The OFFICIAL "This week in your ILLUSTRATION collection?" 1 1

[delekkerste]

9 minutes ago, furthur said:

I can understand how Gene's choices  of his favorite four reflect his love for those books, but my favorite image among them was "The Last Battle" I was also reminded a bit of "Yellow Submarine" art by some of the pieces-and though I pooh poohed the art here, I LOVE Yellow Submarine, so when I went back again and looked today I will admit to finding more charm in these pieces than I did the first time I looked. I bet this thread by itself has probably jumped the prices on some of these covers though-I certainly hadn't noticed them before.

The Last Battle probably works best out of the 7 covers as a standalone, displayable piece of art.  I don't remember at this point if I even made it to the last book in the series, though!  Prince Caspian is the one that sticks out most in my mind, as I remember actually owning a copy of that book (I think I borrowed the others from the library IIRC).  Ah, nostalgia!  

My wife says she opposes my buying any of these, though.  She is still annoyed that I bought a book cover to another popular series a while back which she is not fond of (and, hence, it is living in a box at the moment).  

[ESeffinga]

My comments here were only ever towards my looking at the pieces seen through today's eyes. Specifically mine.

I get what they were for, and the time period is evident.  I can easily see some folks buying them more as artifacts of a time, (like folks that collect advertising or movie props), rather than for their artistic/aesthetic merits. But isn't that a lot of what the other Nostalgia thread's about on a few levels anyway? Seeing past the art to the heart wants what it wants.

I mean that's why so much comic art is appealing beyond it's aesthetic shortcomings, right? What it represents creatively, and as a totem that elicits certain feelings.  Being here, I think we all get that angle pretty well.

Though, and again, I do think some of these covers are far better than others for what they are.

 

[Bronty]

I think the nostalgia angle you describe is something we all deal with, sure.   But I don't think that's the only reason to bid on something like this.    It's also a rare piece connected with a popular series and has some merit on that level alone.  

27 minutes ago, ESeffinga said:

My comments here were only ever towards my looking at the pieces seen through today's eyes. Specifically mine.

I get what they were for, and the time period is evident.  I can easily see some folks buying them more as artifacts of a time, (like folks that collect advertising or movie props), rather than for their artistic/aesthetic merits. But isn't that a lot of what the other Nostalgia thread's about on a few levels anyway? Seeing past the art to the heart wants what it wants.

I mean that's why so much comic art is appealing beyond it's aesthetic shortcomings, right? What it represents creatively, and as a totem that elicits certain feelings.  Being here, I think we all get that angle pretty well.

Though, and again, I do think some of these covers are far better than others for what they are.

 

Some of them look better than others and will do better than others but there won't be a huge value gap.   The best will be 2-3x the worst imo.   At the end of the day they all have the same basic underpinnings of value:   Published narnia covers.    Image will be a factor allowing for a nice premium or discount , but the basic values will stay in a range imo.

[ESeffinga]

I sure don't doubt that.

So here's a question. Do book covers have the same kinds of skewed values as their comic book brethren when it comes to position in some kind of numeric hierarchy. So, for instance, is the first one likely to bring the highest $$ because it's the first (and the most well known title), or is there more at play here?

Do book collectors buy OA often? Like another subculture?
I visited a Stephen King discussion board once because it had some paintings I found in an image search, and I was interested to find 3 or 4 of those guys collected some OA from artists that King used for his books, but not from the actual books. Simply a name-by-association kind of thing. They seemed more interested in having every permutation of a published book on display more than art on the walls, but still some fairly impressive examples of art as well.

Not sure how often that happens.

Edited April 28, 2017 by ESeffinga

[Bronty]

I really like this in the sale as well.   Please note possible NSFW (tasteful nude).

https://fineart.ha.com/itm/pin-up-and-glamour-art/haddon-hubbard-sundblom-american-1899-1976-reflections-of-me-colson-calendar-illustration-circa-1940soil-on-canv-total-2-items-/a/5291-71176.s?type=bidnotice-tracked-dailystatus

[Bronty]

22 minutes ago, ESeffinga said:

I sure don't doubt that.

So here's a question. Do book covers have the same kinds of skewed values as their comic book brethren when it comes to position in some kind of numeric hierarchy. So, for instance, is the first one likely to bring the highest $$ because it's the first (and the most well known title), or is there more at play here?

Do book collectors buy OA often? Like another subculture?
I visited a Stephen King discussion board once because it had some paintings I found in an image search, and I was interested to find 3 or 4 of those guys collected some OA from artists that King used for his books, but not from the actual books. Simply a name-by-association kind of thing. They seemed more interested in having every permutation of a published book on display more than art on the walls, but still some fairly impressive examples of art as well.

Not sure how often that happens.

There are collectors that are into book covers.    The #1 thing doesn't come into play although you take each situation on its own merits.     More about book/image/artist.    First appearance of Captain Underpants isn't really a consideration.

Science fiction and fantasy genres probably have the most interested collectors.   A cover from the Wheel of Time series is going to get a lot more interest than a cover from a 1970s cookbook.

 

Edited April 28, 2017 by Bronty

[vodou]

7 hours ago, Bronty said:

I think they will sell for Heritage's estimates no problem.   2500 is nothing for such recognizable titles.    Yes there are limitations on the value but it seems to me heritage has accounted for those - these aren't 20k estimates after all.   It will be fun to see what these end at.    I'm going to guess 2-4 a pop.

Sure they will sell for whatever they'll sell for, but they're worth zero...to me. I wouldn't pay the shipping even.

[vodou]

4 hours ago, Bronty said:

There are collectors that are into book covers.    The #1 thing doesn't come into play although you take each situation on its own merits.     More about book/image/artist.    First appearance of Captain Underpants isn't really a consideration.

Science fiction and fantasy genres probably have the most interested collectors.   A cover from the Wheel of Time series is going to get a lot more interest than a cover from a 1970s cookbook.

 

My impression of literature collectors (books, manuscripts..."words") are they are not art collectors. They're into the words and very dedicated to that alone. Art collectors (primarily) will stray into any area that holds interest and buy, including books, magazines, whatever. What Eric describes is interesting, sort of agrees with my observation but not completely. Eric...link?

[Bronty]

17 minutes ago, vodou said:

Sure they will sell for whatever they'll sell for, but they're worth zero...to me. I wouldn't pay the shipping even.

We can all say that about different things that have value to others but not to us... but it doesn't change the facts.... so I don't know know what purpose that serves other than to declare your hatred of it...   OK, noted.

[Bronty]

16 minutes ago, vodou said:

My impression of literature collectors (books, manuscripts..."words") are they are not art collectors. They're into the words and very dedicated to that alone. Art collectors (primarily) will stray into any area that holds interest and buy, including books, magazines, whatever. What Eric describes is interesting, sort of agrees with my observation but not completely. Eric...link?

I agree, for sure.   Most hobbyists of any stripe are into their hobby first and only much later, and if exposed to it, get into art... comic collectors included.   

Once into art, that same collector can branch into other areas of art.

But, its still true that some collectors (not saying book collectors necessarily... just collectors, of whatever stripe..) are into book covers.    I agree your clarification that they are often art collectors though.    At least, that's my impression.

Edited April 28, 2017 by Bronty

[vodou]

18 minutes ago, Bronty said:

I agree, for sure.   Most hobbyists of any stripe are into their hobby first and only much later, and if exposed to it, get into art... comic collectors included.   

Once into art, that same collector can branch into other areas of art.

But, its still true that some collectors (not saying book collectors necessarily... just collectors, of whatever stripe..) are into book covers.    I agree your clarification that they are often art collectors though.    At least, that's my impression.

Perhaps my point wasn't clear, or you feel like being argumentative today (?), but I specifically referenced literature collectors because that group specifically almost never (and never in my direct experience) collect art, not even associationally. This in contrast to many other folks collecting something else first and then maybe later art too. Sam Moskowitz, Forry Ackerman, Robert Weiner are exceptions but I'm not sure they weren't art collectors first or that their professional positions didn't make it so easy that only a dummy (so all other non-collecting editors!) wouldn't buy at least some of the moutains of art passing through their hands weekly. What Eric wrote is an odd 'nother thing. I wonder about that and how many others are out there doing similar?

[Bronty]

I just think we are splitting hairs.

any other admirers of that Sundblom?    I had an artist I respected (who has sadly passed away now) mention him as one of his favorites and ever since I've kept an eye out for his work but never ran into one that wowed me until now.   

Edited April 29, 2017 by Bronty

[ESeffinga]

Man, I wish I had the exact sections of the site I read, but it was many years ago, and I stumbled on it looking for a Wrightson image.

pretty certain it was on the DarkTower.org site, and must have been in the section for showing off collections.

Coincidentally though, when trying to refind a link for you guys, I noticed that site has a few threads dedicated to comics, since King wrote some comics and comic adaptations. And there is the whole Creepshow and Dark Tower comic series. Plus King himself is a well known comic lover himself. So there is an intersection that might be an anomaly compared to other fiction authors.

closest thing to what I read all those years ago was something like this. Not the same thread as what I read, but you can see these folks who are primarily King book collectors, but also into the artists featured in those books.

some I get the impression are King collectors, and any associations thereof.

http://www.thedarktower.org/palaver/showthread.php?219-The-Masters-Originals-Collectible-Book-Art

Granted the pieces I see here are from King's books or related directly. The other stuff I mentioned showing off their collections was where I saw Wrightson, Whelan, and Hale art not tied to a King property but collected by a few of these folks. Seemed their professional association with SK was good enough.

Edited April 29, 2017 by ESeffinga

[Mighty Hal]

14 hours ago, Bronty said:

I just think we are splitting hairs.

any other admirers of that Sundblom?    I had an artist I respected (who has sadly passed away now) mention him as one of his favorites and ever since I've kept an eye out for his work but never ran into one that wowed me until now.   

You bet. After following your link, I told my wife I knew exactly how I'd spend 45K if we had it available by auction date. She looked at the painting and decided, no, that would not be how I'd spend our 45K.

 So Mr. Sundblom has one out of two admirers in this house. It's a seriously special piece.

[Bronty]

4 hours ago, Hal Turner said:

You bet. After following your link, I told my wife I knew exactly how I'd spend 45K if we had it available by auction date. She looked at the painting and decided, no, that would not be how I'd spend our 45K.

 So Mr. Sundblom has one out of two admirers in this house. It's a seriously special piece.

(thumbs u it's a beauty

[vodou]

On 4/29/2017 at 5:18 AM, ESeffinga said:

Man, I wish I had the exact sections of the site I read, but it was many years ago, and I stumbled on it looking for a Wrightson image.

pretty certain it was on the DarkTower.org site, and must have been in the section for showing off collections.

Coincidentally though, when trying to refind a link for you guys, I noticed that site has a few threads dedicated to comics, since King wrote some comics and comic adaptations. And there is the whole Creepshow and Dark Tower comic series. Plus King himself is a well known comic lover himself. So there is an intersection that might be an anomaly compared to other fiction authors.

closest thing to what I read all those years ago was something like this. Not the same thread as what I read, but you can see these folks who are primarily King book collectors, but also into the artists featured in those books.

some I get the impression are King collectors, and any associations thereof.

http://www.thedarktower.org/palaver/showthread.php?219-The-Masters-Originals-Collectible-Book-Art

Granted the pieces I see here are from King's books or related directly. The other stuff I mentioned showing off their collections was where I saw Wrightson, Whelan, and Hale art not tied to a King property but collected by a few of these folks. Seemed their professional association with SK was good enough.

Pulling something out of that Morgan/Bob Kane thread here and adding to your comments above Eric...it's a real shame that the default perception (I've found) among those outside the art world looking in is: that originals are either unobtainable or so monstrously and prohibitively expensive that posters and prints are the only option. Unobtanium (somebody somewhere coined that, it works).

I was thinking the same myself many years ago. So no special genius is required to mistakenly assume we're not worthy. But a lot of money is wasted on retail pricing structures that generally aren't recoverable after the fact.

Here's an example that I debunked about ten years ago: Where I was working at the time had a very nice corporate (original) art collection in the public spaces and conference rooms. However in the employee dining room, just some interesting prints. Interesting enough that I was interested. I took note of the artist and googled...the prints were on the publisher's site for $1250 per. Probably an edition of 80-100. And the painting itself...on the artist rep's site for $750 Of course my company, they couldn't care one way or another, the facilities guy was just filling empty spaces with a defined budget to spend. But this extreme case of original vs. reproduction was my chuckle for the day.

[Bronty]

On 4/28/2017 at 7:16 AM, delekkerste said:

The Last Battle probably works best out of the 7 covers as a standalone, displayable piece of art.  I don't remember at this point if I even made it to the last book in the series, though!  Prince Caspian is the one that sticks out most in my mind, as I remember actually owning a copy of that book (I think I borrowed the others from the library IIRC).  Ah, nostalgia!  

My wife says she opposes my buying any of these, though.  She is still annoyed that I bought a book cover to another popular series a while back which she is not fond of (and, hence, it is living in a box at the moment).  

looks like hte first one is already at 3500 bucks.   Might blow by the numbers we were talking about.   One thing I didn't realize is that the first image was "in print" longer than some of the others, which got replaced in later editions by different images

[AnkurJ]

Rockwells study for triple self portrait sold for 1.3 million at heritage. Back in 2004, I saw this piece and could have bought it for $175k. Having graduated college, I had no chance.

Its amazing that it was just as out of reach then as it is now.

[Bronty]

The narnia covers did well.   A couple of them REALLY well.   Not sure wtf we were thinking when we thought they'd be cheap.

i let this thread nfluence my thinking is my excuse

Edited May 12, 2017 by Bronty

[AnkurJ]

Was outbid on the lot I wanted. 

Big drop on the Elvgren fire girl! Dropped by 80k from the 2011 sale. Ouch!