Artwork with paste up 1 1

[wurstisart]

Hi,

out of curiosity, especially with the discussion about the BWS Conan Story that recently sold,  what is everyone’s opinion about whether a paste up should be mentioned or not ?

Regardless of whether it shows up on the scan or not.

I was under the impression that everyone thought it should be noted.

[delekkerste]

22 minutes ago, wurstisart said:

Hi,

out of curiosity, especially with the discussion about the BWS Conan Story that recently sold,  what is everyone’s opinion about whether a paste up should be mentioned or not ?

Regardless of whether it shows up on the scan or not.

I was under the impression that everyone thought it should be noted.

Paste-ups and taped-in panels should absolutely be noted all the time.  In most cases, I don't think it should affect the value much, if at all, but, I understand that some people put a premium onto art that is totally clean (and put a discount on art that is not).  And, sometimes pasted-up art can detract a bit from the aesthetics.  

[vodou]

15 minutes ago, delekkerste said:

Paste-ups and taped-in panels should absolutely be noted all the time.  In most cases, I don't think it should affect the value much, if at all, but, I understand that some people put a premium onto art that is totally clean (and put a discount on art that is not).  And, sometimes pasted-up art can detract a bit from the aesthetics.  

Taped-in panels can age weird...as in they are browner than the rest or vice versa. No biggie on production day, but fifty years later...truth be told I've got some very ugly art of just that sort that means a lot to me, so I overlooked the ugly, but I also bargained down hard on that basis (as the seller didn't know it also 'meant something' to me). The seller knew the piece was weak, priced it lower right to start and was very amendable to being down even further. This exact scenario a number of times and different sellers. As long as there is disclosure (or in-hand inspection) and a willingness to knock the price back a bit, the pieces do sell and shouldn't be ignored. Unless you're Mark McDermott

[wurstisart]

Agreed to all !

Let me only say, I hope potential buyers of high class art that is currently for sale / at auction are investigating the scans closely !

Nuff said...

[ESeffinga]

I'll say it again, but IMO, if it's not the original pencils, and industry standard (india) ink on the 1st surface of a standard comic art board, it needs mentioning.

Pasteups, stats, markers, whiteout (used for correction OR as an artistic tool), gouache or any other paint, stains, restoration, damage, cleaning, vellum, non-standard size, etc.

It may well tweak the prices downward a bit in some cases, and what seller wants to do that? I get it, but it also avoids far more headaches than not doing it, and it helps with provenance down the line as well if people are aware of what the condition of artwork is.

And as the others have said, for many buyers it doesn't really turn people off in the long run, if they are into that artist's work. The usual explanation of it all being one of a kind, yadda yadda. Condition freaks are gonna kick it. Either ahead of time, or after the fact. Why go through the effort of packing and shipping and crossing your fingers? It just makes for a more educated market. The market adjusts accordingly.

Ever notice if a piece is larger than standard art size, people trumpet it from the rafters during sale as a feature. But if a piece is smaller than a standard size board, or the art is smaller than normal ON a standard size board, or off center on said board, etc. there are plenty of sellers that forget to mention that, or will crop their sale photos such that you won't notice that the art is only half the size of the artboard.

I'm a firm believer in being up front about this and all info, and I always do it with every piece I've ever sold. I like not just a good scan of a piece of OA, but a photo of the piece, showing all the edges. I'm all about being up front with what is being presented for purchase, because I do believe there is a buyer out there somewhere for every piece. But if someone strategically leaves out details of a piece when selling it, they don't go on  my good guy list, that's for sure.

Be up front about what you are selling, and you'll have many happy customers.

[Get Marwood & I]

19 minutes ago, ESeffinga said:

I'll say it again, but IMO, if it's not the original pencils, and industry standard (india) ink on the 1st surface of a standard comic art board, it needs mentioning.

Pasteups, stats, markers, whiteout (used for correction OR as an artistic tool), gouache or any other paint, stains, restoration, damage, cleaning, vellum, non-standard size, etc.

It may well tweak the prices downward a bit in some cases, and what seller wants to do that? I get it, but it also avoids far more headaches than not doing it, and it helps with provenance down the line as well if people are aware of what the condition of artwork is.

And as the others have said, for many buyers it doesn't really turn people off in the long run, if they are into that artist's work. The usual explanation of it all being one of a kind, yadda yadda. Condition freaks are gonna kick it. Either ahead of time, or after the fact. Why go through the effort of packing and shipping and crossing your fingers? It just makes for a more educated market. The market adjusts accordingly.

Ever notice if a piece is larger than standard art size, people trumpet it from the rafters during sale as a feature. But if a piece is smaller than a standard size board, or the art is smaller than normal ON a standard size board, or off center on said board, etc. there are plenty of sellers that forget to mention that, or will crop their sale photos such that you won't notice that the art is only half the size of the artboard.

I'm a firm believer in being up front about this and all info, and I always do it with every piece I've ever sold. I like not just a good scan of a piece of OA, but a photo of the piece, showing all the edges. I'm all about being up front with what is being presented for purchase, because I do believe there is a buyer out there somewhere for every piece. But if someone strategically leaves out details of a piece when selling it, they don't go on  my good guy list, that's for sure.

Be up front about what you are selling, and you'll have many happy customers.

Well said. Any serious dealer will mention every issue with a key comic if they want to encourage happy customers and repeat business. If they fail, for example, to mention significant chipping on an unseen back cover, the buyer will be rightly upset. The fact that original art is a one of a kind item should not excuse the seller from mentioning all condition related aspects whether they are to be expected for the time period or not. It's a great piece, all original, but the third panel is pasted on. Etc.

There have been a few threads lately about these kind of things. What should be disclosed, front and back scans, how to pack for shipping etc. In every case the answer has been blindingly obvious to me. 

Maybe the Conan art thread saga will lead to a change in how things are done. Some things aren't obvious until someone points them out. 

 

[Dick O.]

I'm fine with taped-in panels, but dislike paste-ups!

 

[vodou]

2 hours ago, ESeffinga said:

Be up front about what you are selling, and you'll have many happy customers.

Yeah. It's the effing Golden Rule at work.

Not too hard to get right. (And accrue all the long-term rewards that follow!)

Unless that was never one's intention to begin with

After thirty years at this (buying/selling collectibles), I've lost all tolerance for that garbage.

I kick things back regularly on eBay (and make the seller eat shipping both ways), leave lots of negatives, try to warn others about sellers with pattern bad behavior.

I mean...it's the little things in life...that make life so good

[wurstisart]

I am glad this thread gets some momentum.

These forums should help another but in a way we may hesitate to mention things in detail cause we don’t want to decrease the potential sale or win for a seller, at least I feel this way.

So let me at least say this, currently there is a major auction, with a major panel page, with in my humble opinion a paste up but no mentioning of it.

Nuff said...

[Get Marwood & I]

20 minutes ago, wurstisart said:

I am glad this thread gets some momentum.

These forums should help another but in a way we may hesitate to mention things in detail cause we don’t want to decrease the potential sale or win for a seller, at least I feel this way.

So let me at least say this, currently there is a major auction, with a major panel page, with in my humble opinion a paste up but no mentioning of it.

Nuff said...

Is it that horrible McFarlane ASM 308?

[wurstisart]

I would not call it horrible.

I actually like it. It totally fits my collection focus. Also it seems fresh to the market, ok I have seen it the first time less than a year ago. That’s what I meant. The image is superb.

The point is that the paste up is not mentioned. It’s certainly not a dominant paste up but still.

Especially with the BWS artwork incident. It is just frustrating or disappointing to see that this is not done.

I am by no means a collector that only buys clean artwork. I enjoy notes, stuff on the back even to some extent corrections, paste ups and all.

In my opinion that is what comic art is about. It evolves, but that is a different discussion and not what my post is about.

[stinkininkin]

I have a Frank Miller Ronin #1 page that has a panel that Miller completely pencilled and inked (that NO ONE other than myself and Miller has ever seen!), decided to change it, and then pencilled and inked a similar but completely different panel and pasted it on top of the first version.  The top panel came loose and I've had it professionally reattached so that I can view both panel versions. Not only does it not bother me, I love the fact that I actually have more art to look at (two fully executed panels instead of just one) and an insight into the creative process.  The initial panel underneath has glue stains as one would expect, but I dig it, would not value it any less in a sale, and would happily disclose everything if put to market.

Scott

Edited November 23, 2017 by stinkininkin

[▫️]

I was just looking at a Ronin page on CAF (#7) with paste-ups like you describe and agree it’s incredibly cool to see that creative process. I would love to have a page like that and would just keep the paste-ups safe in a separate Mylar. 

[williamhlawson]

Simply put, I believe any and all positive and negative attributes of a page should be disclosed.  Solves everything imho.  Front, back, folds, stains, paste ups, tears, sketches, zip atone, tape, foxing, blue line, publishing stamps, glue, white out... you name it.   I've only bought around a dozen pieces as I rebuild my collection, but I've always taken the onus upon myself to ask questions galore if I have a concern. I believe it is absolutely vital on internet purchases, whereas holding it in your hands and inspecting the piece in person solves that like it's the 1980's again (if only I could get those pieces and prices back LOL)...

[artistlost]

I learned my lesson the wrong way. I am by no means a huge collector but I did sell a cover once that had an original art paste-up over more original art. The artist didn't like the way a characters head looked in the original so they did another face and pasted it on-top. I didn't think to let the buy know and when they received it they asked to return it. I of course accepted the return and we discussed it. They told me they just dislike art with paste-ups. No harm done except, when the cover came back to me customs dinged me for $100+ on it.

[chico_suave_58]

Apologies for resurrecting this thread, but I wanted to ping the experts for their thoughts on digital edits of original art that was physically drawn in penciled/inked, but then, after scanning for coloring, was digitally altered.

As an example, the tie in the attached art was moved digitally for final publication. Personally, I like the way the tie hangs on the original art, but the artist felt the need to modify the tie’s position after coloring (presumably because the “S” was shown too perfectly). In this case, no paste up exists other than the published piece differs from the OA.

(BTW, I had seen the published piece first & then I was shown the OA before I committed to buy.)

[PhilipB2k17]

On 11/20/2017 at 2:22 PM, wurstisart said:

Hi,

out of curiosity, especially with the discussion about the BWS Conan Story that recently sold,  what is everyone’s opinion about whether a paste up should be mentioned or not ?

Regardless of whether it shows up on the scan or not.

I was under the impression that everyone thought it should be noted.

It’s original comic book art. Paste ups, white out, etc are part of the production process for art of a certain era. 

It should NOT detract from the value, except in limited circumstances where, for example, the entire (or vast majority) of an image is a stat. (Then it would not be “original”)  

Divulge those things, sure. But if I am selling a page (haven’t yet) I would not be very happy with someone trying to bargain me down based on inherent characteristics of comic art that make it unique. If you want pristine art, you are in the wrong hobby, bub  

Is there a big water stain or tear on the art? Yes. Reduce the price. But if it has some white out applied by the artist, or a panel is a production stat? Hell no. 

Imagine if you were a collector of handwritten book manuscripts and someone tried to bargain down one you were selling because the author crossed out words, or added white out. 

Edited March 2, 2018 by PhilipB2k17

[Rick2you2]

1 hour ago, chico_suave_58 said:

Apologies for resurrecting this thread, but I wanted to ping the experts for their thoughts on digital edits of original art that was physically drawn in penciled/inked, but then, after scanning for coloring, was digitally altered.

Why apologize? Good question.

My personal opinion may be at variance with some other people, but I think the starting place ought to be: what does the seller actually know? If I were the seller, I would never have known of the digital alteration, because I don't buy the book, so I don't think it would be fair in that instance to to hold me to the disclosure standard. If I do know, that's different: say so.

Regarding the actual digital edit, I don't think it should have any effect. People are buying artwork, not the publication rights.

Finally, I question whether sellers should generally be expected to disclose things on OA as though the seller were an expert. I know Kane liked to use markers instead of ink, but I don't think I could clearly tell the difference. I also think there should be an affirmative obligation to disclose what is not obvious to a non-collector type person. So I would treat paste-ups and stats differently than a marker. There, they are more visible on the actual piece than in a photo, and a potential buyer may miss them. As far as white-out goes, it's visible on photo's, so I think it should be the buyer's obligation to check it.

[Rick2you2]

5 minutes ago, PhilipB2k17 said:

It’s original comic book art. Paste ups, white out, etc are part of the production process for art of a certain era. 

It should NOT detract from the value, except in limited circumstances where, for the sample, the entire (or vast majority) of an image is a stat. 

Divulge those things, sure, but if I am selling a page (haven’t yet) I would not be very happy with someone trying to bargain me down based on inherent characteristics of comic art that make it unique. 

Is there a big water stain or tear on the art? Yes. Reduce the price. But it has some white out applied by the artist, or a panel is a production stat? Hell no. 

About those stats, I distinguish between pricing and disclosure.

If I buy a page of OA, I expect a whole page of OA. If 30% of it is a stat, or even 10% is a stat, I'm not getting a whole page of OA. The question is then whether the remaining 70% or 90% is worth 100% of art. Sometimes yes, sometimes no. 

[PhilipB2k17]

1 hour ago, Rick2you2 said:

if About those stats, I distinguish between pricing and disclosure.

If I buy a page of OA, I expect a whole page of OA. If 30% of it is a stat, or even 10% is a stat, I'm not getting a whole page of OA. The question is then whether the remaining 70% or 90% is worth 100% of art. Sometimes yes, sometimes no. 

This issue came up a few months ago when someone put the second appearance of Deathlok page up for sale. It was the interior splash of Astonishing Tales #25. It turns out that the entire image of Deathlok was a production stat. A debate ensued as to the value of the piece, and the consensus was that because it was mostly a stat, it was only a fraction of the value it would otherwise have if it were hand drawn.

But, if you are talking about a time-saving, or corrective stat panel that was placed there by the artist, on a regular panel page, then I am not going to knock off 10-30% of the art price. That's part of what makes it comic book art. Yes, at some point, a stat heavy page can cross the line from OA to reproduction, but the vast majority of time it doesn't.

Edited March 2, 2018 by PhilipB2k17