nil. In that light, I am reminded that that so many of the originals that I own or that I covet that I think are significant might not hold up over time because they might not stand up on their own intrinsic merits.

 

Scott Williams

[heartened]

As to relative values, I think both are currently based in nostalgia. For future generations, how one does over the other will be determined by other factors.

 

This seems to be unshakably true to me, and this thread has once again driven home how nostalgia based comic art collecting is. I read both the Crisis and Kraven series when they came out, as well as Secret Wars, but none made a lasting impact on me, so my desire to own, much less pay the freight for one of these originals is nil. In that light, I am reminded that that so many of the originals that I own or that I covet that I think are significant might not hold up over time because they might not stand up on their own intrinsic merits.

 

Scott Williams

 

Hey Scott. Nostalgia is going to have a large impact no matter how we see all this art artistically, there's no doubt about it. Nostalgia is partly based on total readership at the time and since, partly on story and art (how well was it remembered after one reading?), and partly on the relative impact the story had at the time and since, and to what degree it is repeatedly referenced over time. I read both series during the height of my collecting, so my own personal nostalgia to the stories somewhat equals out in my mind. Yet, Crisis has more overall of the above things I mentioned, at least to me.

 

Felix, I agree there's a wide range in pricing between let's say Crisis 6 and Crisis 7 in terms of potential value, but I think you'll have to separate out the very best from each run when we're doing this discussion. In my mind, I'm comparing the top 3 or 4 Crisis covers to the top 2 or so Kraven's LH covers. I just don't think they'd be an even trade in today's market.

 

Fun discussion, but in the end there's no right answer of course.

 

 

[Nexus]

As to relative values, I think both are currently based in nostalgia. For future generations, how one does over the other will be determined by other factors.

 

This seems to be unshakably true to me, and this thread has once again driven home how nostalgia based comic art collecting is. I read both the Crisis and Kraven series when they came out, as well as Secret Wars, but none made a lasting impact on me, so my desire to own, much less pay the freight for one of these originals is nil. In that light, I am reminded that that so many of the originals that I own or that I covet that I think are significant might not hold up over time because they might not stand up on their own intrinsic merits.

 

Scott Williams

 

That's really my point. Let's not confuse nostalgia for anything else. The vast majority of my buys are motivated by my own nostalgia. I need no other justification.

 

Let's take a look again at the prices that started this thread:

 

Crisis #7 cover George Perez $75,000

Daredevil #43 cover Jack Kirby $75,000

X-men #142 title page John Byrne $35,000

ASM # 121 (entire story) Gil Kane $250,000

Black Goliath #5 cover Gil Kane $2,500

Batman #255 cover Neal Adams $55,000

 

These were all estimates back in 2004. However, taking nostalgia out of the equation, which would you rather buy for $75K? The CRISIS #7 cover or the DD #43 cover? Which will do better over time? Why?

 

Now, I happen to agree with Galactus that "first-rate" OA will continue to climb. I just don't believe we can easily identify everything that may or may not be "first-rate" right now. Only time will tell us what's first-rate and why.

 

The oldest piece on the list is Kirby's DD #43. I believe that enough time has passed, Kirby's stature as a comics legend has been cemented (perhaps the greatest comic artist ever?) and this cover is now seen as a classic. That's why THAT piece is "first-rate", not because of nostalgia or what happened in that issue.

[J.Sid]

It's weird that that Crisis cover is unsold. To revisit a comparison somebody made earlier, I could not imagine a McFarlane ASM, Miller DD, or Byrne X-Men cover (even a Cockrum cover from Byrne's run) sitting around at that price.

 

 

 

 

[Nexus]

Felix, I agree there's a wide range in pricing between let's say Crisis 6 and Crisis 7 in terms of potential value, but I think you'll have to separate out the very best from each run when we're doing this discussion. In my mind, I'm comparing the top 3 or 4 Crisis covers to the top 2 or so Kraven's LH covers. I just don't think they'd be an even trade in today's market.

 

I agree, not an even trade. I like the CRISIS covers much more than the KRAVEN'S covers...but that's besides the point.

 

I think the point was, that if the best CRISIS covers are currently valued at $100K+, and the best KRAVEN covers at $50K+, then there may be more upside for the KRAVEN'S covers than the CRISIS covers. Or less downside, if you're Comicartcom:P

 

I also agree...no absolute right answers here. This will always remain a subjective hobby.

[heartened]

Felix, I agree there's a wide range in pricing between let's say Crisis 6 and Crisis 7 in terms of potential value, but I think you'll have to separate out the very best from each run when we're doing this discussion. In my mind, I'm comparing the top 3 or 4 Crisis covers to the top 2 or so Kraven's LH covers. I just don't think they'd be an even trade in today's market.

 

I agree, not an even trade. I like the CRISIS covers much more than the KRAVEN'S covers...but that's besides the point.

 

I think the point was, that if the best CRISIS covers are currently valued at $100K+, and the best KRAVEN covers at $50K+, then there may be more upside for the KRAVEN'S covers than the CRISIS covers. Or less downside, if you're Comicartcom:P

 

I also agree...no absolute right answers here. This will always remain a subjective hobby.

 

Ah, I think I misunderstood the initial question then. I assumed upside to mean "better", but reading that prior post I think you're correct and the poster actually meant "more room to grow".

 

 

[Bronty]

As to relative values, I think both are currently based in nostalgia. For future generations, how one does over the other will be determined by other factors.

 

This seems to be unshakably true to me, and this thread has once again driven home how nostalgia based comic art collecting is. I read both the Crisis and Kraven series when they came out, as well as Secret Wars, but none made a lasting impact on me, so my desire to own, much less pay the freight for one of these originals is nil. In that light, I am reminded that that so many of the originals that I own or that I covet that I think are significant might not hold up over time because they might not stand up on their own intrinsic merits.

 

Scott Williams

 

That's really my point. Let's not confuse nostalgia for anything else. The vast majority of my buys are motivated by my own nostalgia. I need no other justification.

 

Let's take a look again at the prices that started this thread:

 

Crisis #7 cover George Perez $75,000

Daredevil #43 cover Jack Kirby $75,000

X-men #142 title page John Byrne $35,000

ASM # 121 (entire story) Gil Kane $250,000

Black Goliath #5 cover Gil Kane $2,500

Batman #255 cover Neal Adams $55,000

 

These were all estimates back in 2004. However, taking nostalgia out of the equation, which would you rather buy for $75K? The CRISIS #7 cover or the DD #43 cover? Which will do better over time? Why?

 

Now, I happen to agree with Galactus that "first-rate" OA will continue to climb. I just don't believe we can easily identify everything that may or may not be "first-rate" right now. Only time will tell us what's first-rate and why.

 

The oldest piece on the list is Kirby's DD #43. I believe that enough time has passed, Kirby's stature as a comics legend has been cemented (perhaps the greatest comic artist ever?) and this cover is now seen as a classic. That's why THAT piece is "first-rate", not because of nostalgia or what happened in that issue.

 

good point. the DD43 cover is a safe bet. As felix said the value of the crisis covers, nice as they are, should in time be more about perez and less about story impact and $100k is a pretty spicy meatball already.

[Galactus]

Yes you are also correct in saying that a lot of Crisis is not currently relevent as continuity has been played with over the last 10 years, but for the first 15 odd years, Crisis was a must read and c'mon you know how important a storyline is when everyone refers to it for many years to come, even if it is just in terms of saying "Post Crisis/Pre Crisis"

 

Yes, agreed, very important to our generation of comics fans. But going forward? Harder to say. Even Barry Allen Flash is back. Will this mean anything for 2024 prices? By then, I would guess that the value in the CRISIS covers will have more to do with George Perez (and how his body of work is viewed) than with any effect on DC continuity or even nostalgia. As a Perez fan, I'm optimistic that his art, especially his best art, will still be appreciated by future comics fans.

 

 

Looking ahead it is always hard to predict what will happen, but i believe that both Perez and Byrne have reached a point in terms of volume and quality of work, that ensures that they are looked upon in future years as being some of the very best talent to have come out of the late 70's to late 80's. Given the breadth of their work in terms of characters and publishing companies, i believe that both artists are a safe bet as being recognised and appreciated by the younger generation.

[Galactus]

This seems to be unshakably true to me, and this thread has once again driven home how nostalgia based comic art collecting is. I read both the Crisis and Kraven series when they came out, as well as Secret Wars, but none made a lasting impact on me, so my desire to own, much less pay the freight for one of these originals is nil. In that light, I am reminded that that so many of the originals that I own or that I covet that I think are significant might not hold up over time because they might not stand up on their own intrinsic merits.

 

Scott Williams

 

Scott thats why the old addage of "buy what you like and you cant go wrong", is so true. In a world where for example prices of Buckler FF covers have increased beyond what i consider them to be worth (given that my experience with Buckler FF was not memorable at all), people should always buy what they are happy to keep for the long term, regardless of what price it may drop to.

 

I would guess that 90% of all comic art that is purchased is nostalgia driven, whilst the other 10% is driven by collectors who have reached the point of looking past nostalgia to the art itself and receiving gratification not only from the stories and memories that surround each piece of art.

 

To me that translated into looking at Kirby FF's from 44 onwards as items that i covet owning, but showing indifference to the majority of the earlier issues primarily due to the lack of lasting impact of those stories and art, to others its Crisis on Infinite Earths and to others its Batman Hush. To each their own....

 

 

[Galactus]

The oldest piece on the list is Kirby's DD #43. I believe that enough time has passed, Kirby's stature as a comics legend has been cemented (perhaps the greatest comic artist ever?) and this cover is now seen as a classic. That's why THAT piece is "first-rate", not because of nostalgia or what happened in that issue.

 

Dont foget that even though Kirby is viewed as a comics legend, the reason that the DD #43 cover would fetch that kind of a price is because it is viewed as being one of the great covers that he has done from that time period.

 

I dont believe that the passage of time will do much to increase the desire or price of some of Kirby's other wortks that are of mediocre stature or feature 3rd rate characters, and even though those covers have risen over the last 10 years, that was mostly down to the fact that pretty much everyone in the hobby knows of Kirby and probably at one point or another would love to own a piece of his work. Supply and Demand have driven up some prices, but in 30 years time, will the collectors be drawn to the likes of Rawhide Kid or Kamandi covers by Kirby, and if so at the current price levels or less?

[Galactus]

It's weird that that Crisis cover is unsold. To revisit a comparison somebody made earlier, I could not imagine a McFarlane ASM, Miller DD, or Byrne X-Men cover (even a Cockrum cover from Byrne's run) sitting around at that price.

 

 

As i mentioned before, this particular cover has been round the block and back again. Its been on sale for a very long time and has yet to find a permanent home, as its constatnty taken off sale and then back on again (usualy with a different dealer).

 

That kind of circulation has a way of tarnishing a piece. All it needs is to be placed in a collection away from the public eye for 6-8 years and Hey Presto, you have a fresh to the market piece again.

 

 

[Nexus]

Yes you are also correct in saying that a lot of Crisis is not currently relevent as continuity has been played with over the last 10 years, but for the first 15 odd years, Crisis was a must read and c'mon you know how important a storyline is when everyone refers to it for many years to come, even if it is just in terms of saying "Post Crisis/Pre Crisis"

 

Yes, agreed, very important to our generation of comics fans. But going forward? Harder to say. Even Barry Allen Flash is back. Will this mean anything for 2024 prices? By then, I would guess that the value in the CRISIS covers will have more to do with George Perez (and how his body of work is viewed) than with any effect on DC continuity or even nostalgia. As a Perez fan, I'm optimistic that his art, especially his best art, will still be appreciated by future comics fans.

 

 

Looking ahead it is always hard to predict what will happen, but i believe that both Perez and Byrne have reached a point in terms of volume and quality of work, that ensures that they are looked upon in future years as being some of the very best talent to have come out of the late 70's to late 80's. Given the breadth of their work in terms of characters and publishing companies, i believe that both artists are a safe bet as being recognised and appreciated by the younger generation.

 

Just curious...what do you think of guys like McFarlane, Lee, Keown? Will their work continue to be collected with the same fervor as the generation that grew up with them? Will future collectors continue to pay the same amount for a Lee as a Kirby (of equal importance)?

 

I have no idea. There are artists whose work has stood the test of time (Foster, Kirby, Wood, Frazetta, Steranko, et al). Whose best work will always be collected so long as there is an OA hobby. I don't rule out later artists from joining their ranks. But, right now, I don't see any CRISIS cover in the same league as a top Kirby, value-wise.

[Nexus]

The oldest piece on the list is Kirby's DD #43. I believe that enough time has passed, Kirby's stature as a comics legend has been cemented (perhaps the greatest comic artist ever?) and this cover is now seen as a classic. That's why THAT piece is "first-rate", not because of nostalgia or what happened in that issue.

 

Dont foget that even though Kirby is viewed as a comics legend, the reason that the DD #43 cover would fetch that kind of a price is because it is viewed as being one of the great covers that he has done from that time period.

 

 

I dont believe that the passage of time will do much to increase the desire or price of some of Kirby's other wortks that are of mediocre stature or feature 3rd rate characters, and even though those covers have risen over the last 10 years, that was mostly down to the fact that pretty much everyone in the hobby knows of Kirby and probably at one point or another would love to own a piece of his work. Supply and Demand have driven up some prices, but in 30 years time, will the collectors be drawn to the likes of Rawhide Kid or Kamandi covers by Kirby, and if so at the current price levels or less?

 

I don't disagree, but thought our discussion was centered on what we considered "first-rate" OA and/or the best work of certain artists.

 

Obviously, I also wonder what collectors will be drawn to in 30 years time. It's been fun reading the CFA-APA "Best Of" compilation (GIANT-SIZE FAN THING), which starts in 1985. Not much has changed in the last 25 years (besides prices:P)...it's the same names back then that are coveted now. Let's see in 25 years which "younger" names join them, replace them, or fade away.

[tth2]

The oldest piece on the list is Kirby's DD #43. I believe that enough time has passed, Kirby's stature as a comics legend has been cemented (perhaps the greatest comic artist ever?) and this cover is now seen as a classic. That's why THAT piece is "first-rate", not because of nostalgia or what happened in that issue.

 

Dont foget that even though Kirby is viewed as a comics legend, the reason that the DD #43 cover would fetch that kind of a price is because it is viewed as being one of the great covers that he has done from that time period.

 

I dont believe that the passage of time will do much to increase the desire or price of some of Kirby's other wortks that are of mediocre stature or feature 3rd rate characters, and even though those covers have risen over the last 10 years, that was mostly down to the fact that pretty much everyone in the hobby knows of Kirby and probably at one point or another would love to own a piece of his work. Supply and Demand have driven up some prices, but in 30 years time, will the collectors be drawn to the likes of Rawhide Kid or Kamandi covers by Kirby, and if so at the current price levels or less?

As with all artists, there will always be a huge gap between what is considered to be an artist's best works and his lesser works. However, a rising tide tends to lift all boats.

[blowout]

The oldest piece on the list is Kirby's DD #43. I believe that enough time has passed, Kirby's stature as a comics legend has been cemented (perhaps the greatest comic artist ever?) and this cover is now seen as a classic. That's why THAT piece is "first-rate", not because of nostalgia or what happened in that issue.

 

Dont foget that even though Kirby is viewed as a comics legend, the reason that the DD #43 cover would fetch that kind of a price is because it is viewed as being one of the great covers that he has done from that time period.

 

I dont believe that the passage of time will do much to increase the desire or price of some of Kirby's other wortks that are of mediocre stature or feature 3rd rate characters, and even though those covers have risen over the last 10 years, that was mostly down to the fact that pretty much everyone in the hobby knows of Kirby and probably at one point or another would love to own a piece of his work. Supply and Demand have driven up some prices, but in 30 years time, will the collectors be drawn to the likes of Rawhide Kid or Kamandi covers by Kirby, and if so at the current price levels or less?

As with all artists, there will always be a huge gap between what is considered to be an artist's best works and his lesser works. However, a rising tide tends to lift all boats.

 

In the short term yes, but in the longer term?

[tth2]

The oldest piece on the list is Kirby's DD #43. I believe that enough time has passed, Kirby's stature as a comics legend has been cemented (perhaps the greatest comic artist ever?) and this cover is now seen as a classic. That's why THAT piece is "first-rate", not because of nostalgia or what happened in that issue.

 

Dont foget that even though Kirby is viewed as a comics legend, the reason that the DD #43 cover would fetch that kind of a price is because it is viewed as being one of the great covers that he has done from that time period.

 

I dont believe that the passage of time will do much to increase the desire or price of some of Kirby's other wortks that are of mediocre stature or feature 3rd rate characters, and even though those covers have risen over the last 10 years, that was mostly down to the fact that pretty much everyone in the hobby knows of Kirby and probably at one point or another would love to own a piece of his work. Supply and Demand have driven up some prices, but in 30 years time, will the collectors be drawn to the likes of Rawhide Kid or Kamandi covers by Kirby, and if so at the current price levels or less?

As with all artists, there will always be a huge gap between what is considered to be an artist's best works and his lesser works. However, a rising tide tends to lift all boats.

 

In the short term yes, but in the longer term?

Picasso's works from the 1960s and 70s are worth a fraction of what his best pieces go for, but they still go for millions, so clear evidence that the rising tide lifts all boats.

 

As OA follows the same general market dynamics, I would expect that if OA continues to appreciate, then the value of Kirby top tier and lower tier works would both appreciate. Now, whether the ratios will stay fairly constant or will widen (or compress), I haven't the foggiest.

[AKA Rick]

I think it takes about 30 years for art to mature and stand the test of time from being a flash in the pan to a legend. Even artists with limited portfolios of comic book work, like Jim Steranko can eclipse those who are highly regarded but just have too much material out there (such as Colan, Kane, Infantino, etc.) due to the laws of supply and demand.

 

In my opinion, the legends, if I had to pick only 2 from each decade (and kinda listing the decade where their most popular body of work resides) are:

 

60's = Jack Kirby and Steve Ditko ('tho I'd like to add Wally Wood, Carmine Infantino, Gil Kane, Murphy Anderson, Jim Steranko and the varied EC artists)

 

70's = Neal Adams and Barry Windsor Smith (I also put Jim Starlin in high regard here too)

 

80's = John Byrne and Frank Miller (I would add specific titles by certain artists only here like Keith Giffen "Legion of Super-Heroes"; Marshall Rodgers "Detective" and "Dr Strange"; George Perez "Avengers" and "Teen Titans"; Walt Simonson "Thor"; Alan Moore (yes, I include writers as artists) "Swamp Thing"; Dave Gibbons "Watchmen"; Paul Smith "X-Men" and "Dr. Strange"

 

90's = Todd McFarlane and Jim Lee (although Jim Lee's art started out kinda run of the mill and has gotten better with Batman "Hush" so later in his career)

 

Y2K = Adam Hughes and Jeff Scott Campbell (His style has improved tremendously from his early works to present) - I'd probably add in James Jean as being like Steranko, meaning an artist whose comic art will command large value due to the relatively limited portfolio and high demand.

 

Present 2010 = I like John Cassaday's work (he might be categorized of the decade prior, unless he starts to surge with new innovative material as a follow up to his "Astonishing X-Men" run) and his chances at standing out as a remarkable artist (as opposed to those run of the mill types today that simply draw sexy women or have styles similar to other popular artists that's hard to differentiate) and I think I like Jae Lee's style.

 

 

 

 

[comicartfan]

 

Yes, the motif is common and had been used for comic book covers well before X-MEN #136 (if ultimate credit goes to Michaelangelo, then good for comics!). However, there's no doubt in my mind that CRISIS #7 was directly modeled after X-MEN #136.

 

Actually , Perez gave an interview in Wizard Magazine about famous covers and he actually swiped the image from Batman 156.

 

[Nexus]

 

Yes, the motif is common and had been used for comic book covers well before X-MEN #136 (if ultimate credit goes to Michaelangelo, then good for comics!). However, there's no doubt in my mind that CRISIS #7 was directly modeled after X-MEN #136.

 

Actually , Perez gave an interview in Wizard Magazine about famous covers and he actually swiped the image from Batman 156.

 

 

 

 

 

I'll give George the benefit of the doubt, but geez...

 

He should have listened to Hari and answered "Michaelangelo":P

 

Whatever, still to me the second best CRISIS cover after #1, swipe or no swipe.