New Mutants 87 9.8 How high will it go? 0

[GeeksAreMyPeeps]

5 minutes ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

I'm not talking about work on specific characters or titles. I'm talking about specific subject matter; in this case, scantily clad females drawn by popular artists.

I think that's a distinction without a difference. In both case, it's the artist *plus some other element*. I don't see that it matters whether that other element is a specific character, or a specific subject matter.

5 minutes ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

Very, very, very few hot artists of the past had covers break out on their own, by their own merits. None of John Byrne's covers is especially "iconic", on its own merits. A lot of his so-called "classic covers" are classics because of the story contained within. ASM #300? Hardly an iconic cover on its own. It's a nice work, but there's nothing particularly special about it. Todd's cover to #316 is far superior in layout, theme, composition, and linework. Far superior. So is, by the way, #325, which is, in my opinion, the finest cover he's ever done, on any title, ever. But that cover to #300 has become "iconic" because of the story inside.

I disagree with you on this. McFarlane's work on Spider-man introduced two new elements to the way Spidey is depicted that persisted after he left the character; those two things are the contorted shape he takes when swinging on his webs, and the style in which the webs are rendered. While both of those things are included on the first two covers he worked on, it's the only thing on the cover of 300. I think that's why the cover has been copied so many times. There's no reference at all to the story inside; no indication of Venom, on the cover of 300, that would link it to the story.

5 minutes ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

Startling Comics #49 is a great example of that. Can you tell me what happened in Startling that was important...? Nothing. It was a typical, run of the mill GA story.

First Bender?

[RockMyAmadeus]

3 minutes ago, GeeksAreMyPeeps said:

I think that's a distinction without a difference. In both case, it's the artist *plus some other element*. I don't see that it matters whether that other element is a specific character, or a specific subject matter.

I disagree entirely, and that distinction is the very heart of my entire argument. It's not "plus some other element"...it's plus a very specific element. It isn't "McFarlane plus Spiderman." It isn't "Jim Lee plus X-Men." It's Campbell, drawing a sexy Black Cat/Mary Jane/SpiderGwen. It's Hughes, drawing a sexy Catwoman. Catwoman #44 isn't worth anything, even though it features Catwoman. Neither is #69 or #71, both of which feature...you guessed it...Catwoman. It's Catwoman in a sexy pose.

7 minutes ago, GeeksAreMyPeeps said:

I disagree with you on this. McFarlane's work on Spider-man introduced two new elements to the way Spidey is depicted that persisted after he left the character; those two things are the contorted shape he takes when swinging on his webs, and the style in which the webs are rendered. While both of those things are included on the first two covers he worked on, it's the only thing on the cover of 300. I think that's why the cover has been copied so many times. There's no reference at all to the story inside; no indication of Venom, on the cover of 300, that would link it to the story.

No doubt you do disagree with me on this, but neither of those elements was introduced in ASM #300. They were introduced in ASM #298, his first issue (and, if you want to get REALLY technical, in Hulk #339, which has a single contorted Spidey panel that is his earliest published Spidey work.) In fact, the "webs" were front and center on the cover to #298, as prominent there as on #300, if not moreso. And, you get the same contorted Spidey on #298 that you do on #300.

Here's all three, side by side.

 

If ASM #300 hadn't introduced Venom, we wouldn't be talking about it. There's nothing particularly special OR ORIGINAL about the cover otherwise. The cover has been copied so many times because it, like X-Men #141, covers a story that has far transcended the confines of that particular book. There's nothing particularly special or original about X-Men #141...that type of pose had been done in film and movie posters already. But because the story became so central to the X-Men after that, that cover became an icon for the X-Men.

Same with ASM #300. There certainly IS a reference to the story inside...it's the "last black costume", and the story inside explains why that was, a fact that was echoed with #301.

[GeeksAreMyPeeps]

8 minutes ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

I disagree entirely, and that distinction is the very heart of my entire argument. It's not "plus some other element"...it's plus a very specific element. It isn't "McFarlane plus Spiderman." It isn't "Jim Lee plus X-Men." It's Campbell, drawing a sexy Black Cat/Mary Jane/SpiderGwen. It's Hughes, drawing a sexy Catwoman. Catwoman #44 isn't worth anything, even though it features Catwoman. Neither is #69 or #71, both of which feature...you guessed it...Catwoman. It's Catwoman in a sexy pose.

I would say that a specific character is as specific as a sexy pose as a subject matter. So again, it's a distinction without a difference. Since it could tend to get expensive and require a lot of space to collect every work by a specific artist, people tend to focus on the art plus one other thing. You mentioned yourself in your earlier post that there are Hughes covers featuring other characters (Zatanna) that fetch a premium. It doesn't have to be specifically Catwoman, so it's not quite as specific as you're trying to make it out to be now.

No doubt you do disagree with me on this, but neither of those elements was introduced in ASM #300. They were introduced in ASM #298, his first issue (and, if you want to get REALLY technical, in Hulk #339, which has a single contorted Spidey panel that is his earliest published Spidey work.) In fact, the "webs" were front and center on the cover to #298, as prominent there as on #300, if not moreso. And, you get the same contorted Spidey on #298 that you do on #300.

Here's all three, side by side.

 

If ASM #300 hadn't introduced Venom, we wouldn't be talking about it. There's nothing particularly special OR ORIGINAL about the cover otherwise. The cover has been copied so many times because it, like X-Men #141, covers a story that has far transcended the confines of that particular book. There's nothing particularly special or original about X-Men #141...that type of pose had been done in film and movie posters already. But because the story became so central to the X-Men after that, that cover became an icon for the X-Men.

Same with ASM #300. There certainly IS a reference to the story inside...it's the "last black costume", and the story inside explains why that was, a fact that was echoed with #301.

I guess you missed where I called out "While both of those things are included on the first two covers he worked on, it's the only thing on the cover of 300." The simplicity of 300's cover makes it easy to copy. And while you're correct to note that many covers are iconic because of the story inside, I'd say that you already conceded that that's not the only thing that makes a cover iconic while making your "sexy poses" argument. Another cover that I've seen copied many times is McFarlane's cover to the Adjectiveless Spider-man #1, and I imagine that we could all agree that the story inside is trash. I've seen a few homages to Uncanny X-men 168, but I couldn't tell you off the top of my head what happened inside the book. Sometimes a cover is iconic because of the events inside, and sometimes it's iconic for the cover art itself. Simple but striking covers lend themselves to homages, because you don't need to squeeze multiple elements into an existing composition.

[porcupine48]

298,299 and 300 have a lot of sole.

[JTLarsen]

14 hours ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

No. 

Longshot wasn't "a hot mini" when it came out, and Campbell was FAR from being a "hot artist" at the time of Gen 13. His art is pretty awful. 

Gen 13 was popular because it was underordered and struck a chord in buyers. 

Longshot, however, was drawn by a guy who went on to become the most popular new artist since John Byrne. The Longshot mini didn't achieve its peak value until the top of the "hot artist" movement in 1990, several years after it was published.

Longshot became, over time, popular. It wasn't an instant smash success, like Gen 13. And Gen 13 wasn't a smash success because of Campbell's art, which was, as mentioned, awful. Fairchild's legs aren't 5 feet long. It was GOOD ENOUGH, but it's not why it became so hot.

Two completely different trajectories.

Longshot was hot instantly.

[JTLarsen]

Also, most artists have been Artist + Subject Matter. Neal Adams Batman vs. Neal Adams Superman. Mac Raboy Cap Jr. vs...

[RockMyAmadeus]

1 hour ago, JTLarsen said:

Longshot was hot instantly.

What does "hot instantly" mean...? 

Did it sellout immediately (that is, within a month or less of publication)? Because that's not true. 

Did it hit its peak value within a year of publication? Because that's not true.

Did it go into multiple printings immediately? Because that's not true.

Was it reprinted in any format immediately? Because that's not true. In fact, the first trade took four years to be reprinted, while the Punisher limited series was reprinted in just two years.

In fact, in the 1986 OPG, Longshot is listed at $1.80 for #1, and $1.20 for #2-6. Certainly no slouch, but the limited series was done by the time reports for the 1986 OPG came in. 

For comparison, in the 1985 OPG, ASM #252 was $3.60, while in the 1984 OPG, Thor #337 was an astonishing $5.00.

It absolutely was popular, but we're comparing Longshot to Gen 13. Gen 13 #1 was a $2.50 comic book, on the shelves in the waning days of 1993, that was selling for $20 before the last issue, #5, came out, and was $40-$50 by the end of the year. It was easily the hottest book of 1994, staying at the top of the Wizard Top 10 list (yeah, yeah, it's not totally worthless) for months. Now THAT was "hot instantly."

 

[RockMyAmadeus]

3 hours ago, GeeksAreMyPeeps said:

I guess you missed where I called out "While both of those things are included on the first two covers he worked on, it's the only thing on the cover of 300."

No, didn't miss it. Disagreed with it. You said "while both of those things are included", *I* said those elements were introduced on #298, which they were. Bit of a distinction that's important. I respect your intelligence enough to be long past the "spell absolutely everything out" phase. Those elements aren't even remotely unique to #300.

3 hours ago, GeeksAreMyPeeps said:

The simplicity of 300's cover makes it easy to copy. And while you're correct to note that many covers are iconic because of the story inside, I'd say that you already conceded that that's not the only thing that makes a cover iconic while making your "sexy poses" argument.

Obviously. This has never been in dispute. The issue is whether the example of ASM #300 is iconic on its own merits.

It's not.

3 hours ago, GeeksAreMyPeeps said:

Another cover that I've seen copied many times is McFarlane's cover to the Adjectiveless Spider-man #1, and I imagine that we could all agree that the story inside is trash. I've seen a few homages to Uncanny X-men 168, but I couldn't tell you off the top of my head what happened inside the book. Sometimes a cover is iconic because of the events inside, and sometimes it's iconic for the cover art itself. Simple but striking covers lend themselves to homages, because you don't need to squeeze multiple elements into an existing composition.

Of course, which is what I said earlier. However, the cover to Spiderman #1 is oft copied not because of any great feat of composition, but because it was drawn by McFarlane, at the absolute height of McFarlane mania, and we long ago entered the derivative stage of our civilization. It's why there are hundreds, if not thousands, of "homages" to what has gone before, in all areas of the culture, because it's safe and easy, rather than trying new things, because that's hard and risky. And this would be the first time I've ever heard anyone refer to the cover of X-Men #168 as "iconic."

You know what McFarlane cover IS "iconic"? Hulk #340. Why? Because it's unique and original, a concept that hadn't really been done before, and struck a chord with readers...and this was BEFORE McFarlane was anyone of note. In fact, Hulk #340 is the very first appearance of the stylized McFarlane art that would make him a superstar, because he was finally inking his own work. Before then, other inkers buried his pencils, and there was nothing particularly special about him.

3 hours ago, GeeksAreMyPeeps said:

I would say that a specific character is as specific as a sexy pose as a subject matter. So again, it's a distinction without a difference. Since it could tend to get expensive and require a lot of space to collect every work by a specific artist, people tend to focus on the art plus one other thing. You mentioned yourself in your earlier post that there are Hughes covers featuring other characters (Zatanna) that fetch a premium. It doesn't have to be specifically Catwoman, so it's not quite as specific as you're trying to make it out to be now.

Again, you're completely missing my distinction which is the very heart of my argument, because a "specific character" is NOT "as specific" as a "sexy pose" as subject matter. I'll point you AGAIN to the examples of Catwoman #69, 70, and 71. All feature Catwoman. All are drawn by Adam Hughes. One of them...the "sexy pose" cover...is valued substantially more than the other two. 

That's not a coincidence. 

I never said anything about "having to be specifically Catwoman." That's not my argument. The character is totally and completely irrelevant. It's the TYPE of drawing that I'm referring to, as I made clear in my previous posts and again here. It's NOT Catwoman. It's "Catwoman looking sexy drawn by Hughes." It's NOT Wonder Woman. It's "Wonder Woman looking sexy drawn by Hughes." It's NOT the Black Cat. It's "the Black Cat looking sexy drawn by Campbell." 

I mentioned earlier that there are SPECIFIC Hughes covers featuring Zatanna IN A SEXY POSE that "fetch a premium." Not EVERY Hughes Zatanna cover "fetches a premium." Only the "sexy pose" ones do. It's NOT because of Zatanna...it's because it's Zatanna looking quite provocative.

As far as your "people tend to focus on art plus one other thing", I think that's pure conjecture on your part, and not at all supported by the facts on the ground. I don't know anyone, for example, who only collects Wolverine appearances drawn by McFarlane (because that's all of, what, 10 comics? Hulk #340, Spiderman #8-12, Marvel Tales #235-236 Amazing Heroes #170, Wolverine #6. All done!) If you collected everything Hughes has ever done, you'd end up with about 2-3 long boxes of books.

It's ok to concede my point re: Hughes/Campbell and "sexy women poses." Honest. You won't die if you do. I promise. 

Edited June 2, 2018 by RockMyAmadeus

[RockMyAmadeus]

2 hours ago, JTLarsen said:

Also, most artists have been Artist + Subject Matter. Neal Adams Batman vs. Neal Adams Superman. Mac Raboy Cap Jr. vs...

There was little distinction made when those things were "hot." It was simply that it was Neal Adams art. The distinction was made on the books where he did interior art as well as the covers. I don't know anyone who collected Neal Adams art who would have turned down Superman #249. 

People certainly collected ONLY X-Men, or ONLY Adams art, but very few people collected ONLY Neal Adams X-Men.

Up until the CGC age, people who collected by artist almost universally sought out everything that artist did. It's why Power Man #48-50 were broken out. It was because they were drawn by Byrne. That it was a drek title like Power Man wasn't even remotely relevant. 

[GeeksAreMyPeeps]

16 minutes ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

Of course, which is what I said earlier. However, the cover to Spiderman #1 is oft copied not because of any great feat of composition, but because it was drawn by McFarlane, at the absolute height of McFarlane mania, and we long ago entered the derivative stage of our civilization. It's why there are hundreds, if not thousands, of "homages" to what has gone before, in all areas of the culture, because it's safe and easy, rather than trying new things, because that's hard and risky. And this would be the first time I've ever heard anyone refer to the cover of X-Men #168 as "iconic."

I wasn't specifically calling the cover of X-Men 168 "iconic"; I was pointing out that the interior of a book need not be the only reason that the cover for said book is copied in an homage. There are at least a few swipes of that cover. I'm arguing that it's because the composition, which simple, is striking, and is easy to use to create the same effect elsewhere. And that's why I think we see so many swipes of ASM 300 and SM 1. Because they're not illustrating a story (at least, it's not obviously illustrative of the story), but presenting a pose. And *that* lends itself to copying quite easily.

[RockMyAmadeus]

28 minutes ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

In fact, Hulk #340 is the very first appearance of the stylized McFarlane art that would make him a superstar, because he was finally inking his own work.

Caveat: With the single exception of Detective Comics #578, which also featured McFarlane inking himself, with his stylized art, BUT...it was DC, so completely ignored by the very real, and very powerful, Marvel Zombies of the day.

[GeeksAreMyPeeps]

30 minutes ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

It's ok to concede my point re: Hughes/Campbell and "sexy women poses." Honest. You won't die if you do. I promise. 

I didn't say that it wasn't the particular way of portraying women that wasn't driving the demand, just that it wasn't quite as narrow a focus as you seem to be indicating. The limitation of focus on a subject matter is not in *addition* to limiting to a certain character, it's substituting for it. That's why I said it was a distinction without a difference.

[RockMyAmadeus]

1 minute ago, GeeksAreMyPeeps said:

I didn't say that it wasn't the particular way of portraying women that wasn't driving the demand, just that it wasn't quite as narrow a focus as you seem to be indicating. The limitation of focus on a subject matter is not in *addition* to limiting to a certain character, it's substituting for it. That's why I said it was a distinction without a difference.

Disagree, and I'll simply go back to the Catwoman #69, 70, and 71 example, among many others. 

In a nutshell: Today, buyers no longer collect "hot artists" as they did in the past, wherein people would seek everything, or virtually everything, a particular artist drew. Now, there are "hot artists", but their work is only "hot" when it features specific subject matter (NOT characters), such as "scantily clad women in sexy poses." The other work of these artists, unlike in the past, is essentially ignored (which is a great deal of the reason why they draw so many "scantily clad women" covers in the first place.)

[GeeksAreMyPeeps]

7 minutes ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

Disagree, and I'll simply go back to the Catwoman #69, 70, and 71 example, among many others. 

In a nutshell: Today, buyers no longer collect "hot artists" as they did in the past, wherein people would seek everything, or virtually everything, a particular artist drew. Now, there are "hot artists", but their work is only "hot" when it features specific subject matter (NOT characters), such as "scantily clad women in sexy poses." The other work of these artists, unlike in the past, is essentially ignored (which is a great deal of the reason why they draw so many "scantily clad women" covers in the first place.)

I understood your point the first time. But I disagreed that people sought "everything, or virtually everything, a particular artist drew." If you'd like to prove me wrong, show me where McFarlane's Infinity Inc was as sought after as his Spider-man work.

[RockMyAmadeus]

6 minutes ago, GeeksAreMyPeeps said:

I understood your point the first time. But I disagreed that people sought "everything, or virtually everything, a particular artist drew." If you'd like to prove me wrong, show me where McFarlane's Infinity Inc was as sought after as his Spider-man work.

I never said they were "as sought after", because that would be a stupid and foolish thing to say. But, since most people aren't hoarders, and are content to own a single copy of these books, once you've got the 15 issues of Spiderman and 29 issues of Amazing that McFarlane drew, that's pretty much it...unless you want to go further, and many people have and do.

It's a natural progression of interest. Do people who love Spiderman and can afford a copy stop at AF #15? Of course not. They get ASM #1, #2, #15, #37. Is #37 as sought after as AF #15? Obviously not! But does that mean it's not sought after at all? Again, obviously not.

One need only look at OPGs and Updates from the early 90s to see that All Star Squadron #47 was sought after as McFarlane art. Not as MUCH as ASM, but far, far in excess of #s 46 and 48.

[I like pie]

Yikes. Ebay is really flooded with them now. When I bought my copy a little over a year ago, I looked for about two weeks before buying and there was maybe 3 or 4 at a time. There's about 20+ at the moment.

[JTLarsen]

3 hours ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

There was little distinction made when those things were "hot." It was simply that it was Neal Adams art. The distinction was made on the books where he did interior art as well as the covers. I don't know anyone who collected Neal Adams art who would have turned down Superman #249. 

People certainly collected ONLY X-Men, or ONLY Adams art, but very few people collected ONLY Neal Adams X-Men.

Up until the CGC age, people who collected by artist almost universally sought out everything that artist did. It's why Power Man #48-50 were broken out. It was because they were drawn by Byrne. That it was a drek title like Power Man wasn't even remotely relevant. 

It took decades for Adams covers on some titles to be broken out. The mystery stuff came after the superhero stuff. Tomahawk, too.

[chrisco37]

Good discussion thus far.  

From what I remember, as a “fanboy”, McFarlane was the “king” (it could’ve been Art Adams if he’d been more prolific).   Jim Lee and RL came on shortly after, around the same time.

My buddy was raving about Leifeld after a few NM issues.  Enough that I bought my first RL NM issue right at the start of X-tinction Agenda (the Beast cover, can’t be bothered to dig it out for the number at the moment).   That pretty much falls in line with what RMA has been saying.  RL wasn’t “white hot” out of the gate.  But, it didn’t take him long.  6 issues +/-.  

As far as Cable goes, what I remember is he was hot right out of the gate.   Not a large sample size (circa 1990 high school comic nerds), but I remember most of them talking about how cool Cable was.

And I remember everyone going nuts over Jim Lee.  I wasn’t an X-Men guy, so I can’t really comment  on how it was like when McF took over Spidey.  I just know people went nuts over JL Xmen.

it truly was the time of the “superstar artist”.  I really do like the point that, like now, it’s not just the artist, but the content.  McFarlane Spidey, Hulk and Spawn are what people look for.  They don’t care about Cayote or Infinity.  Same with Lee or Liefeld.  Or Gibbons.  etc.

I thought the comment about Neal Adams was spot on.  Maybe the last artist where, regardless of the book, his involvement demands a premium.  I really think Art Adams could’ve been the heir apparent.  It didn’t happen,

 

[RockMyAmadeus]

1 hour ago, chrisco37 said:

Good discussion thus far.  

From what I remember, as a “fanboy”, McFarlane was the “king” (it could’ve been Art Adams if he’d been more prolific).   Jim Lee and RL came on shortly after, around the same time.

It's hard to overestimate the mania that surrounded McFarlane in the months leading up to, and after, the release of Spiderman #1. Very, very, very few artists in the entire history of the medium commanded such attention. Byrne, in 1983. Miller, in 1986. Neal Adams would have, if fandom had been anywhere near as organized in the 70s. 

But Lee and Liefeld, for all their fans, can't hold a candle to McFarlane. So Spiderman #1 "only" sold between 1.75-2.5 million copies, while X-Men #1 sold 8 million? Consider: Spawn #1 sold between 1.75-2.5 million copies, too, while Wildcats #1 sold perhaps 1-1.5 million. Rough numbers, to be sure, but Spawn #1 is not dollar bin fodder...Wildcats #1 IS.

Not detracting from Lee...but half (or more) of those numbers came from "X-Men." Had he been drawing Cloak & Dagger, they wouldn't have sold 8 million copies, natch.

In the hierarchy of late 80s/early 90s comic artist superstars, it's always:

McFarlane

Jim Lee

Rob Liefeld

Everyone else.

Only Byrne, at the height of his superstardom, could match (and usually beat) McFarlane in popularity. They could both fill convention centers at their primes.

1 hour ago, chrisco37 said:

My buddy was raving about Leifeld after a few NM issues.  Enough that I bought my first RL NM issue right at the start of X-tinction Agenda (the Beast cover, can’t be bothered to dig it out for the number at the moment).   That pretty much falls in line with what RMA has been saying.  RL wasn’t “white hot” out of the gate.  But, it didn’t take him long.  6 issues +/-.  

As far as Cable goes, what I remember is he was hot right out of the gate.   Not a large sample size (circa 1990 high school comic nerds), but I remember most of them talking about how cool Cable was.

Yeah, that's about where it was. The Beast cover is #96. Cable, though, I dunno. I was able to buy 5 copies of New Mutants #87 off the wall for $1.25 each right before or after NM #94 came out, round about July of 1990. I considered it a HUGE stroke of luck, but it did happen. All 5, by the way, ended up in 9.8 slabs, which I sold about 5 years ago. D'oh!

Cable isn't mentioned...it's in a thread here somewhere...in the Update until...I want to say September? November? Somewhere in that ballpark.

There was a time, shortlived though it was, that NM #86 was valued HIGHER than #87. Crazy, innit?

Ah, to be an impressionable teenager again...

1 hour ago, chrisco37 said:

And I remember everyone going nuts over Jim Lee.  I wasn’t an X-Men guy, so I can’t really comment  on how it was like when McF took over Spidey.  I just know people went nuts over JL Xmen.

it truly was the time of the “superstar artist”.  I really do like the point that, like now, it’s not just the artist, but the content.  McFarlane Spidey, Hulk and Spawn are what people look for.  They don’t care about Cayote or Infinity.  Same with Lee or Liefeld.  Or Gibbons.  etc.

I thought the comment about Neal Adams was spot on.  Maybe the last artist where, regardless of the book, his involvement demands a premium.  I really think Art Adams could’ve been the heir apparent.  It didn’t happen,

Yeah, but there was a time, though, when even drek like Infinity, Inc. was bought up because of McFarlane's art. I certainly have multiples of all of them. I'd love to do a 9.8 SS set, but...$$$$. Infinity, Inc is a fantastic way to see McFarlane's progression as an artist. He owes a tremendous debt to Roy Thomas for that break.

But it's an absolute delight to go over the pages of X-Men Annual #9, New Mutants Special Edition #1, and X-Men annual #10. Every single page, a buffet for the eyes. Same with Cloak & Dagger #9. Then he got "faster", and the detail suffered. FF #347-349, for example, aren't anywhere near as polished as the magnificence of X-Men Annual #9.

Really, anyone reading this, if you have never done so, do yourself a favor and pick those books up. They're criminally cheap. They're just masterworks.

If Art had been faster, he would have owned the late 80s. Can you imagine, a 20 or 30 issue run of....ANYTHING....by Art?

My heart flutters just thinking about it.

[Von Cichlid]

I have a theory that what also hurt Adams was that he was really into lame subject matter.  McFarlane was associated with Spiderman and Spawn, Lee was associated with Punisher and X-Men, and Liefield was attached to Cable, who was very hip at the time.

While Longshot and Spiral were kind of cool, I think it is damaging that seemingly 50% of Adam's output in his absolute prime is associated with X-Babies and Mojo.  I mean, you had X-Men annual 10,12, Excalibur annual 2.  The art was fantastic on those, but enough is enough on the freaking X-Babies.  Also, it don't get much more lame than Monkeyman and Obrien.  I love Adams as much as anyone and even I can't get excited about those characters.  Had he had just been associated with better subject matter, his trajectory might have been different.  

Also, X-Factor 41,42 and that Action Comics annual are very cheap and awesome to look at too.