Original Art Aficionado [New Article - 1/12/17] 2 2

[ESeffinga]

Just yesterday I completed a purchase for a page that was from a "series" that was really only a couple stories long, and from 20 years ago. It was a creator owned project. 

But I don't even see that as the biggest factor.

I think what makes a difference is, is the work still in print?

And when you say is it still being published, are you speaking of new ongoing tales featuring the character with the same or new artists, or do you mean that it survives through the occasional cycle of reprints of the old stories?

Vertigo characters like Shade the Changing Man, Sandman (and family) and  John Constantine for instance are not creator owned, and all have had a variety of creators involved. D.C. is still making new stories with them all even now. But if those stories had been completely ended 20 years ago, I know they'd still have a fairly dedicated collector following. The original stories hold up.

I think it all comes down to what book are we talking about, and how relevant is the work today? 

In the way that some movies hold up better decades on, I think comics work is the same. And the stuff that retains interest enough, and or relevance enough that a company thinks it can still make money on the original property through reprints, it'll still do so. And those reprints often find a new audience. 

Will that translate into some OA windfall down the line? Doubtful, but not entirely.

The piece I picked up yesterday was a pretty penny. Being printed 20 years ago (and then reprints as a new hardcover about 7 years ago) hasn't lessened the interest among the art's collectors at all. And I've spoken with fans who only discovered the book in its reprinted form. So the availability of the work remaining in print (not necessarily ongoing) is important.

But long long term, as the work's original fans age out of art collecting, then how interested will subsequent generations be? That's the real test.

I'm not sure I'll be around long enough to see that completely shake out (barring global catastrophes in the meantime.)

[Mighty Hal]

10 hours ago, SquareChaos said:

 I almost exclusively collect creator owned works and I don't really expect those pages to let me retire early if you know what I mean. 

Welcome to my world! I've met and corresponded with some great fellow collectors but their OA knowledge is largely confined to titles published by Marvel and DC. When I mention Love & Rockets, Strangers in Paradise, Cavewoman or Chew, their eyes go blank.

[Dick O.]

On ‎11‎/‎5‎/‎2017 at 7:44 AM, Hal Turner said:

Nice job. The Chew price surprised me.

Glad you enjoyed it

 

On ‎11‎/‎5‎/‎2017 at 7:55 AM, Panelfan1 said:

Rich - how would you classify Y the last man?  Or is that differeny because its by different artists? 

Hmm I think Y:TLM sits on the cusp of that 'evergreen' category. It's fairly well-remembered (though I'm not a fan), and maintains a modest "long tail" of collected edition sales. Confirmation (and success) of the TV show could push it over the line. 

I don't think having a cast of artists affects its evergreen status (see Sandman).

 

20 hours ago, ESeffinga said:

I think what makes a difference is, is the work still in print?

.....

In the way that some movies hold up better decades on, I think comics work is the same. And the stuff that retains interest enough, and or relevance enough that a company thinks it can still make money on the original property through reprints, it'll still do so. And those reprints often find a new audience. 

.....

And I've spoken with fans who only discovered the book in its reprinted form. So the availability of the work remaining in print (not necessarily ongoing) is important.

Agreed. Further to my point about a series' long tail above, if it continually finds a new audience (whether through physical or online reprints), then the long-term value prospects of those books and OA increase.

 

[Dick O.]

1 hour ago, O. said:

Agreed. Further to my point about a series' long tail above, if it continually finds a new audience (whether through physical or online reprints), then the long-term value prospects of those books and OA increase.

 

For those interested, I better articulated this point in my article on Sandman OA:

https://comicbookinvest.com/2017/02/03/series-spotlight-neil-gaimans-sandman/

 

Edited November 6, 2017 by Dick O.

[vodou]

On 11/4/2017 at 12:46 PM, O. said:

Defenders #7, page 15 by Erik Larsen & Sal Buscema – $205

As previously discussed, scarcity and demand for Larsen’s late-’80s/early-’90s Marvel work mean that prices for those pieces have been rocketing skywards. If you’re a fan of Erik’s, and want affordable examples of his Marvel characters, early-2000’s Defenders pages present excellent value. $200 for a page containing large images of two prominent heroes along with a bunch of background characters, by the heavyweight Larsen/Buscema combo, looks like a steal to me!

 

Finally caught up on web reading. Nice to see this Larsen mentioned.

Yessir, this happy top bidder thought it was a steal too

[Dick O.]

On ‎11‎/‎7‎/‎2017 at 2:32 AM, vodou said:

Finally caught up on web reading. Nice to see this Larsen mentioned.

Yessir, this happy top bidder thought it was a steal too

Nice pickup

 

[Dick O.]

New Article - 10/11/17

Coverage of my visit to Metropolis Collectibles and interview with owner Vincent Zurzolo is up!

https://comicbookinvest.com/2017/11/10/visit-to-metropolis-collectibles-and-interview-with-vincent-zurzolo/

[Flambit]

Huh.  Did not realized they owned the X-Men 141 cover.  Unless that's a repro - which I doubt, looking at the other stuff on those walls.  I had heard Terry Austin had managed to hang on to a lot of those later, legendary X-Men covers.  

[rocket1312]

25 minutes ago, Flambit said:

Huh.  Did not realized they owned the X-Men 141 cover.  Unless that's a repro - which I doubt, looking at the other stuff on those walls.  I had heard Terry Austin had managed to hang on to a lot of those later, legendary X-Men covers.  

Interesting.  The Uncanny X-Men Omnibus vol.2 (which came out in 2014 and reprints DoFP) includes an image of the original cover art to 141 in the extras section that is marked "courtesy of Terry Austin."    The art to 132 and 137 is also included with the same attribution.

 

edit to add: Looking closer at the image in the article, I think that might be a recreation done by Byrne.  From what I can see, there's no lettering on the poster.  My recollection (don't have my book handy) is that the original has all the lettering and I know I've seen a Byrne recreation before.  Perhaps on his website.

Edited November 13, 2017 by rocket1312

[D Parker]

31 minutes ago, Flambit said:

Huh.  Did not realized they owned the X-Men 141 cover.  Unless that's a repro - which I doubt, looking at the other stuff on those walls.  I had heard Terry Austin had managed to hang on to a lot of those later, legendary X-Men covers.  

It's not the original -- it's a recreation by John Byrne.

[Flambit]

24 minutes ago, rocket1312 said:

Interesting.  The Uncanny X-Men Omnibus vol.2 (which came out in 2014 and reprints DoFP) includes an image of the original cover art to 141 in the extras section that is marked "courtesy of Terry Austin."    The art to 132 and 137 is also included with the same attribution.

 

edit to add: Looking closer at the image in the article, I think that might be a recreation done by Byrne.  From what I can see, there's no lettering on the poster.  My recollection (don't have my book handy) is that the original has all the lettering and I know I've seen a Byrne recreation before.  Perhaps on his website.

I had forgotten he had done a recreation, as I'm so used to his reimaginings of old covers.  My bad.

t

[Shaun C89]

I believe that Austin has kept a lot of his share of the artwork over the years. I have often wondered when he might start selling his art. 

[fsumavila]

4 hours ago, Flambit said:

I had forgotten he had done a recreation, as I'm so used to his reimaginings of old covers.  My bad.

ty 

definitely a recreation, and a fantastic one at that. I've had the pleasure of seeing that one up close. It, like MANY of the treasures at Metropolis, are a true joy to see in person

 

[artdealer]

3 hours ago, Shaun C89 said:

I believe that Austin has kept a lot of his share of the artwork over the years. I have often wondered when he might start selling his art. 

Not anytime soon.

MI

[Dick O.]

Just to clarify, that's the only recreation I recall seeing in the gallery. Everything else is 100% original published art!

[Dick O.]

New Article - 17/11/17

Report on the recent ComicLink Focused and Heritage Sunday auctions is up!

https://comicbookinvest.com/2017/11/17/market-report-november-2017-comiclink-focused-and-heritage-sunday-auctions/

 

[Panelfan1]

Thanks for continuing with these.

With regards to discrepency between sunday HA and CLink Focused - is some of the difference explained by buyer premium of 19%?

The other thought I have is - did the original buyer overpay in the first place. While vintage (bronze and earlier) art seems to be going up at a fast rate - average pieces from the past 25 years may not be?

In general - would love to hear from others - but modern stuff doesnt generally seem to do well at auction.  With many of the higher prices coming from sales by the artist pr artist rep. Does anyone else (dis)agree with that?

Edited November 19, 2017 by Panelfan1

[Dick O.]

@Panelfan1 Glad you're enjoying them! Here's my thoughts:

• I don't think HA's BP plays a part; buyers are savvy enough to factor the 19.5% into their bid calculations. It's probably more due to HA's slicker marketing and user interface.
• Re: UXM #340 page 19 - Joe Mad X-Men stuff generally performs well; this just looks like a case of the HA buyer picking up a good deal.
• Values of 'average' OA from the past 25 years likely have greater growth potential than that of BA/SA stuff, which have already undergone their price jump. 
• I'd say *most* primary sales prices are higher than comparable auction results, otherwise primary sellers would be leaving money on the table.

 

Edited November 21, 2017 by Dick O.

[Colecor]

Good point in your article on Hitman pages. I agree they are very undervalued, especially considering the quality and age of the series and the pricesof Preacher pages.  While these may have fetched good numbers based on their being from the Superman issue, Hitman pages certainly seem to be on the rise.  If you haven't read the book, give it a shot.  The second half of the series in particular is incredibly well done. 

[Dick O.]

11 hours ago, Colecor said:

Good point in your article on Hitman pages. I agree they are very undervalued, especially considering the quality and age of the series and the pricesof Preacher pages.

Good point! Hitman and Preacher  were written by Ennis during the same period, and both titles are somewhat in the same vein - OTT, offensive, quirky, entertaining. Why Hitman OA prices aren't higher remains a mystery

 

Edited November 22, 2017 by Dick O.