investment opinions 1 1

[John E.]

Although this comment should go in the ongoing “high priced modern artists,” one reason I believe that modern art—those pages on which the ink is still wet—is so high priced because the quality of the art is better, thus it’s understandably higher priced. 

It just maybe that the value of art up to 1994 (with the exception of Kirby, Ditko, et al) is based on nostalgia, while the value of art from the 2010s, looking back 25 years from now, will be based on aesthetics. 

[Panelfan1]

1 hour ago, Jay Olie Espy said:

Although this comment should go in the ongoing “high priced modern artists,” one reason I believe that modern art—those pages on which the ink is still wet—is so high priced because the quality of the art is better, thus it’s understandably higher priced. 

It just maybe that the value of art up to 1994 (with the exception of Kirby, Ditko, et al) is based on nostalgia, while the value of art from the 2010s, looking back 25 years from now, will be based on aesthetics. 

I don't know if what you say is a fair argument. are you saying that todays art is better technically than older stuff, or that it will only go up for technical artistic reasons rather than future nostalgia? (that is nostalgia felt by collectors in the future).  Artistically - I think there is great stuff from every era, as well as not so good stuff. 

Edited January 8, 2018 by Panelfan1

[PhilipB2k17]

49 minutes ago, Jay Olie Espy said:

Although this comment should go in the ongoing “high priced modern artists,” one reason I believe that modern art—those pages on which the ink is still wet—is so high priced because the quality of the art is better, thus it’s understandably higher priced. 

It just maybe that the value of art up to 1994 (with the exception of Kirby, Ditko, et al) is based on nostalgia, while the value of art from the 2010s, looking back 25 years from now, will be based on aesthetics. 

Yeah, I don't agree with this either. I think it's a style thing.

[chromium]

1 hour ago, Jay Olie Espy said:

Although this comment should go in the ongoing “high priced modern artists,” one reason I believe that modern art—those pages on which the ink is still wet—is so high priced because the quality of the art is better, thus it’s understandably higher priced. 

It just maybe that the value of art up to 1994 (with the exception of Kirby, Ditko, et al) is based on nostalgia, while the value of art from the 2010s, looking back 25 years from now, will be based on aesthetics. 

Dunno about that, I mainly collect EC art and nostalgia plays no part there at all, the company was long defunct before I was even born, and aesthetics wise, it's pretty hard to beat or even equal Al Williamson and Wally Wood.

[PhilipB2k17]

12 minutes ago, chromium said:

Dunno about that, I mainly collect EC art and nostalgia plays no part there at all, the company was long defunct before I was even born, and aesthetics wise, it's pretty hard to beat or even equal Al Williamson and Wally Wood.

Not to mention Frazetta. 

[vodou]

2 hours ago, Jay Olie Espy said:

...one reason I believe that modern art—those pages on which the ink is still wet—is so high priced because the quality of the art is better, thus it’s understandably higher priced.

Cowpuckey. I think the most interesting What If? of our hobby is: What If there hadn't been a comic art market prior to yesterday. What do you think ink-wet art would sell for without being able to ride the coattails of 40 years of comic art collecting and the self-perpetuating nature of 'comps' in a long-run rising market? I think everything would be $50 and some stuff, a lot of stuff, still wouldn't sell.

[John E.]

1 hour ago, Panelfan1 said:

I don't know if what you say is a fair argument. are you saying that todays art is better technically than older stuff, or that it will only go up for technical artistic reasons rather than future nostalgia? (that is nostalgia felt by collectors in the future).  Artistically - I think there is great stuff from every era, as well as not so good stuff. 

Eh, I’m making a blanket statement, but yes, it’s closer to “it will only go up for technical reasons than future nostalgia.” I’m hypothesizing here, based on money thrown at art that isn’t aesthetically appealing, but “hey, I read it as a kid!” (me included in this camp). And EC is a comparable example. Great art from Jack Davis and Williamson, but I can’t get through a story word for word. 

This claim of mine was inspired by yesterday’s trip to the LCS when I spotted a cover that caught my eye and I would love to own (theorically) but I didn’t even bother to buy the book. My claim also undermines the great writing by today’s writers, too; but, unlettered pages de-emphasizes the writer’s role in the creation. The writing may not vanish in the mind of some, but certainly has vanished on the OA. This is to say that I know that my claim carries faulty assumptions, and I don’t subscribe to it 100%, but if you’re buying art before you’ve the book (which I’ve done) than it’s not far fetched.

 

[John E.]

6 minutes ago, vodou said:

Cowpuckey. I think the most interesting What If? of our hobby is: What If there hadn't been a comic art market prior to yesterday. What do you think ink-wet art would sell for without being able to ride the coattails of 40 years of comic art collecting and the self-perpetuating nature of 'comps' in a long-run rising market? I think everything would be $50 and some stuff, a lot of stuff, still wouldn't sell.

Yeah I see what you’re saying and a lot of “great looking” art today doesn’t get sold whether it’s priced at $500 or $100 ($100 being a “great” deal today). It’s just hard for me to tell someone today that their $500 page wouldn’t be worth $50 if it weren’t for 40 years of collecting and recent comps. I think 40 years of collecting and the comps is what helps justify the purchase. 

[vodou]

20 minutes ago, Jay Olie Espy said:

...but if you’re buying art before you’ve the book (which I’ve done) than it’s not far fetched.

Funny you bring this up. I've been doing the same lately and tried to get some art-therapy from Felix on the matter. It was via e-mail so I'm not certain, but I sensed the silent eyeroll when he read it nonetheless

This is a very good subject for it's own thread, if the interest is there I'll participate with my own experience but I'll let someone else open it up first.

[vodou]

7 minutes ago, Jay Olie Espy said:

Yeah I see what you’re saying and a lot of “great looking” art today doesn’t get sold whether it’s priced at $500 or $100 ($100 being a “great” deal today). It’s just hard for me to tell someone today that their $500 page wouldn’t be worth $50 if it weren’t for 40 years of collecting and recent comps. I think 40 years of collecting and the comps is what helps justify the purchase. 

My comment comes from exactly how comic art was when the hobby began...everything was $10-$50 except those HUGE Sunday strips by Herriman and other giants (then and today) of sequential. And anything that reeked of somebody doing in sequential what they could get (seemingly, to the man outside) paid a lot more to do somewhere else (example: Alex Raymond Flash Gordon). But those obvious to all outliers aside, going back to the Seventies...everything was nickels and dimes with little of the minutiae of differentiation we see today. Except, even then, "hot new" was priced as if it had been around for 50 years of hobby lust 'n appreciation...Wrightson Adams Barry Smith Steranko Kaluta, fresh in-wet all priced right up there with the legends of sequential And a fair bit of it...sat too.

[aokartman]

I listened to Felix' latest podcast with Kyle K, along with the follow-up.  It was a great listen, particularly if you are interested in the modern comic art trends.  It made me take a look at "Snotgirl", a title I would not have otherwise checked out.  

Best, David

[John E.]

9 minutes ago, vodou said:

My comment comes from exactly how comic art was when the hobby began...everything was $10-$50 except those HUGE Sunday strips by Herriman and other giants (then and today) of sequential. And anything that reeked of somebody doing in sequential what they could get (seemingly, to the man outside) paid a lot more to do somewhere else (example: Alex Raymond Flash Gordon). But those obvious to all outliers aside, going back to the Seventies...everything was nickels and dimes with little of the minutiae of differentiation we see today. Except, even then, "hot new" was priced as if it had been around for 50 years of hobby lust 'n appreciation...Wrightson Adams Barry Smith Steranko Kaluta, fresh in-wet all priced right up there with the legends of sequential And a fair bit of it...sat too.

Yup...whether anyone thinks that the high price tag is warranted or not, I think of Felix who quoted Richard Martinez in a podcast to the likes of "Art was expensive then, too."

[Panelfan1]

24 minutes ago, vodou said:

Funny you bring this up. I've been doing the same lately and tried to get some art-therapy from Felix on the matter. It was via e-mail so I'm not certain, but I sensed the silent eyeroll when he read it nonetheless

This is a very good subject for it's own thread, if the interest is there I'll participate with my own experience but I'll let someone else open it up first.

most of the art I have collected is from books I haven't read. Some are from books I collected -but I have mostly collected comics for the art.  With a few exceptions. So for me, the art is the most important thing. Having said that - I , like Kyle K - got into comics from film (television). having watched cartoons and movies to do with comic heroes as a kid - it was easy to fall in love with comics - when I first discovered them on the newstand.  I was already a fan of the characters and the comics were full of great drawings of characters I already loved.  Collecting art (and toys and such) was a rational continuation for this stuff.

So what I am trying to say is that nostalgia for me, is more to do with characters I love than specific stories. However - there are certain artists and certain covers that stand out from my collecting days  that have extra pull on me.  This may include new comics and comic art which I still pick up as I come across it.

 

@aokartman - what did you think of snot girl?

Edited January 8, 2018 by Panelfan1

[Nexus]

28 minutes ago, vodou said:

Funny you bring this up. I've been doing the same lately and tried to get some art-therapy from Felix on the matter. It was via e-mail so I'm not certain, but I sensed the silent eyeroll when he read it nonetheless

No eyeroll! I just can't relate...it's not how I collect at all. But you are not the only one who buys art from comics they haven't read. Far from it. There are collectors who will buy a complete issue, sight-unseen (let alone read!). I've sold several that way and it still surprises me each time.

[aokartman]

I looked through Felix' inventory for the artist Leslie Hung (re: Snotgirl), and was tempted by a couple covers simply because of the exposure he gave them along with the appeal to me personally as to the style of the art,  subject matter, and price point ($1200, 1500).  I'm currently watching an ebay auction to pick up the actual books.  And I read some reviews on Amazon.  As I understand it, there are some more issues pending which may satisfy some plot issues that are not resolved, naturally, that is the nature of the medium.  David

Edited January 8, 2018 by aokartman
clarify

[Nexus]

18 minutes ago, aokartman said:

I listened to Felix' latest podcast with Kyle K, along with the follow-up.  It was a great listen, particularly if you are interested in the modern comic art trends.  It made me take a look at "Snotgirl", a title I would not have otherwise checked out.  

Best, David

Thanks David!

SNOTGIRL is meant for a very specific audience, a commentary on the social media-obsessed generation. So I don't recommend it to everyone. But do check out Leslie's art online. You can still appreciate her talent, without having to read the comic.

[vodou]

9 minutes ago, Nexus said:

No eyeroll! I just can't relate...it's not how I collect at all. But you are not the only one who buys art from comics they haven't read. Far from it. There are collectors who will buy a complete issue, sight-unseen (let alone read!). I've sold several that way and it still surprises me each time.

I used to be like you, then I wasn't. Somebody else needs to open the thread on buying art just for the art not cuz you like or even know of the book or characters! I think there might be a few of us out there. Buying a full book...sight unseen...that requires much more courage than even I have. Not read I can do full book, but then there's the $$$$$$$$$$ aspect

[SquareChaos]

9 hours ago, trimpehulk said:

First the three levels or tiers I do not in anyway subscribe to. We have three volumes of comic art value books that instituted these placements all became outdated quite quickly. I will not argue that comic art is a marketplace. As far as economic stability the needle still looks really good considering that new art moves everyday

Specific identities around collecting is exactly the reason why you ignore the individual and look at the group if you're looking for these type of insights. It doesn't matter what you or I may think, believers will state that there is a critical mass of aligned desirability that allow them to make these statements. It's just an extension of market theory - I don't personally have any buy in, it doesn't matter at all to me, I'm a minnow in a big pond.

[SquareChaos]

11 hours ago, PhilipB2k17 said:

As I said earlier, brand new published OA is generally priced at a premium vs most published OA that hasn't been bid up via nostalgia and speculation.  This is because (until recently, at least, which is the subject of multiple thread here), NEW art has the POTENTIAL to be highly valuable down the road, whereas the stuff that's been sitting around for several (or even 20) years that people can't sell at $175 BIN auctions on eBay, are probably at their level and the market has decided they are not among the special pieces that go up.

The "then magic happens" bit in your explanation is what market theory is all about.

[SquareChaos]

2 hours ago, vodou said:

I used to be like you, then I wasn't. Somebody else needs to open the thread on buying art just for the art not cuz you like or even know of the book or characters! I think there might be a few of us out there. Buying a full book...sight unseen...that requires much more courage than even I have. Not read I can do full book, but then there's the $$$$$$$$$$ aspect

I vaguely recall an 'impulse buy' thread not too long ago - I think it was 'have you bought art you have no attachment too?' thread. If I recall, the consensus was an unsurprising 'yes' with a low cost to entry being almost universal.