New podcast/video from Felix Comic Art (UPDATED 1/3/17!)

6 6

Nexus · January 13, 2018

18 hours ago, RabidFerret said:

Comics were destroyed by speculation in the 1990s and comic art runs that same risk if the hobby is not careful. In fact, it risks an even bigger bubble since the prices are far higher.

Indeed. You know this well, since ‘90s were your era. It may explain the sensitivity to speculation now.

It does for me. I went through it with the b/w bust in the ‘80s.

Which is why I’ve always spoken out against speculation and bubbles.

Kyle picked out four parts of four newsletters with you believe are calls to speculate. Let’s say they were (you and The Shoveler are going to your graves with that, so be it). But that would be out of 261 total newsletters (yes, I just counted!). How many of the rest contain similarly “offensive” language?

There could very well be others which you or The Shoveler will find something to be upset about. I’ll put any of that up against my track record, public and private, over the years when it comes to speculation, investment, et al.

18 hours ago, RabidFerret said:

I think it's a valid question to ask, and even moreso when Felix makes comments like "This is a different crowd than who we interact with on the boards. They don't follow the hobby at large. Many don't bother with CAF. Most have no clue about the overall market...nor do they care.".

That is a very strange set of comments to hear about who is buying his art and does not paint a clear picture of what their intent is. If anything, it clouds it.

I don’t get this. Believe it or not, some people buy art SIMPLY BECAUSE THEY LIKE IT. Because they like the artist. Because they like the book. Because it’s something cool to hang on the wall.

That idea is apparently so counter to your and The Shoveler’s belief system that is just can’t be comprehended. But you are projecting your own issues over everyone else.

19 hours ago, RabidFerret said:

I never called Felix a liar or even suggested that. In fact, I've gone out of my way to repeatedly suggest the opposite - that he has been very good about avoiding the suggestion of buying to speculate.

THANK YOU! Lol!

19 hours ago, RabidFerret said:

Felix's intent may simply be to hype up artwork and artists he represents, but that doesn't mean people aren't seeing dollar signs.

Clearly you and the Shoveler do. Around here, I’m sure there are others. $$$ has always been a favorite topic here, and that won’t likely change anytime soon. But that’s not necessarily true for everyone else outside this echo chamber.

Skizz · January 13, 2018

The allegation here seems to be that Felix’s comparing of his artists to previous great artists or classic works can be perceived by vulnerable newbies as encouraging speculation on values of art of those artists.

Just because someone is new to collecting OA doesn’t mean they are “vulnerable”. The target audience is adults who you can reasonably expect to understand what an advert is, which is what the newsletters are.

More importantly, perhaps if taken in isolation, the adverts can be perceived as touting financial values. But Felix has been going on for over two years on the podcasts, literally on repeat on a monthly basis, about how people should just buy for love and how dubious he is of values of art going forward. In fact, it appears to me that Felix has pushed an anti-speculation agenda a lot more than you would expect from some actually selling comic art.

With all of this background context, if there is any doubt then it’s safe to resolve it in the favour that Felix’s comparing of his artists to previous greats/classics is in respect of their talents and not financial values.

And if notwithstanding everything said in the podcasts, some people perceive the adverts differently, well ... whaddya gonna do. He can’t stop advertising his artists.

I’ll end with saying that far from exploiting newbies, the information disseminated through the podcasts provides an invaluable resource to new collectors such as myself to avoid being exploited and taken advantage of.

Edited January 13, 2018 by Skizz

SquareChaos · January 13, 2018

My opinion... if people feel that newbies are vulnerable and need protected then they should be posting more in the modern forum. Felix generally seems to put pages up for $150 to $400 (with notable exceptions) - the modern forum here is devoted to the promotion of 'rare modern variants' in CGC 9.8 that are often talked about at values of $5,000, $7500, even up to $10,000. I personally just don't see any of Felix's obvious advertisements as predatory, but to each their own I guess.

Nexus · January 13, 2018

19 hours ago, RabidFerret said:

Your copy-pasting skillz are extreme!! And you can use the bold font too! Your parents must be so proud

Lol! You sure seemed to love it when Kyle and The Shoveler did it. Where was the snark then? At least be consistent!

I’d be going hog wild with all of that now, except I’m on my phone and it’s a PIA!

19 hours ago, RabidFerret said:

But you still seem to be missing the point - you are comparing the artists you're selling to "the greatest DD story ever and the greatest Batman origin story ever".

No, I’m saying THANOS WINS *could* be the greatest *Thanos* story ever. Or it might not be. There are two issues out. People can read them and decide those odds for themselves.

You and The Shoveler apparently believe I’m some sort of pied piper of comic art (I’m not). But if so, then please acknowledge that my message has always been anti-speculation, anti-investment, to buy what you can afford, to collect for fun, etc.

19 hours ago, RabidFerret said:

You can claim all you want that you're talking only artistic talent, but as Michael Douglas mentioned earlier, "how many examples are there where the collector base/marketplace has somehow overlooked supremely talented artists/works".

To his exact point, if a comic book does become "the greatest XXX story ever", the marketplace will respond. By suggesting new works fresh off the shelves are comparable to "the greatest of all time", you are suggesting that they will be rewarded in the long term for being of such high quality.

We just don’t look at or approach the hobby the same way. I like what I like. What something may be worth later, if I’ll be “rewarded” for what I like...I stopped caring a long ago. Check out my Lowry for what I’ve been buying lately. If there are any “hot” things in my collection, it’s only because I *actually* like them.

So by projecting your beliefs across all buyers, you assume that they’re primarily obsessed with $$$. I shall concede and say perhaps *I’m* doing the same by hoping they’re not. BUT...no one is buying complete random non-Big Two issues hoping they’ll get rich later. No one is buying commissions(!) hoping they’ll get rich later. No one is buying UNPUBLISHED art(!!) hoping they’ll get rich later. No one is buying COLOR GUIDES(!!!) hoping they’ll get rich later. And yet...I’ve had a lot of buyers for all of those.

So could it be that there are those out there who simply appreciate original art for what it is? An original piece by a favorite artist? A unique, one-of-a-kind artifact/memento of a favorite work? Who aren’t obsessed by $$$?

I don’t expect this to be answered by you or The Shoveler, as it neither fits your view of the hobby, collector motives, or most of all, your narrative in this thread. But there it is for everyone else.

Nexus · January 13, 2018

19 hours ago, Jay Olie Espy said:

Do I feel that you encourage speculation? Not at all. There are verifiable sources from the web to the podcasts that you are quite the contrary. You have a long "voting record" of this. Honestly, I still believe the art sells itself. Furthermore, each of your artists has a four- to five-figure print run that is essentially free advertising for you and your clients' art. You probably don't even need to lift a finger to hype up your roster (but I know you do because that's what you get paid to do).

Does anyone remember the first Steve Oliff Akira color guide drop? Those color guides aren't in my wheelhouse, but IIRC, didn't the art sell out in about 24 hours? Here's copy of the newsletter Felix sent out on February 4, 2016:

Anyone can plainly see that there there was no language in the above text that encouraged speculation that may have contributed to a sell out. And then there was the first Bryan Lee O'Malley art drop on August 12, 2014, a year and a half earlier. Notice how subdued Felix is in selling O'Malley:

And yet, it was an instant sell out. That's why I say the art sells itself. Then a month and a half later, there's a second O'Malley art drop. Felix could have really milked it, but this is what he wrote:

I think it took a little while longer to sell out, if it did at all, but that's understandable. I don't think the market was able to absorb it all in such a short time span. I've bolded the "brisk activity" part for emphasis that the FOMO rhetoric is restrained.

And don't even get me started on the first Paul Pope art drop. Pieces for $40???? C'mon! That was ripe for flipping. Felix didn't have to do that. He was leaving money on the table (please keep doing that, Felix). And yet, I've not seen one $40 piece get flipped.

Thank you, Jay!

No over-the-top hype...nothing that could be perceived as a call to speculate..and yet, all sell-outs. Over 200 Bryan Lee O’Malley pieces over two sales, and over 600(!) AKIRA color guides over two sales. All gone!

So with no mention of Frank Miller, BORN AGAIN, YEAR ONE, DOCTOR STRANGE #55...how the hell did this happen?

(Question for Rabid Ferret and The Shoveler. Let’s see if they answer.)

And $40 pieces, which I routinely sell. That’s some way to get rich. Could it be that I like getting affordable art to fans who might not otherwise be able to acquire a piece from a favorite artist? Could it be that I like the idea of making art available to as many fans as possible? Could it be that I’d like to grow this hobby to include non-BSDs?

Nah...it’s all about $$$ and my “whole function is financial.”

Or consider it all, before making up your mind, as The Shoveler has, on one post.

Nexus · January 13, 2018

18 hours ago, vodou said:

I use 'em all...such fun. Your previous post was a waste of bytes, picking portions of my argument only, then re-contextualizing to show them supporting yours. That's cheatin'.

Yup. The Shoveler does this, too. Only addressing the points that fit the narrative. Weak.

Nexus · January 13, 2018

15 hours ago, PhilipB2k17 said:

Personally, I think Tradd Moore’s sequential art style reminds me a bit of Steve Rude. Which is probably why Felix connects with the art so much.

Sorry, I don’t see it! But I’d say the tone is similar: fun. I certainly do get a kick out of that.

Nexus · January 13, 2018

13 hours ago, NelsonAI said:

Felix and I have discussed Tradd's art early on before Felix started representing Tradd. We never discussed $$$ or future value. It was always about how refreshing his art looked.

That’s incredible, Nelson. Comic art can actually be discussed outside the context of $$$/future value? We can actually appreciate it for its artistic merits? Inconceivable!

14 hours ago, NelsonAI said:

Personally, Tradd's art reminds me of the late, great Al Hirschfeld. Hirschfeld drew caricatures of performing artists for the Arts and Leisure section of the NY Times. I would never compare Tradd to McFarlane, Adams or Golden. As a seasoned collector, if Felix referenced Golden or Dr. Strange # 55 during our discussions, I would have asked for clarifications.

Yup, there is an Al Hirschfeld flavor to Tradd’s more recent art. The shapes, curves, flow evoke Hirschfeld. I’ve made that same observation to other fans as well. (Check out the Bayonetta (?) commission on my site for the most obvious example.) But that would be Tradd’s latest iteration (let’s call it Tradd 4.0), so not an exact comparison. Also, Hirschfeld was a caricaturist, not a comic artist. So for comics...

I like Golden as an example, but not strictly on style. Tradd is not a Golden clone, style-wise, and that’s not what I’m suggesting. Where they’re similar is that they both create meticulous, precise, labor-intensive art (which depending on the artist, isn’t always necessarily *good* art, but is usually impressive to fans). Which means output will be limited compared to the average comic artist. Neither guy is built for the monthly grind.

But both are respected by peers. Both are influential. So like DOCTOR STRANGE #55 for Golden, I expect Tradd’s VENOM art to be a go-to introduction to his work for some time to come.

Nexus · January 13, 2018

5 hours ago, The Shoveler said:

Just getting caught up here, Rabid Ferret. I'm sorry for missing out on this discussion earlier. In lieu of writing several responses, here's one macro-post.

So far what I see since last night are several continuations of the mis-directions, projections, 'shoot the messenger' type responses, and attempts to turn this into a distributed denial-of-service attack where they demand a reply to each little diversionary claim.

As you've precisely noted above, you know and I know that this is not about a nominally-valued individual comic, independent of its original art pages that already reached $10K ten years ago. It's not about being excited "as a fan" for a particular artist or group of artists, or using hyperbole among informed, experienced & sophisticated original art fans. And this discussion is not about Sean Murphy (a topic that was already addressed extensively on a separate thread). It's not about me being somehow obsessed with the potential financial rewards of the hobby, a topic I avoid and seldom-if-ever comment on. It's not about Felix attempting to claim me as his own private personal troll because it's all about him and if you don't believe me, just ask him. And it's not even about Felix taking one of my comments and selectively misquoting it, and then tortuously layering on his own convoluted subtext to make it mean whatever Felix wants it to mean.

Those are just some of the deflections and defensive reactions that have been employed repeatedly here. Maybe there's more that I missed. They appear to desperately want to make it about those things. But it's not.

This is about Felix leaping across a chasm in his sales messages to link his products directly to one of the most successful and influential comic creators of the past 35+ years, the closest thing the industry has to a household name after Stan Lee, and promoting that connection to the broader, and impressionable, public as a sales practice. A public that includes not just savvy, experienced and well-informed veterans of the hobby. It also includes people who are new, inexperienced collectors as he's keenly aware of and mentioned before.

Maybe somewhere there's comparative sales data, movie deals, a Frank Miller quote, etc. to justify any of the Miller speculations. But that certainly wasn't presented to the customers. It's a giant leap to anoint someone, anyone as the next Miller in a sales-related (not a fan-based) message.

As difficult as it may be for some to understand, there are many people who are vulnerable and susceptible to this exact type of unsubstantiated association and the allure of the tacit potential for big payoffs. You may deny their existence and you may deny their value and utility as a person, you may even laugh at 'em and call them a bunch of suckers. But they are there even though you may not see them or care about them. Their vulnerability to a highly-refined and selective marketing ploy isn't necessarily a character failure solely on their part. And when a sophisticated marketing pitch is based on connecting products to some of the most highly-valued comic art (Valued at Thousands of Dollars! Tens of Thousands! Six Figures!! Wish I bought it 10-20-30 years ago!) from one of the most well-known and impactful comic creators of a generation (and one of the very few to achieve any sort of enduring multi-media successes), then those vulnerable people are not being treated responsibly and respectfully as customers or as human beings. It gives all the appearance that they are being taken advantage of by an insider who's acting from a position of power who appears to be willing to deliberately drive them towards speculative, unrealistic, and potentially financially harmful decisions.

When that practice is dismissed with:

...and followed by diversions, evasiveness, misquoting, etc while avoid addressing the specific concerns regarding the sales tactic, then that behavior comes across across as disingenuous at best.

The sales tactic was concerning, his reaction was disappointing in the extreme and seems to confirm the worst possible impressions that were originated by the sales tactic.

I do not know Felix. I've never met him, I've never talked with him, and I've never sought to purchase from him. Seeing his conduct here tells me all I need or want to know about him.

This is amusing as everything you accuse me of (projecting, deflecting, selectively misquoting, evasiveness etc.)...you’ve done yourself. Take a look in the mirror, buddy.

As well, for all the angst here...what ABOUT Sean Murphy? What about the OA column on a SPECULATING AND INVESTING wesbsite that is presenting this hobby to NEWBIES from the standpoint of SPECULATING AND INVESTING? Far from this righteous indignation, you appear to be quite a fan! Lol!

My position, publicly, on this subject is well-documented. You can choose to believe this or not, but many collectors, incl newbies, write me privately to chat about the hobby. I always say to collect what they love and can afford. That’s easy. But I also explain why investment is a poor idea. And speculation, worse. If I’m full of “spoon” about this, it’ll come out sooner or later.

You, otoh, with your selective crusade, are full of spoon.

You’re right...you don’t know me. You’ve made your judgment of me based on this exchange. But plenty of people here know me better. I’ll live with the consensus.

Does anyone know you? That’s not a rhetorical question...I really don’t know. All *I* know is that you’re an anonymous poster who appears to be hiding behind a handle. I can make a judgment based off that, too.

Nexus · January 13, 2018

1 hour ago, Skizz said:

The allegation here seems to be that Felix’s comparing of his artists to previous great artists or classic works can be perceived by vulnerable newbies as encouraging speculation on values of art of those artists.

Just because someone is new to collecting OA doesn’t mean they are “vulnerable”. The target audience is adults who you can reasonably expect to understand what an advert is, which is what the newsletters are.

More importantly, perhaps if taken in isolation, the adverts can be perceived as touting financial values. But Felix has been going on for over two years on the podcasts, literally on repeat on a monthly basis, about how people should just buy for love and how dubious he is of values of art going forward. In fact, it appears to me that Felix has pushed an anti-speculation agenda a lot more than you would expect from some actually selling comic art.

With all of this background context, if there is any doubt then it’s safe to resolve it in the favour that Felix’s comparing of his artists to previous greats/classics is in respect of their talents and not financial values.

And if notwithstanding everything said in the podcasts, some people perceive the adverts differently, well ... whaddya gonna do. He can’t stop advertising his artists.

I’ll end with saying that far from exploiting newbies, the information disseminated through the podcasts provides an invaluable resource to new collectors such as myself to avoid being exploited and taken advantage of.

I don’t know you, Skizz. But thank you.

(Lest The Shoveler think I put you up to this. He’ll ignore this anyway.)

RabidFerret · January 13, 2018

43 minutes ago, Nexus said:

Kyle picked out four parts of four newsletters with you believe are calls to speculate. Let’s say they were (you and The Shoveler are going to your graves with that, so be it). But that would be out of 261 total newsletters (yes, I just counted!). How many of the rest contain similarly “offensive” language?

Going through only 2017, here are a few examples that drew my attention. Comments that play up the 'event nature' - the scarcity, the rarity, the fast selling nature. It's not speculating on the future value per se, but the "buy it quick before it's gone" type of speculation. The idea that you don't want to miss out or be left behind.

A set of tactics almost identical to Marvel and Image in the 1990s. They never once advertised any of those covers as investments. They did the exact same thing you're doing - hyped up the rarity and made comparisons to successful books. And then claimed "hey, we're just offering up a product, it's on the consumer to decide if they want to buy it". How did that work out?

2017 Newsletters:

"Beautiful stuff, get 'em before they blow up!"

"All the art from #1 sold out, so don't miss your chance to grab a page!"

"Available pages going forward are looking to be VERY limited, so don’t miss out tomorrow!"

"As you can see from our previous EXTREMITY drops, the art is VERY popular...so set your alarms!"

"Our latest Paul Pope original art sale was yesterday. 34 of 36 pieces sold in the first day!"

"Incredibly, EVERY SINGLE PAGE from the ENTIRE series has now sold"

"This will be your last chance to get any EXTREMITY art for a while as issue #6 will only be offered complete. As all pages from previous issues are also nearly sold out, so don't miss out tomorrow!"

Those comments are not suggesting "buy for the love of art". They are suggesting "buy before it's gone".

Quote

I don’t get this. Believe it or not, some people buy art SIMPLY BECAUSE THEY LIKE IT. Because they like the artist. Because they like the book. Because it’s something cool to hang on the wall.

That idea is apparently so counter to your and The Shoveler’s belief system that is just can’t be comprehended. But you are projecting your own issues over everyone else.

I'm not clear why you're making so many false assumptions here? None of what you're suggesting is true.

And to be honest, it's a bit childish and offensive.

Of course some people buy art because they like it, just like some people buy art to invest and flip, while others buy art to seem cool to their peers. There are many reasons people buy art.

I'm not sure why you continue to push the narrative that nobody buying from you can possibly be investing? Of course some are.

And my 'belief system'(that for some absurd reason you claim to know) is buying for life, which is why very little ever leaves my collection.

Quote

THANK YOU! Lol!

I'm trying to have a rationale discussion about the hobby, not fight in the schoolyard.

Quote

Clearly you and the Shoveler do. Around here, I’m sure there are others. $$$ has always been a favorite topic here, and that won’t likely change anytime soon. But that’s not necessarily true for everyone else outside this echo chamber.

Given that I've never bought a page from you, I would hope it was clear that my interest in this topic is from a distance as an objective viewer.

35 minutes ago, Nexus said:

We just don’t look at or approach the hobby the same way. I like what I like. What something may be worth later, if I’ll be “rewarded” for what I like...I stopped caring a long ago. Check out my Lowry for what I’ve been buying lately. If there are any “hot” things in my collection, it’s only because I *actually* like them.

Again, I'm not sure why you're making so many false assumptions here? Or being so condescending?

You are attempting to paint a picture of me that is not remotely accurate.

I buy for life and for love and always have. I was buying Liefeld art I loved 15 years ago when the rest of the world did nothing but mock the man. This past year I bought a piece that had sat unsold on someone's site for 20 years and will never be worth what I paid for it.

So please, stop these juvenile responses and have an adult conversation with the rest of us.

35 minutes ago, Nexus said:

So by projecting your beliefs across all buyers, you assume that they’re primarily obsessed with $$$.

Again, please stop making assumptions and putting words in other peoples mouths.

I have never once said anything like that. Or close to that. Ever.

The belief that I'm "projecting" is that your tactics are pushing the same speculative bubble as comics in the 1990s did.

Does that mean everyone who bought comics in the 90s bought for investment purposes? Of course not.

But like a moth to a flame those tactics drew in people who did not care about the hobby and wanted to fleece it for personal gain.

35 minutes ago, Nexus said:

No one is buying commissions(!) hoping they’ll get rich later. No one is buying UNPUBLISHED art(!!) hoping they’ll get rich later. No one is buying COLOR GUIDES(!!!) hoping they’ll get rich later. And yet...I’ve had a lot of buyers for all of those.

And nobody in this discussion has said anything about any of those things.

35 minutes ago, Nexus said:

So could it be that there are those out there who simply appreciate original art for what it is? An original piece by a favorite artist? A unique, one-of-a-kind artifact/memento of a favorite work? Who aren’t obsessed by $$$?

I don’t expect this to be answered by you or The Shoveler, as it neither fits your view of the hobby, collector motives, or most of all, your narrative in this thread. But there it is for everyone else.

Again, what a condescending, inaccurate, and unprofessional response to criticism.

Please stop acting like you have any idea of my "view of the hobby". You have made it very clear you do not.

RabidFerret · January 13, 2018

38 minutes ago, Nexus said:

As well, for all the angst here...what ABOUT Sean Murphy? What about the OA column on a SPECULATING AND INVESTING wesbsite that is presenting this hobby to NEWBIES from the standpoint of SPECULATING AND INVESTING? Far from this righteous indignation, you appear to be quite a fan! Lol!

I think we all agree about Sean Murphy's view - he is clearly about speculation and investing and has said so himself on multiple occasions. And there is a whole thread of people outraged by it, so it's not like it's been slipping under the rug.

What started the discussion in this thread, and why the conversation has centered around you, was your comment:

"You'll be amused to know that the buyer of the EXTREMITY cover that dropped yesterday told me afterward that not only hadn't he read the issue that the cover was from...he hasn't read any of EXTREMITY at all. I still have a hard time wrapping my head around that...but have to admit it's way more common that I would have thought."

Anyone objectively reading that statement has to wonder at the buyer's intent. Including you, who said you had a hard time wrapping your head around it.

You later followed that up with:

Despite not having read the book yet (he's a trade-waiter), he understood Daniel's art well enough that he recognized immediately why this was an "important" cover."

So to be clear - a person who has never read an issue of Extremity bought a cover in part because he recognized it as "important".

Not to say that this buyer didn't love the art as well, but in this example it feels a bit strange to dismiss the idea of speculation so quickly.

Edited January 13, 2018 by RabidFerret

Nexus · January 13, 2018

32 minutes ago, RabidFerret said:

Those comments are not suggesting "buy for the love of art". They are suggesting "buy before it's gone".

Yup. Is it hype? It is. I’ve never denied it. But is it also TRUE? It is!

As a collector, I want a shot. I’m letting everyone know...here’s your shot. You can choose to take it or not.

I think of all the things I’ve missed over the years, where I wish I had had that shot. Where I didn’t know if/when art would be available. And thus, never had a chance. I’d love to be able to set my alarm and Just have that shot, win or lose...”before it’s gone”!

But here’s the thing...if I don’t give a hoot about Paul Pope, I’m not setting my alarm. I won’t care. No matter how fast the art’s going to sell otherwise.

Now...are people jumping in and buying strictly based on the hype? Maybe some are? But if it’s more than that...if there’s a significant percentage of that...wouldn’t we be seeing more buyer remorse? Wouldn’t we be seeing more of this art getting dumped?

Wouldn’t the jig have been up by now, if so many are taken by my newsletter ads?

The O’Malley sales were four years ago. 200+ pieces gone. The AKIRA sales were two years ago. 600+ pieces gone. How many were bought on impulse? Who knows for sure? But so far, just a tiny handful have been let go. You read that however you will...I tend to think people are just enjoying what they’ve bought.

As for “childish...juvenile...condescending...”...weren’t you the one who said my parents must be so proud of me for using bold?

But OK...I’ll try to do better, even IF my natural inclination is to be childish and juvenile (and condescending as the situation warrants).

Edited January 13, 2018 by Nexus

s.slayton · January 13, 2018

On 1/10/2018 at 3:50 PM, Nexus said:

That era is very near and dear to my heart (even if I'm not actually a fan of that movie!).

I got to go to the premiere in Westwood. Had my pic taken with Kim Basinger. Took a leak next to Christian Slater. Then snuck into the afterparty with a pal, where we saw Keaton, Burton, Bob Kane...shook hands with Prince...got blown off by Jack Nicholson.

A few years later, had Guber as an instructor for a Producer's Program course. He was still coasting off BATMAN, and it was the model for studying blockbusters.

During that time, I was also working for the producers of WATCHMEN. The production designer was Anton Furst. Who had also designed BATMAN.

Anyway, you'll have to take my word for it that DKR informed all of that.

I hope you were in the restroom when you took a leak next to Christian Slater.

RabidFerret · January 13, 2018

20 minutes ago, Nexus said:

Yup. Is it hype? It is. I’ve never denied it. But is it also TRUE? It is!

As a collector, I want a shot. I’m letting everyone know...here’s your shot. You can choose to take it or not.

I think of all the things I’ve missed over the years, where I wish I had had that shot. Where I didn’t know if/when art would be available. And thus, never had a chance. I’d love to be able to set my alarm and Just have that shot, win or lose...”before it’s gone”!

I understand this sentiment entirely:)

I love it when art is available at a set time and place for everyone, and I seriously appreciate that you do it - and honor it. I know some reps/dealers who say one time and the art appears early or late.

You do plenty of things well, Felix, so don't take my comments as a wholesale attack on you.

I am simply raising a concern I see and am scared about for the hobby at large. And as you pointed out, it's exacerbated far more by the speculation/investment sites that cater directly to those topics.

20 minutes ago, Nexus said:

The O’Malley sales were four years ago. 200+ pieces gone. The AKIRA sales were two years ago. 600+ pieces gone. How many were bought on impulse? Who knows for sure? But so far, just a tiny handful have been let go. You read that however you will...I tend to think people are just enjoying what they’ve bought.

And in fairness, that is exactly what I hope it is! I would love it if all of this art goes to permanent homes and is enjoyed and loved for a lifetime. I hate art that bounces around and gets flipped endlessly.

20 minutes ago, Nexus said:

As for “childish...juvenile...condescending...”...weren’t you the one who said my parents must be so proud of me for using bold?

I can only take so much ribbing before I need to rib back:) But I try to contain myself to snark.

20 minutes ago, Nexus said:

But OK...I’ll try to do better, even IF my natural inclination is to be childish and juvenile (and condescending as the situation warrants).

Thank you. I appreciate that. In person maybe these conversations would have a lighter air, but in a public forum they devolve quickly.

And I seriously don't want to keep talking about this. We've beaten the horse to a pulp at this point:)

Nexus · January 15, 2018

On 1/13/2018 at 9:09 AM, SquareChaos said:

My opinion... if people feel that newbies are vulnerable and need protected then they should be posting more in the modern forum. Felix generally seems to put pages up for $150 to $400 (with notable exceptions) - the modern forum here is devoted to the promotion of 'rare modern variants' in CGC 9.8 that are often talked about at values of $5,000, $7500, even up to $10,000. I personally just don't see any of Felix's obvious advertisements as predatory, but to each their own I guess.

Just got back from out of town. Was on my phone the last few days and missed a few posts. Including this one.

Great points, SC.

Nexus · January 15, 2018

On 1/13/2018 at 11:15 AM, s.slayton said:

I hope you were in the restroom when you took a leak next to Christian Slater.

I like to think we shared a moment but otherwise...no comment.

Nexus · January 15, 2018

So now that I'm back home...it's back to shameless promotion time! Warning: Art flood coming. Hopefully, it'll be eye-candy for most of you. If you find it clutter...avoid this thread today.

Kyle K. brought up four artists I've hyped in my newsletters: Daniel Warren Johnson, Tradd Moore, Geoff Shaw, and James Harren. I'm going to showcase each today, one by one. You can decide if my excitement about them is at all justified, or total BS.

First off, then: Daniel Warren Johnson.

The line I wrote that Kyle chose to highlight: "Daniel has set himself on the path of becoming a complete comics creator, writing and drawing his own stories. As anyone who has read EXTREMITY can attest, he is excelling at both. The next Frank Miller may actually have nothing to do with Batman comics."

Mentioning Frank Miller is a bit of an in-joke, referencing other recent events. Don't believe me? Then go look up where I've ever mentioned Frank Miller in connection to Daniel in any of the other 260 newsletters. As well, Dan's series, EXTREMITY, has has 10 issues worth of art released. I brought up Frank Miller with the release of issue #10. If it was the "Frank Miller" reference that got people to speculate and buy the art...then explain all the art that sold before that, including three complete issues.

However, I WOULD compare Daniel to a young Frank in terms of someone who has set out to tell their own stories. Who is writing AND drawing their own comics. Who is a complete comics creator. I mean that in a general sense; I do not mean that Daniel draws like Frank, and more to the point, NO suggestion about original art values or potential.

As well...as Philip pointed out, Daniel is a humble, soft-spoken young artist. He'd never bring up Frank Miller when talking about his own work. So I will! But if I didn't believe it, I wouldn't say it.

So...here is an issue of his series, EXTREMITY. It's an exceptional issue, #6, and is one of the issues which sold complete.

Nexus · January 15, 2018

Next up: Tradd Moore.

Here's the line in question: "And yes, Tradd's amazing art from the landmark VENOM #150 is headlining the show. VENOM #150 may go down as this generation's DOCTOR STRANGE #55, an artist's showcase and calling card for Tradd the way it was for Michael Golden. That's right, I'm saying Tradd may be a gamechanger like Michael Golden!And yes, Tradd's amazing art from the landmark VENOM #150 is headlining the show. VENOM #150 may go down as this generation's DOCTOR STRANGE #55, an artist's showcase and calling card for Tradd the way it was for Michael Golden. That's right, I'm saying Tradd may be a gamechanger like Michael Golden!"

My OCD won't allow me to post the VENOM #150 art because it's not complete! Tradd kept three pages for himself. Here's a link to all the other pages, for anyone who wants to see the VENOM art:

http://www.felixcomicart.com/ArtistGalleryTitleDetails.asp?Details=1&ArtistId=587&Mag=VENOM

Every page we had, sold. Was is it just the mere mention of DOCTOR STRANGE #55 or Michael Golden that caused that? Then explain all the Tradd art we sold prior to VENOM #150.

(Note: The cover shown in this group is NOT for this issue, it's for another issue that Tradd didn't draw.)

As Nelson noted, Tradd doesn't draw exactly like Michael Golden. Which is not what I suggested. For me, Tradd's art evokes the same feeling of excitement I got when I first saw Golden. No one else was drawing like that. Amongst other similarities which I've already expounded upon, that aren't strictly related to style.

For Tradd fans, this will be a treat: Never-before-seen scans to the complete issue of THE LEGACY OF LUTHER STRODE #3. With the aforementioned influences of manga/anime, video games, and Hong Kong action movies on full display:

Edited January 15, 2018 by Nexus

Nexus · January 15, 2018

Now it's Geoff Shaw's turn.

The line Kyle K. pulled: "So long as Thanos remains a fan-favorite villain, “Thanos Wins” is destined to live on as an evergreen trade when this six-issue event is completed. It should be to Thanos what “Year One” is to Batman and “Born Again” is to Daredevil."

I DO think "Thanos Wins" has a strong chance of being for Thanos, what "Year One" is to Batman and "Born Again" is to Daredevil. There are two issues out. I have a basic idea of how the story is going to go. Donny and Geoff are both as pumped as they've ever been working on a project. So let's see how this turns out.

No matter what, even if the story doesn't end up living up to its initial promise, there is no denying Geoff's art is pretty damn fantastic. I did not have Part 1 complete (Geoff kept the cover and Donny took the splash), so here's the complete Part 2 art: