1st McFarlane Hulk Cover on Ebay --- Pretty cool to see
0

36 posts in this topic

55,496 posts

I don't disagree with anything you've said at all. You're 100% right, covers like Spidey #316 are the most valuable, for all the reasons you suggested (plus layout, character, etc.)

 

But it's Hulk, it's McFarlane, and it's Marvel. And, it's not like there are a lot of McFarlane Hulk covers to begin with. There are only 8 that he pencilled, and 3 that he drew entirely. It's the first one, and while it's not anywhere near the cover that, say, #340, 344, or 345 are, it's no slouch, either.

 

By contrast, there are 29 covers of Amazing that he did, all of which he did entirely, so there's a lot more to choose from.

 

And no, I'm not a "slab" collector. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,342 posts

Wow, free shipping! What a deal! (/sarcasm)

 

By contrast, the Kirby title splash page to Incredible Hulk #4 is also listed on ebay for a BIN of $50K, just $5K more. (It's not my auction, just something that I saw when I was browsing after looking at the McFarlane cover listing and almost falling out of my chair at the BIN price.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24,772 posts

no one is arguing this is worth anywhere close to 45k, except the seller.

 

But I wouldn't spit on it either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,342 posts

I know, I just thought I'd add to it by giving a comparison to a Kirby piece that it was priced/valued (by the seller) in the same ballpark.

 

Even if I had $45K, I wouldn't buy that cover. I wouldn't spit on it, but I wouldn't pay a lot of money for it, either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20,875 posts

 

But I wouldn't spit on it either.

 

i would. :whistle:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5,225 posts

Doc Sampson on that cover always seemed a little reminiscent of later Infantino to me

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42,217 posts

 

I love McFarlane and I love the Hulk run, but as far as that cover is concerned, I would much rather have Infinity Inc. 16, 22 or 36. The inking really made Hulk 330 the least McFarlane of any of his covers that I can remember.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
55,496 posts
no one is arguing this is worth anywhere close to 45k, except the seller.

 

But I wouldn't spit on it either.

 

I thnk a reasonable price is somewhere between $12-$20K.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,998 posts

If I had $45k to spend on Todd McFarlane material, a better buy in my opinion would be to get every Todd McFarlane piece available via Mike "Romitaman" Burkey:

 

http://www.romitaman.com/ArtistGalleryRoom.asp?ArtistId=1048

 

Which amounts to less than $40k, and I'm sure you could negotiate a better price (I know he'll throw in free shipping for a purchase this size too! :)) if you took every McFarlane piece he had, and you'll end up getting a nice Spider-Man cover, a Spider-Man page, a Hulk page (with a Hulk transformation scene), Spawn material, Infinity Inc, G.I. Joe, and in all... 9 pieces, most of which are individually superior to the Hulk cover in artistic rendering in my opinion... and still have about $10k left over!

 

...and in truth, you could probably get that Hulk cover for under $10k if it were ever to go a no minimum / no reserve bidding type auction where the buyers in the marketplace, not the seller helps dictate the value and ultimately the sales price.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24,772 posts

yeah. I'd put the heritage over/under at 7500 or something like that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16,603 posts
To me, it looks like the bridge between his DC Comics "Infinity Inc." work and his Marvel Comics "Amazing Spider-Man" work, in the quality and development of his artistic style.

 

So, with that I'd challenge to say, there are probably many McFarlane fans who would rather have an Amazing Spider-Man or Spawn interrior page than this cover.

 

Items like this always raises a question to me about art collecting...

 

With sports cards, value and demand were once dictated by "rookie" cards, the 1st year. Then later by the scarcity of "crash numbered" cards whether autographed or with authentic memorabilia embedded. The relevance of that statement is less about the scarcity, since original comic book art is "one-of-a-kind" - but the question I wonder is...

 

Aside from the notoriety of a trademark artist to character and story arc such as Steve Ditko "Amazing Spider-Man"; Neal Adams "Green Lantern/Green Arrow"; John Byrne "Uncanny X-Men"; Frank Miller "Daredevil"; Jim Lee "Batman"; etc - - are "early works" by artists before they developed their trademark artistic style seen is inferrior or maybe desirable from an evolutionary standpoint? Or "later works" by artists who might be outside of the pinnacle of their game such as the recent Neal Adams "Batman Odessey" (the art is still one-of-a-kind like his 1970's work but I'd challenge to say his new stuff would not command the values and demand of his older Batman material whether The Brave & The Bold, Batman, or Detective Comics); Marshall Rodgers "Batman Dark Detective" (still with Austin inks, but a shadow of what his Detective Comics run commands); John Byrne "X-Men: The Hiden years" (where an Uncanny page is at least $5,000, a Hidden Years page is more like $200); Carmine Infanino "Flash" the 1960's material VS the 1980's material; etc.

 

I see a lot of art where the rendering isn't necessarily as refined or detailed, or has lackluster characters of course get offered for substantially less than an artists key work or even average. Case in point, several Adam Hughes pieces only featuring male characters.

 

Is it enough to have a piece by an artist, and there's no matter what a bare minimum collectibility to that artists work because of their name, or even with the name behind a mediocre piece, does the artist name carry less weight, especially when you compare that work to their very best, it becomes that much more less desirable for that comparison?

 

Hey this post kinda got lost in the "its not worth 45K" post (and I'd be very surprised to see that break 5K at Heritage and I would NOT be surprised to see it break 5K) however I do not think the valuation has ANYTHING to do with the art. No Hulk, no Inks, early rendering and a bunch of other stuff ppl have already articulated.

 

Back to the post in quotes. I DEFINITELY think that art has a different wave to its valuation, or a different ripple if you will. There seems to be a recognized "peak" period in the careers of many artists, similar to fine art and a departure of sorts from comic collectible principles of 1st app. / age - older is better (GA/SA/BA). Many artists market demonstrate this characteristic where a few factors are present - an extensive body of work, definite transition in style, and usually a iconic character association (McFarlane ASM, Adams Batman, Wrightson Swamp thing).

 

Of course with anything this ripple is not absolute, some artists start hot and fade (cough Liefield cough cough), and as previously mentioned some have too short a tenure (Steranko) and therefore body of work to have desirable periods, or major changes in style.

 

2c

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24,772 posts
To me, it looks like the bridge between his DC Comics "Infinity Inc." work and his Marvel Comics "Amazing Spider-Man" work, in the quality and development of his artistic style.

 

So, with that I'd challenge to say, there are probably many McFarlane fans who would rather have an Amazing Spider-Man or Spawn interrior page than this cover.

 

Items like this always raises a question to me about art collecting...

 

With sports cards, value and demand were once dictated by "rookie" cards, the 1st year. Then later by the scarcity of "crash numbered" cards whether autographed or with authentic memorabilia embedded. The relevance of that statement is less about the scarcity, since original comic book art is "one-of-a-kind" - but the question I wonder is...

 

Aside from the notoriety of a trademark artist to character and story arc such as Steve Ditko "Amazing Spider-Man"; Neal Adams "Green Lantern/Green Arrow"; John Byrne "Uncanny X-Men"; Frank Miller "Daredevil"; Jim Lee "Batman"; etc - - are "early works" by artists before they developed their trademark artistic style seen is inferrior or maybe desirable from an evolutionary standpoint? Or "later works" by artists who might be outside of the pinnacle of their game such as the recent Neal Adams "Batman Odessey" (the art is still one-of-a-kind like his 1970's work but I'd challenge to say his new stuff would not command the values and demand of his older Batman material whether The Brave & The Bold, Batman, or Detective Comics); Marshall Rodgers "Batman Dark Detective" (still with Austin inks, but a shadow of what his Detective Comics run commands); John Byrne "X-Men: The Hiden years" (where an Uncanny page is at least $5,000, a Hidden Years page is more like $200); Carmine Infanino "Flash" the 1960's material VS the 1980's material; etc.

 

I see a lot of art where the rendering isn't necessarily as refined or detailed, or has lackluster characters of course get offered for substantially less than an artists key work or even average. Case in point, several Adam Hughes pieces only featuring male characters.

 

Is it enough to have a piece by an artist, and there's no matter what a bare minimum collectibility to that artists work because of their name, or even with the name behind a mediocre piece, does the artist name carry less weight, especially when you compare that work to their very best, it becomes that much more less desirable for that comparison?

 

(and I'd be very surprised to see that break 5K at Heritage and I would NOT be surprised to see it break 5K)

 

huh? just curious, but what are you saying you think it would hit at heritage. I think the semi-key nature of the book would lead to at least a couple interested parties willing to pay more than 5k, but I could be wrong. I agree that this cover's value isn't so much about the art, which is what makes it difficult to value precisely.

 

Still, at less than 5k, I'm halfway tempted myself. And since I don't have much interest in buying mcfarlane art, that alone tells me it should be worth at least that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
55,496 posts

If it would only sell for $5K, I'd buy it right now.

 

Right this minute. I could not fall over myself fast enough to write that check.

 

I cannot see it selling for that low. Just cannot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
719 posts

I always wonder when people say they would buy a cover at X amount, would they pay that much if they actually had to keep it, they'd pay that amount because they think they could flip it for more than that amount.

 

Personally, it doesn't look much McFarlane to me, and definitely not something I'd want up on my wall.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24,772 posts
I always wonder when people say they would buy a cover at X amount, would they pay that much if they actually had to keep it, they'd pay that amount because they think they could flip it for more than that amount.

 

 

oh for sure! the impact of the liquidity gained from online sales can't be overstated. wasn't so easy in the old days to find a buyer for something like this and that kept prices down

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16,603 posts
To me, it looks like the bridge between his DC Comics "Infinity Inc." work and his Marvel Comics "Amazing Spider-Man" work, in the quality and development of his artistic style.

 

So, with that I'd challenge to say, there are probably many McFarlane fans who would rather have an Amazing Spider-Man or Spawn interrior page than this cover.

 

Items like this always raises a question to me about art collecting...

 

With sports cards, value and demand were once dictated by "rookie" cards, the 1st year. Then later by the scarcity of "crash numbered" cards whether autographed or with authentic memorabilia embedded. The relevance of that statement is less about the scarcity, since original comic book art is "one-of-a-kind" - but the question I wonder is...

 

Aside from the notoriety of a trademark artist to character and story arc such as Steve Ditko "Amazing Spider-Man"; Neal Adams "Green Lantern/Green Arrow"; John Byrne "Uncanny X-Men"; Frank Miller "Daredevil"; Jim Lee "Batman"; etc - - are "early works" by artists before they developed their trademark artistic style seen is inferrior or maybe desirable from an evolutionary standpoint? Or "later works" by artists who might be outside of the pinnacle of their game such as the recent Neal Adams "Batman Odessey" (the art is still one-of-a-kind like his 1970's work but I'd challenge to say his new stuff would not command the values and demand of his older Batman material whether The Brave & The Bold, Batman, or Detective Comics); Marshall Rodgers "Batman Dark Detective" (still with Austin inks, but a shadow of what his Detective Comics run commands); John Byrne "X-Men: The Hiden years" (where an Uncanny page is at least $5,000, a Hidden Years page is more like $200); Carmine Infanino "Flash" the 1960's material VS the 1980's material; etc.

 

I see a lot of art where the rendering isn't necessarily as refined or detailed, or has lackluster characters of course get offered for substantially less than an artists key work or even average. Case in point, several Adam Hughes pieces only featuring male characters.

 

Is it enough to have a piece by an artist, and there's no matter what a bare minimum collectibility to that artists work because of their name, or even with the name behind a mediocre piece, does the artist name carry less weight, especially when you compare that work to their very best, it becomes that much more less desirable for that comparison?

 

(and I'd be very surprised to see that break 5K at Heritage and I would NOT be surprised to see it break 5K)

 

huh? just curious, but what are you saying you think it would hit at heritage. I think the semi-key nature of the book would lead to at least a couple interested parties willing to pay more than 5k, but I could be wrong. I agree that this cover's value isn't so much about the art, which is what makes it difficult to value precisely.

 

Still, at less than 5k, I'm halfway tempted myself. And since I don't have much interest in buying mcfarlane art, that alone tells me it should be worth at least that.

 

 

I'm saying I could see it go either way, <> 5K, depends on a lot of factors. For instance lets say that the piece gets shopped on EBAY (no takers) it hits a dealer site for $15K (no takers), then it hits Heritage with a reserve of 10K which posts a few days before the floor auction (no takers), finally its offered at no reserve and someone pings it for 5K-6K well they better want to keep it because it won't be selling for more than that anytime soon; and maybe it sells for < 5K because everyone bidding knows its been shopped and they are bidding to keep it.

 

Anyone ever see this happen before? I know I have.

 

Honestly I think the piece falls lets say in the third tier of McFarlane stuff (ASM-Spawn-Latter Hulk-Eary Hulk-infinity Inc.) Maybe that's the 4th tier. Now I don't know what the valuation drops are (sure others could posit).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
0