New podcast/video from Felix Comic Art (UPDATED 1/3/17!)
6 6

1,374 posts in this topic

4,957 posts
9 hours ago, Nexus said:

+1.

Moore either chose his collaborators well, or he got really, really lucky. Gibbons was the perfect partner for WM. Also, I wouldn't point to the market value of his art to mean anything about his art. Let's be honest...fanboys can be guilty of some pretty questionable taste, especially when you add nostalgia into the mix (and I'll include myself there, as well).

I've often compared WM to CITIZEN KANE. A surface viewing of CK would be that it's a thinly-viewed biopic of William Randolph Hearst (similar to how some see WM as just a glorified superhero story). But dig a little deeper...and wow. CK is a work of absolute genius. Not everyone will appreciate that, it may still put many to sleep. But there is no denying Welles was an auteur and CK a masterpiece. Watch it with commentary. Similarly, check out any of the sites that annotate WM. There's a new book that's out, WATCHMEN ANNOTATED, which I haven't gotten yet, but I'm sure would demonstrate what makes WM an all-timer, and unlikely to ever be matched again.

Also re: "gravitas"...that sounds ridiculous, but I believe it. Not that buying DKR necessarily adds gravitas, but I suspect there are collectors who add certain pieces to their collection in a bid for respectability amongst their peers. Particularly BSDs.

Lastly...we've debated the point before, but I'll contend that WM was never inexpensive. At least not here in the US. It may have been cheap when it was first sold out of Comics Showcase in London, but once it got to the US, it was getting marked up quite a bit. One long-time collector recalled to me how he paid Scott Dunbier $1K for a page back in 1991. To put that into context, he could have gotten a Wrightson Frankenstein plate for the same amount.

Many talented artists never get 'hot' - some of it seems to be luck, some of it probably has a lot to do with the projects they have an interest in doing... and those they may pass on. I doubt anyone here is prepared to argue that, all things being equal, drawing Batman can be a huge boost to an artists career.

9 hours ago, Nexus said:

Thanks for the plug, Nelson!(thumbsu

And you ain't kidding. Tradd did an issue of SUICIDE SQUAD for DC in 2016. It's been in publishing limbo ever since. He decided to sell the art, since there was no discernible movement with it seeing print.

So...the art is unpublished. No one's even seen it. No one knew who the writer was. That's a lot going against it.

We still sold out every single page. For the same prices that we would have asked if it was published. You can see the art here:

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

Anyway...voudou is right. For many collectors, they don't need to have read the comic before buying the art. More on that in a sec...

 

I would buy Tradd's notebook doodles from 8th grade study hall. Some of his pages are literally mesmerizing in person. My only regret is I had to pick most of the ones I have up on the secondary market.

Edited by SquareChaos

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5,407 posts
5 hours ago, GotSuperPowers? said:

If my earnings and inclination were different, I'd be more than happy to buy a cover by an artist I liked even if I haven't read the book.  Look at some of the older collections on CAF, like Jim Reid's  - you think he's read every comic he's got a piece from?  I bet he bought the piece for the love of the artist, character, or both.  Consider variant covers sell all the time based on the artist, not exactly the book itself (although that could be the drive for some). 

I am a DWJ fan and at this point I'll pick up anything he does, and I bought an Extremity cover ahead of reading the issue based on the image and the series in general.  I'd buy like that again, but would ideally prefer to buy from what I've read (past tense), especially due to the lack of word balloons on modern art, but also to marry my understanding of the content with words.  It's all Felix's fault for being too efficient and getting art for sale quicker than I get to the comic shop!

Good one. Jim has a discerning eye, for sure.  He views the art through a very different lens than the average collector. For one, it's almost entirely free of nostalgia. I hope to have him on again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5,407 posts
4 hours ago, Mr. Machismo said:

@Nexus The fan perspective makes sense. I think that may get lost on some, including myself, as you’re the most identifiable moderator of investment/cost discussion opposed to readership (IIRC, you don’t read the big two).

It’s clear you’re [super] anti- comic art as investment on Twitter and podcast. When something like that is written, I’m betting there’s still a small chunk of people who take that as a “tip”, given your proximity to the “market” and buy accordingly.

But again, as a rep I think that’s to be expected and even encouraged when done honestly and out of genuine excitement (like you are.) 

I'm not anti-investment, per se. I'm more anti-investment mentality.

So yes, I hype the art. I want it to sell. But I don't want anyone to buy for speculation or as investment. Please tell your friend that if he buys art from me, to buy it for what it is (an original from a talented artist) and not for what it was never meant to be (an investment).

Also, neglected to mention, thanks for the kind words. Much appreciated!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5,407 posts
1 hour ago, delekkerste said:

Anyway, the bottom line is that comparably tiered Ditko ASM vs. Miller DKR...Ditko ASM blows DKR out of the water by a wide margin.  

Not by the time I'm done!!:insane::jokealert:

In the past few years, we've seen what the "best" DKR art sells for...mid six-figures. A decent Ditko ASM cover, not even in the "best" category, is virtually a guaranteed $1M these days. Wait until one of those hits auction.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
185 posts
14 minutes ago, Nexus said:

Please tell your friend that if he buys art from me, to buy it for what it is (an original from a talented artist) and not for what it was never meant to be (an investment).

Why not tell his friend yourself in your fan newsletter?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5,407 posts
1 minute ago, The Shoveler said:

Why not tell his friend yourself in your fan newsletter?

I don't know his friend. Kyle does. He can pass along the message directly.

As for everyone else, I've said it enough times on the podcast, and on Twitter, et al, that if it hasn't already sunk in, it probably never will.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
185 posts
23 minutes ago, Nexus said:

As for everyone else, I've said it enough times on the podcast, and on Twitter, et al, that if it hasn't already sunk in, it probably never will.

That's the kind of message that's easy to get lost when you send marketing mails that speculatively connect your products directly to Frank Miller, Year One, Born Again and Mike Golden. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5,407 posts
1 minute ago, The Shoveler said:

That's the kind of message that's easy to get lost when you send marketing mails that speculatively connect your products directly to Frank Miller, Year One, Born Again and Mike Golden. 

Like I just said earlier, people hear what they want to hear. They'll believe what they want to believe.

If I'm making a connection to Frank Miller, BORN AGAIN, YEAR ONE, Michael Golden, etc., I'm making a connection based on quality. On talent. On potentially introducing the reader to some excellent art they might not have noticed otherwise.

If some make the immediate leap to $$$...that's on them. If you read my newsletters and your first thought is "cha-ching!", then that's on you. I don't believe that's the majority of collectors who buy from me. I believe I've presented some pretty compelling evidence supporting that today, which so far,  has gone undisputed.

I know investment/speculation/$$$ is a favorite topic for a significant percentage of collectors here. That's never been me. And I've been here for over 12 years.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
185 posts
1 hour ago, Nexus said:

If I'm making a connection to Frank Miller, BORN AGAIN, YEAR ONE, Michael Golden, etc., I'm making a connection based on quality. On talent. On potentially introducing the reader to some excellent art they might not have noticed otherwise.

In that extract posted earlier, I'm not catching that distinction.  I do see a lot of "may be"s, "should be"s, "destined to"s and "will be"s:

9 hours ago, Mr. Machismo said:
  Quote
  • 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.
  • 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!
  • 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.
  • THOR #701 may very well represent peak Harren (to date). James is already hugely influential amongst his peers, and this issue only further establishes his status as a generational talent. THOR #701 will be studied for years to come.

 

1 hour ago, Nexus said:

Like I just said earlier, people hear what they want to hear. They'll believe what they want to believe.
 

 Sometimes they'll hear exactly what you say and believe exactly what you say, exactly as you present it to them.

1 hour ago, Nexus said:

If some make the immediate leap to $$$...that's on them.

And when you promote somebody as the next Frank Miller and hype their latest project as being analogous to Miller's most lucrative high-water marks, then you build the cliff and announce how fabulous it would be to take a leap.

Edited by The Shoveler
"to" take a leap.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
304 posts
21 minutes ago, Nexus said:

Like I just said earlier, people hear what they want to hear. They'll believe what they want to believe.

I hope you understand that this comment applies to you as well?

You may 'want to believe' that you're not advocating speculation, that your actions are altruistic and your intentions honorable, but it's still possible that your actions paint a different picture you are not seeing or understanding.

21 minutes ago, Nexus said:

I believe I've presented some pretty compelling evidence supporting that today

I believe the compelling evidence of the day was provided by Kyle, with valid examples given of times art sales were pushed in a speculative fashion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5,407 posts
3 minutes ago, The Shoveler said:

In that extract posted earlier, I'm not catching that distinction.  I do see a lot of "may be"s, "should be"s, "destined to"s and "will be"s:

What distinction? If I said Tradd Moore may be a gamechanger like Michael Golden, I mean that in terms of his talent, the quality of his art, and oh hey, if you've never heard of Tradd Moore, maybe you've heard of Michael Golden. Anything else you think you read, is on you.

5 minutes ago, The Shoveler said:

Sometimes they'll hear exactly what you say and believe exactly what you say, exactly as you present it to them.

Then what exactly am I saying? What am I presenting? You'll have to show me where I've said anything about future value.

5 minutes ago, The Shoveler said:

And when you promote somebody as the next Frank Miller and hype their latest project as being analogous to Miller's most lucrative high-water marks, then you build the cliff and announce how fabulous it would be take a leap.

"Lucrative high-water mark" is what you inferred. Again, that's you. My inference is creative high water mark.

In any case, Miller's "lucrative high-water mark" wouldn't be BORN AGAIN or YEAR ONE. It'd be DKR. And I've already said I'm, at best, agnostic about future prospects in terms of "investment". As a comic, though? It will remain great, regardless of what happens to the art's value. I'm keeping my Miller DKR art, regardless of what happens to its value. If there's a cliff, I've been warning people away from it. I believe most understand that. That some are so enamored with $$$, and can't see this hobby for anything more than that...again, that's on them. And you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
483 posts

Given how much Felix does for the hobby, and how clear he’s been about not treating comic art as an investment — to the point where it’s actually ruffled feathers with another artist trying to capitalize on that angle — I don’t believe he’s being duplicitous here. I raised it as a question and not an accusation, and I apologize if it came off as the latter. While Felix does have motive to speculate simply because he’s a rep, he routinely preaches the opposing viewpoint. The fan perspective rationalizes the perceived misalignment, at least for me. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
185 posts
10 minutes ago, Nexus said:

I believe most understand that. That some are so enamored with $$$, and can't see this hobby for anything more than that...again, that's on them. And you.

And me?  Prove it or your completely full of "spoon".

Edited by The Shoveler
spoon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5,407 posts
11 minutes ago, RabidFerret said:

I hope you understand that this comment applies to you as well?

You may 'want to believe' that you're not advocating speculation, that your actions are altruistic and your intentions honorable, but it's still possible that your actions paint a different picture you are not seeing or understanding.

Actually, I'm *not* advocating speculation. I'm also not trying to be altruistic or honorable, either (wtf, lol).  I say what I think. However you take it, is how you take it.

If I say James Harren is a generational talent, guess what? I believe it. If some take that to mean anything else...I actually don't really care. It's amusing that The Shoveler's immediate reaction is that I'm bs'ing the audience, or trying to con them. Or something. I'd be more worried about what's going inside his head.

11 minutes ago, RabidFerret said:

I believe the compelling evidence of the day was provided by Kyle, with valid examples given of times art sales were pushed in a speculative fashion.

Sure, Kyle had his point. I'm glad he brought it up, so I have a chance to respond. I rebutted. You can choose to believe what you want to believe.

Otherwise, it appears that everyone else is picking and choosing which points to address. So to your first comment...I'll believe what I want to believe about that, as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
185 posts
12 minutes ago, Nexus said:

What distinction? If I said Tradd Moore may be a gamechanger like Michael Golden, I mean that in terms of his talent, the quality of his art, and oh hey, if you've never heard of Tradd Moore, maybe you've heard of Michael Golden. Anything else you think you read, is on you.

Then what exactly am I saying? What am I presenting? You'll have to show me where I've said anything about future value.

"Lucrative high-water mark" is what you inferred. Again, that's you. My inference is creative high water mark.

In any case, Miller's "lucrative high-water mark" wouldn't be BORN AGAIN or YEAR ONE. It'd be DKR. And I've already said I'm, at best, agnostic about future prospects in terms of "investment". As a comic, though? It will remain great, regardless of what happens to the art's value. I'm keeping my Miller DKR art, regardless of what happens to its value. If there's a cliff, I've been warning people away from it. I believe most understand that. That some are so enamored with $$$, and can't see this hobby for anything more than that...again, that's on them. And you.

Marks, not mark.  Plural not singular.  Got it?  Do not quote me and then change my words.  Do you understand that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5,407 posts
6 minutes ago, The Shoveler said:

And me?  Prove it or your completely full of "spoon".

So I say "the next Frank Miller may have nothing to do with Batman comics." Your interpretation is that this statement has to do with $$$. That my only concern is $$$. So you tell me.

Meanwhile, you still haven't shown me where where I've said anything about future value. So who's full of "spoon"?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5,407 posts
7 minutes ago, The Shoveler said:

Marks, not mark.  Plural not singular.  Got it?  Do not quote me and then change my words.  Do you understand that?

Good lord. It's late. You need sleep.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
185 posts
22 minutes ago, Nexus said:

"Lucrative high-water mark" is what you inferred. Again, that's you.

Negative.  That's what you inferred.  My statement was clear.  You're simply hearing what you want to hear.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
185 posts
2 minutes ago, Nexus said:

Good lord. It's late. You need sleep.

If I take a nap, I could miss out on the next Frank Miller! :ohnoez:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5,407 posts
25 minutes ago, Mr. Machismo said:

Given how much Felix does for the hobby, and how clear he’s been about not treating comic art as an investment — to the point where it’s actually ruffled feathers with another artist trying to capitalize on that angle — I don’t believe he’s being duplicitous here. I raised it as a question and not an accusation, and I apologize if it came off as the latter. While Felix does have motive to speculate simply because he’s a rep, he routinely preaches the opposing viewpoint. The fan perspective rationalizes the perceived misalignment, at least for me. 

Like I said, I've been posting here for 12+ years. I've been a rep for 4 of them. My posts have been consistent, before and after. I've always spoken my mind.

I understand there's a natural suspicion when it comes to dealers. (I make the distinction between dealer and rep, but also accept that many won't care.) That suspicion is deserved, quite frankly. I've spoken out plenty about that, too.

So someone like The Shoveler is just going to assume the worst. It's apparent that there's nothing I can say that will change his mind. That's OK. But I do look forward to his posts when it comes to the real shenanigans in the hobby. Because if my perceived hype is enough to get him this wound up, his head's going to explode.

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
6 6