May Heritage Auction 3 3

[Matches_Malone]

Not long ago a fellow collector mentioned that he was thinking of becoming a "Jim Lee Purist Collector" According to him, there's a group of collectors seeking art that has been pencil and inked by Jim only.  And that the material is becoming more desirable as there's only a few pieces pencilled and ink by him .  There's a greater number of pieces inked by the talented Mr. Williams.  Personally I did not think much of it. 

But as I'm reviewing the recent Heritage results I noticed the following from this two pieces.

Is this Jim Lee Purist a real thing? 

https://comics.ha.com/itm/original-comic-art/jim-lee-batman-day-promotional-illustration-original-art-dc-2016-/a/7163-93147.s?ic4=ListView-ShortDescription-071515

 

https://comics.ha.com/itm/original-comic-art/jim-lee-and-scott-williams-wizard-the-comics-magazine-162-cover-batman-original-art-wizard-2005-/a/7163-93145.s?ic4=ListView-ShortDescription-071515

 

 

[Mighty Hal]

9 hours ago, Matches_Malone said:

Not long ago a fellow collector mentioned that he was thinking of becoming a "Jim Lee Purist Collector" According to him, there's a group of collectors seeking art that has been pencil and inked by Jim only.  And that the material is becoming more desirable as there's only a few pieces pencilled and ink by him .  There's a greater number of pieces inked by the talented Mr. Williams.  Personally I did not think much of it. 

But as I'm reviewing the recent Heritage results I noticed the following from this two pieces.

Is this Jim Lee Purist a real thing? 

 

 

Not that I've heard but, honestly, there are some unusual collectors out there. (Not you and me; those other guys.) It gets muddier still when you realize we're comparing DC promo art to a Wizard cover; that probably makes a difference, too, if you're a Lee fan. As someone who doesn't collect Lee's work, I prefer the Williams-inked page. I think it's stronger all around.

[malvin]

19 minutes ago, Hal Turner said:

Not that I've heard but, honestly, there are some unusual collectors out there. (Not you and me; those other guys.) It gets muddier still when you realize we're comparing DC promo art to a Wizard cover; that probably makes a difference, too, if you're a Lee fan. As someone who doesn't collect Lee's work, I prefer the Williams-inked page. I think it's stronger all around.

The difference between ~$11k and ~$13K while a lot to us mere mortal collectors, is not really materially significant in the grand scheme of things.

I can't comment on the "Jim Lee Purist" collectors mentality, but I can say that in general, all things being equal, Wizard published pieces sell for less than a piece published by Marvel or DC.

Malvin

[Matches_Malone]

1 hour ago, malvin said:

The difference between ~$11k and ~$13K while a lot to us mere mortal collectors, is not really materially significant in the grand scheme of things.

I can't comment on the "Jim Lee Purist" collectors mentality, but I can say that in general, all things being equal, Wizard published pieces sell for less than a piece published by Marvel or DC.

Malvin

You are right, the difference is not much, however when you consider the Wizard cover is the better one, IMO that is, it seems a bit odd.  The other one is just a promo.  I immediately thought about the Jim Lee Purist Club. I mean...I get it is that the case, there's only a handful of Published Jim Lee pencil and ink.   And Jim lee does an amazing job of inking over his own pencils as well. Or is the non-published Joker background image the difference maker?

Edited May 30, 2017 by Matches_Malone
Add

[Bronty]

I think the joker would appeal.   I see them as kinda equivalent pieces that went for kinda equivalent money.    Hard to draw conclusions from IMO

[stinkininkin]

14 hours ago, Matches_Malone said:

Not long ago a fellow collector mentioned that he was thinking of becoming a "Jim Lee Purist Collector" According to him, there's a group of collectors seeking art that has been pencil and inked by Jim only.  And that the material is becoming more desirable as there's only a few pieces pencilled and ink by him .  There's a greater number of pieces inked by the talented Mr. Williams.  Personally I did not think much of it. 

But as I'm reviewing the recent Heritage results I noticed the following from this two pieces.

Is this Jim Lee Purist a real thing? 

https://comics.ha.com/itm/original-comic-art/jim-lee-batman-day-promotional-illustration-original-art-dc-2016-/a/7163-93147.s?ic4=ListView-ShortDescription-071515

 

https://comics.ha.com/itm/original-comic-art/jim-lee-and-scott-williams-wizard-the-comics-magazine-162-cover-batman-original-art-wizard-2005-/a/7163-93145.s?ic4=ListView-ShortDescription-071515

 

 

The first promo piece is all Jim, and the second Wizard cover is my inks on Batman and Jim on all the background.

I've never heard of a Jim Lee Purist group, although I know for sure that some people prefer Jim's inks over mine.  I've both read that and heard it, and why not?  I love Jim's inks on his pencils.  Where I ink with a little more finesse and tend to play it safer, Jim is fearless and more spontaneous.  I really love some of the rawness in his work, and it is something I try to incorporate but with mixed results.  My work is perhaps more "commercial", meaning it might have more mass appeal, but I bet if you asked a lot of artists which style THEY'D prefer, I bet they'd pick Jim more often than not.  In fact, even though I have a lot of Jim's art in my collection that I've inked, I am holding Jim to a long standing promise that he do me a custom commission with the specific caveat that he ink it himself.  He's that good.

Scott

[Panelfan1]

Don't forget about Jim Lee Painted art.

grabbed some images off google.

[delekkerste]

7 hours ago, stinkininkin said:

I've never heard of a Jim Lee Purist group, although I know for sure that some people prefer Jim's inks over mine.  I've both read that and heard it, and why not? 

I can see how a minority might prefer solo Paul Simon (re: solo Jim Lee) over Simon & Garfunkel (re: Lee & Williams), but, as good an album as Graceland was, I'll take Sounds of Silence and Bridge Over Troubled Water any day. 

So, stand up and take a bow, Scott Williams - you are the Art Garfunkel of comic book artists! 

[zhamlau]

2 hours ago, delekkerste said:

10 hours ago, stinkininkin said:

I've never heard of a Jim Lee Purist group, although I know for sure that some people prefer Jim's inks over mine.  I've both read that and heard it, and why not? 

I can see how a minority might prefer solo Paul Simon (re: solo Jim Lee) over Simon & Garfunkel (re: Lee & Williams), but, as good an album as Graceland was, I'll take Sounds of Silence and Bridge Over Troubled Water any day. 

So, stand up and take a bow, Scott Williams - you are the Art Garfunkel of comic book artists! 

Unpopular Opinion #132: I always thought Art Garfunkel was on ever level a superior singer than Paul Simon. Paul had an average (for the genre) voice but was an amazing songwriter.

[delekkerste]

5 minutes ago, zhamlau said:

Unpopular Opinion #132: I always thought Art Garfunkel was on ever level a superior singer than Paul Simon. Paul had an average (for the genre) voice but was an amazing songwriter.

Surely this is what most people think?  Who can seriously doubt that Garfunkel had the stronger singing chops than Simon...  

Take that, Jim Lee Purists!!

Edited May 31, 2017 by delekkerste

[tth2]

4 minutes ago, zhamlau said:

Unpopular Opinion #132: I always thought Art Garfunkel was on ever level a superior singer than Paul Simon. Paul had an average (for the genre) voice but was an amazing songwriter.

that's not an unpopular opinion, that's everyone's opinion.

simon was the songwriter and harmony guy, with a very average voice, while garfunkel was the guy with the beautiful soaring voice. 
 

[zhamlau]

1 minute ago, delekkerste said:

5 minutes ago, zhamlau said:

Unpopular Opinion #132: I always thought Art Garfunkel was on ever level a superior singer than Paul Simon. Paul had an average (for the genre) voice but was an amazing songwriter.

Surely this is what most people think?  Who can seriously doubt that Garfunkel had the stronger singing chops than Simon...  

I dont know, I know a lot of people who think Paul is a talented singer. I love his music but honestly his singing on its own does nothing for me at all.

 

[zhamlau]

4 hours ago, tth2 said:

4 hours ago, zhamlau said:

Unpopular Opinion #132: I always thought Art Garfunkel was on ever level a superior singer than Paul Simon. Paul had an average (for the genre) voice but was an amazing songwriter.

that's not an unpopular opinion, that's everyone's opinion.

simon was the songwriter and harmony guy, with a very average voice, while garfunkel was the guy with the beautiful soaring voice. 

Thank you very much, i mean its CLEAR Paul isnt much of a singer he just was a great songwriter. When I hear people talk about how great Paul Simon is, I just think "yeah, to bad he sings a lot of his own songs". Neither of them were ever as good as solo artists as they were a duo. Simon was more successful but it was a shadow of what he was creating earlier with Art.

Edited May 31, 2017 by zhamlau
cleaner.

[Bronty]

5 hours ago, delekkerste said:

I can see how a minority might prefer solo Paul Simon (re: solo Jim Lee) over Simon & Garfunkel (re: Lee & Williams), but, as good an album as Graceland was, I'll take Sounds of Silence and Bridge Over Troubled Water any day. 

So, stand up and take a bow, Scott Williams - you are the Art Garfunkel of comic book artists! 

 

[tth2]

Wouldn't it have been cool if they got Vince Colletta to ink Jim Lee?

[Bronty]

16 hours ago, tth2 said:

Wouldn't it have been cool if they got Vince Colletta to ink Jim Lee?

Depends.

If Colletta inked Jim Lee, then what musician does that make Scott Williams?

 

 

[Matches_Malone]

On 5/30/2017 at 11:48 PM, stinkininkin said:

The first promo piece is all Jim, and the second Wizard cover is my inks on Batman and Jim on all the background.

I've never heard of a Jim Lee Purist group, although I know for sure that some people prefer Jim's inks over mine.  I've both read that and heard it, and why not?  I love Jim's inks on his pencils.  Where I ink with a little more finesse and tend to play it safer, Jim is fearless and more spontaneous.  I really love some of the rawness in his work, and it is something I try to incorporate but with mixed results.  My work is perhaps more "commercial", meaning it might have more mass appeal, but I bet if you asked a lot of artists which style THEY'D prefer, I bet they'd pick Jim more often than not.  In fact, even though I have a lot of Jim's art in my collection that I've inked, I am holding Jim to a long standing promise that he do me a custom commission with the specific caveat that he ink it himself.  He's that good.

Scott

Thank you for the input. I find it interesting  that you feel other artist as yourself would prefer Jim's Inking  Style.  Is this because of the "non-commercial" look?

Edited June 1, 2017 by Matches_Malone
Grammar

[SquareChaos]

15 minutes ago, Matches_Malone said:

Thank you for the input. I find it interested that you feel other artist as yourself would prefer Jim's Ink Style.  Is this because of the "non-commercial" look.

I found myself nodding along as I was reading when he mentioned bravery in connection with the work. There are several artists I admire for taking chances, for being different or unique. I assumed that is where he was coming from, but I also would like to hear a follow up!

[zhamlau]

18 hours ago, tth2 said:

Wouldn't it have been cool if they got Vince Colletta to ink Jim Lee?

In theory when he took his time, Vince was in my opinion actually a quality inker. He just never took his time and rushed his way through to just "check the box" and get it done.

[Bronty]

1 hour ago, zhamlau said:

 

Edited June 1, 2017 by Bronty