ComicLink Summer Featured Auction 2017 1 1

[Flambit]

Too bad the Batman Adventures #12 cover isn't up for auction.  It would probably fetch more than either!  

[Dick O.]

1 hour ago, Panelfan1 said:

So I know all the excitement is for Kirby FF - but what do you guys think about X-men 266 1st gambit. It has a reserve and the owner was originally asking 150k on CAF.  It's the first appearence of Gambit by Kubert.

Clink posting

I think it would do well to crack $100k. Unfortunately, Remy LeBeau's no longer the hot property he was once... maybe the Gambit movie (if any) will change that?

 

[delekkerste]

2 hours ago, Twanj said:

If I was going to spend 150k+ on art, I'd def rather have the Kirby FF cover!

So, I love the UXM #266 cover (Hi Josh!  I told you I'd have nothing but good things to say about it!)  If price was not a consideration, I'd much rather have the UXM #266 than the FF #77.  Why?  Well, obviously, the UXM cover is much more in my wheelhouse in terms of title/characters and nostalgia.  But, it also goes to a discussion several fellow OA collectors and I were having earlier this week:

Is it better to own, say, a middle of the pack example from a blue chip, classic run (e.g., Byrne X-Men, Miller Daredevil, Romita ASM, Kirby FF), or the undisputed best-in-class example from a run and/or artist that may not be quite as revered/prestigious?  Let's assume your own personal appreciation of both examples were roughly equal.

All three of us in the discussion agreed that it would be better to go for the best in class example (at least most of the time).  It's like this article I once read in a car magazine - when you drive a Nissan GT-R, you are driving Nissan's top of the line car (with supercar performance numbers) and you have to make no apologies for it.  If a GT-R owner stops at a red light and is joined by, say, a Lamborghini Gallardo owner - well, the latter knows that, fancier brand name aside, he knows that he is driving that marque's entry level model, not the top of the line.  Definitely not unimproveable. 

That's how I feel about UXM #266 vs. FF #77.  The owner of the UXM #266 owns the most valuable Andy Kubert example.  Unimproveable.  Major first appearance and a highly sought after issue, one of the most memorable from the era, to boot.  FF #77 is nice, but it's far from top-of-the-line or unimproveable.  Not a key or even very well remembered, frankly.  Not a major villain.  Not twice-up.  Of course, it's Kirby FF, so, it's desirable...but far from best in class.  Call me crazy, but I'd rather have the former. 

Anyway, the conversation earlier in the week centered around whether it would be wise or not to part with one of my covers which could legitimately be called best in class, in a trade for a middle of the pack cover from a more prestigious run by a more prestigious artist.  I thought my friends would have said it was worth it to make that switch.  But, no, they also agreed:  better to own something that it is the best in class (of course, the class has to be at a relatively high level; nobody cares if you have the best cover to a D-list book by a D-list artist) than just a "nice example" of something that may be a notch higher in terms of prestige (again, assuming one otherwise likes the two examples pretty equally).   

Edited August 11, 2017 by delekkerste

[MyNameIsLegion]

My knee jerk reaction would be to disagree- but I can't really fault the reasoning. Specifically on the notion of "unimproveable". FF#77 is an odd cover- it looks to me like it would have been better suited as the title page. Having Ben, Reed, and Johnny's figures repeated on the cover is somehow off-putting. It looks too contrived, stitched together.

its also a very generational response. I bought the Kubert off the stands in college, and I was never impressed by the character. I felt Claremont's characterization increasingly shallow. At the same time I didn't grow up with Kirby FF either. Give me a Sal Buscema 70s cover any day and I'd pick that.

[Nexus]

38 minutes ago, delekkerste said:

So, I love the UXM #266 cover (Hi Josh!  I told you I'd have nothing but good things to say about it!)  If price was not a consideration, I'd much rather have the UXM #266 than the FF #77.  Why?  Well, obviously, the UXM cover is much more in my wheelhouse in terms of title/characters and nostalgia.  But, it also goes to a discussion several fellow OA collectors and I were having earlier this week:

Is it better to own, say, a middle of the pack example from a blue chip, classic run (e.g., Byrne X-Men, Miller Daredevil, Romita ASM, Kirby FF), or the undisputed best-in-class example from a run and/or artist that may not be quite as revered/prestigious?  Let's assume your own personal appreciation of both examples were roughly equal.

All three of us in the discussion agreed that it would be better to go for the best in class example (at least most of the time).  It's like this article I once read in a car magazine - when you drive a Nissan GT-R, you are driving Nissan's top of the line car (with supercar performance numbers) and you have to make no apologies for it.  If a GT-R owner stops at a red light and is joined by, say, a Lamborghini Gallardo owner - well, the latter knows that, fancier brand name aside, he knows that he is driving that marque's entry level model, not the top of the line.  Definitely not unimproveable. 

That's how I feel about UXM #266 vs. FF #77.  The owner of the UXM #266 owns the most valuable Andy Kubert example.  Unimproveable.  Major first appearance and a highly sought after issue, one of the most memorable from the era, to boot.  FF #77 is nice, but it's far from top-of-the-line or unimproveable.  Not a key or even very well remembered, frankly.  Not a major villain.  Not twice-up.  Of course, it's Kirby FF, so, it's desirable...but far from best in class.  Call me crazy, but I'd rather have the former. 

Anyway, the conversation earlier in the week centered around whether it would be wise or not to part with one of my covers which could legitimately be called best in class, in a trade for a middle of the pack cover from a more prestigious run by a more prestigious artist.  I thought my friends would have said it was worth it to make that switch.  But, no, they also agreed:  better to own something that it is the best in class (of course, the class has to be at a relatively high level; nobody cares if you have the best cover to a D-list book by a D-list artist) than just a "nice example" of something that may be a notch higher in terms of prestige (again, assuming one otherwise likes the two examples pretty equally).   

The BSD collector will always want the best. They'll pay up for it. We see it all the time.

The best-in-class example is coveted. The best-in-class inspires emotional/irrational bidding. The middle-of-the-pack example, otoh, is a place holder.

So from an investment standpoint, go with best-in-class.

For me, I'll take the Kirby and it's not even close. Call ME crazy. Or a lousy investor. But the X-MEN #266 makes me cringe (sorry, Josh). I'd be thrilled to add a middle-of-the-pack Kirby FF cover to my collection. I'd be thrilled to add ANY Kirby FF cover to my collection. With all due respect to Andy Kubert, the only reason he's in the same discussion with Kirby is because he drew a cover that was a first appearance. If not for that, I'd even take an assisted "Kirby" cover recreation over the "best/most valuable" Andy Kubert.

[r100comics]

Value considerations aside, I'd take the #266 as I have more of an emotional connection to it than the FF #77.

The #266 is a proper 1st appearance cover with the new character large & central and the classic Marvel introduction blurb of "Enter.......Gambit". 

The FF #77 is extremely cool but, as others have said, it does look more like a splash page and needs a Surfer or Galactus as the central figure to really take it to the next level.

 

[vodou]

Neither cover appeals to me. I can't fathom referring to the Kubert as "best of class", halfway through Gene's justification I actually thought the Kubert was going to be the Gallardo of the conversation! So surprise ending for me there Not only that but...GTR? Really?? I'll take the Gallardo, beautiful Giugiaro design, and otherwise both are too slick for safe at capacity street work. That GTR looks a bit too much like my old Sentra with some cheezy LA ground effects  

Kirby cover is really crowded. Some like that. Some like McFarlane too.

[PhilipB2k17]

5 hours ago, delekkerste said:

So, I love the UXM #266 cover (Hi Josh!  I told you I'd have nothing but good things to say about it!)  If price was not a consideration, I'd much rather have the UXM #266 than the FF #77.  Why?  Well, obviously, the UXM cover is much more in my wheelhouse in terms of title/characters and nostalgia.  But, it also goes to a discussion several fellow OA collectors and I were having earlier this week:

Is it better to own, say, a middle of the pack example from a blue chip, classic run (e.g., Byrne X-Men, Miller Daredevil, Romita ASM, Kirby FF), or the undisputed best-in-class example from a run and/or artist that may not be quite as revered/prestigious?  Let's assume your own personal appreciation of both examples were roughly equal.

All three of us in the discussion agreed that it would be better to go for the best in class example (at least most of the time).  It's like this article I once read in a car magazine - when you drive a Nissan GT-R, you are driving Nissan's top of the line car (with supercar performance numbers) and you have to make no apologies for it.  If a GT-R owner stops at a red light and is joined by, say, a Lamborghini Gallardo owner - well, the latter knows that, fancier brand name aside, he knows that he is driving that marque's entry level model, not the top of the line.  Definitely not unimproveable. 

That's how I feel about UXM #266 vs. FF #77.  The owner of the UXM #266 owns the most valuable Andy Kubert example.  Unimproveable.  Major first appearance and a highly sought after issue, one of the most memorable from the era, to boot.  FF #77 is nice, but it's far from top-of-the-line or unimproveable.  Not a key or even very well remembered, frankly.  Not a major villain.  Not twice-up.  Of course, it's Kirby FF, so, it's desirable...but far from best in class.  Call me crazy, but I'd rather have the former. 

Anyway, the conversation earlier in the week centered around whether it would be wise or not to part with one of my covers which could legitimately be called best in class, in a trade for a middle of the pack cover from a more prestigious run by a more prestigious artist.  I thought my friends would have said it was worth it to make that switch.  But, no, they also agreed:  better to own something that it is the best in class (of course, the class has to be at a relatively high level; nobody cares if you have the best cover to a D-list book by a D-list artist) than just a "nice example" of something that may be a notch higher in terms of prestige (again, assuming one otherwise likes the two examples pretty equally).   

Would you rather own the nicest house in a nice, but not particularly special neighborhood? Or an average house in Malibu? 

I personally like the FF 77 cover better. The more I look at it, the more I like it. It's almost like a Kirby FF greatest hits poster.

 I have zero nostalgia interest in Gambit. And the UXM 266 cover doesn't really appeal to me. 

Edited August 11, 2017 by PhilipB2k17

[ESeffinga]

4 hours ago, Nexus said:

The BSD collector will always want the best. They'll pay up for it. We see it all the time.

The best-in-class example is coveted. The best-in-class inspires emotional/irrational bidding. The middle-of-the-pack example, otoh, is a place holder.

So from an investment standpoint, go with best-in-class.

For me, I'll take the Kirby and it's not even close. Call ME crazy. Or a lousy investor. But the X-MEN #266 makes me cringe (sorry, Josh). I'd be thrilled to add a middle-of-the-pack Kirby FF cover to my collection. I'd be thrilled to add ANY Kirby FF cover to my collection. With all due respect to Andy Kubert, the only reason he's in the same discussion with Kirby is because he drew a cover that was a first appearance. If not for that, I'd even take an assisted "Kirby" cover recreation over the "best/most valuable" Andy Kubert.

This is where I fall as well.

[r100comics]

12 minutes ago, PhilipB2k17 said:

Would you rather own the nicest house in a nice, but not particularly special neighborhood? Or an average house in Malibu? 

Apples & oranges.

For property it's better to pick the worst house in the best street as it allows you to add value.

If you own the best house in an average street you're already at the value ceiling. 

How do you add that same value to a cover (that doesn't need restoration etc.) to make it best of class ?

 

Edited August 11, 2017 by r100comics

[Matches_Malone]

I'm with the 266 camp. Somehow I see a bigger upside in the long run.  I wonder if the recent hammer price of NYX3 will change how BSD go after 266?

[delekkerste]

I had hoped that my post would generate some good debate, and I'm not disappointed.  

That said, I perhaps (intentionally) stacked the deck against the UXM #266 by taking money out of the picture.  In the real world, of course, I think most would agree that the FF #77 cover would be worth more.  I would estimate on the order of $50K more, but, it could easily be $60-75K (of course, if some here are to be believed, the FF cover should be worth $100-$200K+ MOARRRRRR!!!)  Would anybody's answer change if the question was, would you rather have the UXM #266 cover plus $50K-75K cash or the FF #77?  You could, of course, spend the $50-75K on any other art of your choosing if you so decided...

A few other comments:

Yeah, of course I get it's Andy Kubert vs. Jack Kirby.  But, then again, you can pretty much throw out the artist when it comes to key/classic/memorable pieces.  The fact that Herb Trimpe drew the Hulk #180 last page and Hulk #181 cover and interiors isn't going to devalue those pages one iota, nor not make the #181 cover (assuming it's out there) one of the very most valuable pieces of comic art in existence.  Most people here would probably not self-identify as Rob Liefeld fans, but most of us would recognize that the New Mutants #98 (or #87) cover is an important and valuable piece of comic art.  IMO, my recently acquired ASM #98 cover would not be worth any more had it been drawn by Romita instead of Kane - classic is as classic does.  Speaking of which, I'm a little shocked at how cavalierly people are putting values on this FF #77 cover that are in excess of the classic ASM #98.  Or, if #98 is not your cuppa, then how about the ASM #68, 69, 70, 75, 90, 97 or 101 covers?  Or the 1st MJ page?  Or a twice-up Kirby Thor or Cap cover?  Heck, some people here have the FF #77 near/at/over what the ASM #121 cover would probably fetch now, as well as a number of Ditko ASM splashes and Romita twice-up ASM covers.  

I also get the sentiment about being thrilled to own *ANY* Kirby FF cover (I might add that the FF #92 cover sold for not that much - mid 5 figures? - at CLink not that long ago, which was within reach for a number of collectors who might not have been otherwise willing or able to spend $150-$200K+ for an example).  I feel similarly about the Byrne X-Men run - given prices/rarity, if I ever do get an example, it will most likely be a middle of the pack example.  Which would still be awesome!  That said, I considered making (separate) cash/trade offers for both a mid-pack Byrne UXM cover, as well as a mid-pack Miller DD cover, using one or the other of my best in class pieces plus (or minus/receiving) cash as a makeweight (yes, that's all intentionally vague).  In the end, though, I just couldn't do it, even though Byrne UXM and Miller DD are both at or near the top of my all-time favorite runs.  If you have something unimproveable, it's tough to step down to something that isn't, even if it is a nice cover from a more prestigious run and/or artist.  I mean, sure, if we were talking about one of the top 5 or 6 Miller DD covers or top 10 Byrne UXM covers, it would have been an interesting discussion, but, not for examples squarely in the middle of the pack. 

Count me among those not keen on the "stitched together" look of the FF #77.  I'm generally not a fan of multi-scene covers and think that there is a valuation penalty in the marketplace for them (one famous example being the much-unloved ASM #155 cover, which bounced around from collection to collection like a red-headed stepchild in the 2000s...apologies in advance to any gingers out there).  The multiple vignettes and the oversized image of Psycho Man in the center result in everything else being quite small/cramped...not my cup of tea.  The big draw here is of course Galactus and the Surfer, without which I think the cover would be more like $125K-ish.  But, for the consignor's sake (whose identity I don't know), I hope that he finds two people who "have to have" a Kirby FF cover with Surfer and Galactus and that it goes for  money!  Good luck!!  

Edited August 11, 2017 by delekkerste

[jjonahjameson11]

Different strokes for different folks.   I am not a fan of Kirby art, the FF, Andy Kubert art or Gambit.  I stopped collecting Uncanny at issue #180 when I thought there was too many Mutants running around to keep track of.

having said all of the above, and all things being equal, I would take the FF cover over the XMen cover without hesitation. I would even do so , again without hesitation, if someone offered the xmen cover + $75K in exchange for the Kirby FF.  quite frankly, I don't think Gambit is as big a deal as a few vocal folks are making him out to be.

Edited August 11, 2017 by jjonahjameson11
Details

[PhilipB2k17]

To me, this entire discussion is academic, because I am priced out of getting any of these pieces. The only way I'd ever get a "best in class" piece if is I get lucky picking up a modern page, and that page ignites in the market for some reason or another.

Edited August 11, 2017 by PhilipB2k17

[Twanj]

9 hours ago, delekkerste said:

That's how I feel about UXM #266 vs. FF #77.  The owner of the UXM #266 owns the most valuable Andy Kubert example.  Unimproveable.  Major first appearance and a highly sought after issue, one of the most memorable from the era, to boot.  FF #77 is nice, but it's far from top-of-the-line or unimproveable.  Not a key or even very well remembered, frankly.  Not a major villain.  Not twice-up.  Of course, it's Kirby FF, so, it's desirable...but far from best in class.  Call me crazy, but I'd rather have the former. 

Good points.

I should have said I was just going by looks alone. I bought UXM 266 when it came out so I have nostalgia for it & none for the Kirby (I don't ever remember seeing that image).

UXM 266 definitely a first appearance &  I guess the most valuable Andy Kubert cover, I'll accept that. It doesn't look awful. Short term, in the next 2-5 years could it be worth more if a Gambit movie gets made? Probably.

There are definitely some negatives to the Kirby...Why is the FF on there twice? No idea who the main center dude is. Galactus headshot & tiny Surfer?

But I find it beautiful, a work of art that stands on it's own.

Longer term, 10-15 years, will anyone remember Gambit? When Disney gets their hands on FF/SS? Where will the best Kubert stand, anywhere near a mid pack Kirby? I don't see it. I can't wait to see the UXM go nuts tho, it's always interesting.

[comix4fun]

4 hours ago, vodou said:

Neither cover appeals to me. I can't fathom referring to the Kubert as "best of class", halfway through Gene's justification I actually thought the Kubert was going to be the Gallardo of the conversation! So surprise ending for me there Not only that but...GTR? Really?? I'll take the Gallardo, beautiful Giugiaro design, and otherwise both are too slick for safe at capacity street work. That GTR looks a bit too much like my old Sentra with some cheezy LA ground effects  

Kirby cover is really crowded. Some like that. Some like McFarlane too.

Well, Gene set the parameters pretty well...it's the "Andy Kubert Class"....in the " Andy Kubert Class" this is the best. 

[delekkerste]

32 minutes ago, Twanj said:

I should have said I was just going by looks alone. I bought UXM 266 when it came out so I have nostalgia for it & none for the Kirby (I don't ever remember seeing that image)....

There are definitely some negatives to the Kirby...Why is the FF on there twice? No idea who the main center dude is. Galactus headshot & tiny Surfer?

But I find it beautiful, a work of art that stands on it's own.

Longer term, 10-15 years, will anyone remember Gambit? When Disney gets their hands on FF/SS? Where will the best Kubert stand, anywhere near a mid pack Kirby? I don't see it. I can't wait to see the UXM go nuts tho, it's always interesting.

The FF #77 is certainly well drawn - can't fault anything there.  But, it's like you said - I don't even remember that cover and couldn't tell you anything about the villain who dominates it.  One can argue that there are no bad Kirby FF covers, but, if you had to force rank them, this one is probably somewhere in the 25-35th percentile in my book.  Maybe middle of the pack if you're just counting the small art covers.  But, even then I'd go with most of the single-image examples over this one, personally. 

I have no idea which one will prove to be the "better investment".  The Kirby probably has more staying power over the long-run, though, the UXM cover probably has more near-term potential (whether it will be realized or not, who can say).  Though, if you kick in an extra $50-$75K and invest it wisely, then the Kubert + cash probably does better long-term as well.  Last I heard, there was going to be a pretty substantial reserve on the UXM cover (well north of $100K)...we'll see if anyone trips it or not.    

20 minutes ago, comix4fun said:

Well, Gene set the parameters pretty well...it's the "Andy Kubert Class"....in the " Andy Kubert Class" this is the best. 

Not only is it the top of the Andy Kubert class, but, it's also probably the most sought-after later issue of the X-Men and one of the biggest Marvel books from 1990-present in terms of back issue demand.  I'm not trying to make more of it than it is, but, it's undeniable that it's a highly sought-after, very speculated-on book with tons of interest among comic collectors/speculators of a certain age.  Of course, Kirby is the superior artist and Kirby FF is one of the top 5 blue chip OA runs of all-time.  But, the FF #77  cover specifically is definitely the "nice example"/entry level Lambo in this comparison, whereas the UXM #266 is the best in its class.  Without hesitation, I'd take the latter plus the cash over the Kirby if this was a real-world example.  Obviously, if it was straight up one or the other, I'd take the Kirby on purely monetary grounds.  

Edited August 11, 2017 by delekkerste

[BCarter27]

1 hour ago, delekkerste said:

If you have something unimproveable, it's tough to step down to something that isn't, even if it is a nice cover from a more prestigious run and/or artist.  

I've been there. "Unimproveable" is a great way to describe it. After crossing an artist off your want list with an A or A+ piece, it's tough to crack that open again because you know how difficult it was to get the first time around. I also think there is an emotional component to it... On some level you don't want to devalue the "lesser" artist in your own mind. It feels like a slight.

[rocket1312]

59 minutes ago, delekkerste said:

A few other comments:

Yeah, of course I get it's Andy Kubert vs. Jack Kirby.  But, then again, you can pretty much throw out the artist when it comes to key/classic/memorable pieces.  The fact that Herb Trimpe drew the Hulk #180 last page and Hulk #181 cover and interiors isn't going to devalue those pages one iota, nor not make the #181 cover (assuming it's out there) one of the very most valuable pieces of comic art in existence.  Most people here would probably not self-identify as Rob Liefeld fans, but most of us would recognize that the New Mutants #98 (or #87) cover is an important and valuable piece of comic art.  IMO, my recently acquired ASM #98 cover would not be worth any more had it been drawn by Romita instead of Kane - classic is as classic does.  Speaking of which, I'm a little shocked at how cavalierly people are putting values on this FF #77 cover that are in excess of the classic ASM #98.  Or, if #98 is not your cuppa, then how about the ASM #68, 69, 70, 75, 90, 97 or 101 covers?  Or the 1st MJ page?  Or a twice-up Kirby Thor or Cap cover?  Heck, some people here have the FF #77 near/at/over what the ASM #121 cover would probably fetch now, as well as a number of Ditko ASM splashes and Romita twice-up ASM covers.  

 

It's interesting that you say this because when I look at UXM #266, I immediately start thinking about how much more it would fetch if it were by Lee/Williams.  It's funny, that cover is firmly in my wheelhouse of wheelhouses and yet it barely elicits a shrug from me beyond the initial excitement that such an important cover is up for public auction.  I've never loved Kubert (or that cover) despite the fact that he was the artist during my prime reading years, and I think whatever shine Gambit had back in the 90's was lost long, long ago.  As to whether or not I'd rather have it or the Kirby?  That's tough.  I have no nostalgia for Kirby at all.  I couldn't tell you a single thing about FF #77 as I've not read it.  X-Men, on the other hand, was the reason I got into comics.  At one point in my collecting life my monthly comic buying consisted of every X-Men title and spin-off and nothing else.  All that said, the fact that this is even a question that I have to consider says everything that needs to be said about my feelings on UXM #266.  As a piece of art I prefer the FF by a wide margin, but ultimately I would probably choose the UXM if only because I would feel obligated to choose it.

[Bronty]

I don't see any way it's in the 25th percentile.   If we are simply ranking aesthetics then yes, I 100% agree.   But you've got Galactus and Surfer on the same cover, and that's something you can say about very very few covers, and leapfrogs the desirability of this cover well beyond its pure aesthetic ranking.   It's certainly still nowhere near the best Kirby cover but you have to give a nod here to subject matter