Art Prices 3 3

[trimpehulk]

8 hours ago, Bronty said:

Let's assume that you are right and he is the second coming of Raphael?

Who cares?    The market doesn't - Liefeld is hot right?    And this thread is about prices.

 

All I really want out of this thread is a little intellectual honesty at the end of the day.     Good, solid artist and certainly able to deliver what Marvel wanted at the time.    But it stops there, and the prices have frankly little or nothing to do with his artistic skill.    Again, he DID have skill.    But that's way down the list of what the market values.

So when people start talking about ASM 100 being beautifully rendered (as was the conversation earlier) being any kind of significant reason it did so well - that's IMO not being honest with oneself.

The reasons it did so well, in order, are 

1) marvel

2) ASM

3) many characters on cover

4) #100

5) Last, and definitely least, the skill of the artist.

 

Why do I care?   Well, because this debate doesn't just apply to ASM 100 covers.    It applies to a wide swath of comic and non comic art.    Its a critical thought IMO because it gets to the very heart of what the market values - CONTEXT of artwork.    Much, much more so than actual skill in artwork.

And its utterly obvious when you accept it as the truth.  Take the Hulk 181 cover.   It wouldn't matter if Frazetta drew the cover to Hulk 183, say.    181 would still be worth more than 183.     Good context (1st app of major character) trumps good skill every time.

And its the reason a stuffed shark can sell for $12m, too.    Until we accept that we are by and large collecting moments in comic history rather than collecting drawings for the sake of drawings, we haven't really opened our eyes.

Dave, very good points regarding why and how we collect comic art

[grapeape]

On 3/19/2018 at 11:37 AM, Bronty said:

Here's a question.    Who the @#$! cares if its a 'top five' or 'top ten' or 'top 3 by this guy' or 'top 8 by that guy' cover?    No disrespect.    He's not a stellar artist.   Nice solid, dependable, sure.   

It all boils down to what's on the cover more than how well its drawn.    

"No disrespect....but".  I love that put down, Those gifted to create like Humble Jazzy john Create beautifully. Than..we have you. Dismissive critic. ASM 100 Cover was always the ASM cover most of us pegged as a giant. Iconic imagery burned to the brain by a "more than stellar artist " I assure you. Get hold of Romita back issues and do your homework. You simply don't get a free pass to drag down a great comic artist to mere pedestrian bullpen run of the mill guy.

[Rick2you2]

18 hours ago, Bronty said:

Let's assume that you are right and he is the second coming of Raphael?

Who cares?    The market doesn't - Liefeld is hot right?    And this thread is about prices.

 

All I really want out of this thread is a little intellectual honesty at the end of the day.     Good, solid artist and certainly able to deliver what Marvel wanted at the time.    But it stops there, and the prices have frankly little or nothing to do with his artistic skill.    Again, he DID have skill.    But that's way down the list of what the market values.

So when people start talking about ASM 100 being beautifully rendered (as was the conversation earlier) being any kind of significant reason it did so well - that's IMO not being honest with oneself.

The reasons it did so well, in order, are 

1) marvel

2) ASM

3) many characters on cover

4) #100

5) Last, and definitely least, the skill of the artist.

 

Why do I care?   Well, because this debate doesn't just apply to ASM 100 covers.    It applies to a wide swath of comic and non comic art.    Its a critical thought IMO because it gets to the very heart of what the market values - CONTEXT of artwork.    Much, much more so than actual skill in artwork.

And its utterly obvious when you accept it as the truth.  Take the Hulk 181 cover.   It wouldn't matter if Frazetta drew the cover to Hulk 183, say.    181 would still be worth more than 183.     Good context (1st app of major character) trumps good skill every time.

And its the reason a stuffed shark can sell for $12m, too.    Until we accept that we are by and large collecting moments in comic history rather than collecting drawings for the sake of drawings, we haven't really opened our eyes.

All of which raises another question: can we fairly consider OA as comparable to fine art when much of the value of a particular piece is rooted in comic book knowledge? The logical answer is no. It is merely a collectable which will die with generational change.

Picasso's Guernica raised all sorts of political hackles, but its value is based on the intrinsic impact of the piece--the brutal violence of the Spanish Civil War. It would be considered a masterpiece even if it were quietly hung somewhere in a museum.

Honestly, I think too much comic book trivia is affecting price. People have a right to buy what they want no matter what the price, of course, but some of the level of detailing seems to have grown to excess.

What should matter most, in my view, is the quality of the page at conveying a story while keeping the reader intrigued by the story. But that's me.

[AnkurJ]

So would we say that

character >>> artist >>> content 

is the order of decision when looking at a piece to buy?

[rsonenthal]

44 minutes ago, Rick2you2 said:

All of which raises another question: can we fairly consider OA as comparable to fine art when much of the value of a particular piece is rooted in comic book knowledge? The logical answer is no. It is merely a collectable which will die with generational change.

Picasso's Guernica raised all sorts of political hackles, but its value is based on the intrinsic impact of the piece--the brutal violence of the Spanish Civil War. It would be considered a masterpiece even if it were quietly hung somewhere in a museum.

Honestly, I think too much comic book trivia is affecting price. People have a right to buy what they want no matter what the price, of course, but some of the level of detailing seems to have grown to excess.

What should matter most, in my view, is the quality of the page at conveying a story while keeping the reader intrigued by the story. But that's me.

That's an interesting perspective.  If I could add on, I would think the strength of the story matters, no?  Consider a well laid out page of Spidey fighting Tombstone as compared to a less well laid out page from the issue where Gwen Stacy was killed.  Shouldn't that matter in this hobby?

[jjonahjameson11]

24 minutes ago, AnkurJ said:

So would we say that

character >>> artist >>> content 

is the order of decision when looking at a piece to buy?

Nostalgia > anything else

[jjonahjameson11]

23 minutes ago, rsonenthal said:

That's an interesting perspective.  If I could add on, I would think the strength of the story matters, no?  Consider a well laid out page of Spidey fighting Tombstone as compared to a less well laid out page from the issue where Gwen Stacy was killed.  Shouldn't that matter in this hobby?

Not to me.  Honestly, who gives a sheeeit about Tombstone?

Edited March 21, 2018 by jjonahjameson11

[ESeffinga]

What makes comics work as an art form is that it is a narrative told through a combination of words and pictures. That is the true art of comics at the end of the day.

 

The pages we buy, either older with a copy of the words lettered on or with glued on bubbles, or minus the words in the case of modern work, are still only part of the work. It’s something of a totem that “represents” to us. 

 

It is always a partial work unless you have something like say a complete issue at hand that is your favorite. Otherwise even that is a bit of a settling for what you can get your hands on. We pick “examples” because we can’t truly have the work we want. Whether it’s as broad as all of it. Or as narrow as that one piece some would call a true grail that is enough of a representation of a book that it’s all the collector really needs.

 

With Guernica, I would argue that is also based on context. If you look at the piece without context. Show it to a teenager with no idea about the subject matter or the history behind it, I bet you’d get a shrug and a “that looks weird”. It’s not so representational that the anguish jumps off the canvas at you. There are much more representational works capable of doing that.

But it is a singular image, and so, much more easily understood  as a “work” where as with something like Spider-Man, what makes a piece of work? Is it the single page? Or is that more like taking a section out of a film? I’d argue it is. And so, it is a totem. We own it as an example of what the whole work represents to us. Be it nostalgia. Or the impact of the character or storyline. Whatever. Everyone is in for their own reasons. A great many seem to overlap or be of a very similar reason or interest. But it’s on a sliding gray scale. No one answer fits every collector.

But this is why it’s easier for museums to take in and show pieces by Charles Burns , Chris Ware, Crumb, Spiegleman, etc. Because it is a singular vision written and drawn by a singular hand. Often a short singular story. So in effect a single work in however many pages.

 

I think this is why context is often so important to so many collectors. It’s not so much  a visuaL medium as it is a nostalgic one. And for them the totem isn’t the artist, it’s those other things as much or more. Character, storyline, it’s importance in their eyes/heart. It’s why for some it Dark Knight, Court of Owls, Long Halloween, Year One, Killing Joke, etc.

So it’s up to each individual to define what it is that makes a piece have worth. But an educated individual can look introspectively and find deals knowing what everyone else values, and decide if they want to put money in the safe areas, or if the heart will rule, and put their money behind a more uncertain horse.

Or as was suggested in the thread about Jim Lee sketch prices, is it all about access and not the money consideration at all? For some they pay whatever price because the heart wants what it wants.

Edited March 21, 2018 by ESeffinga

[rsonenthal]

1 hour ago, jjonahjameson11 said:

Not to me.  Honestly, who gives a sheeeit about Tombstone?

That was my point.  It’s not just how well the story is told. The story matters to the value.  

Edited March 21, 2018 by rsonenthal

[RICKYBOBBY]

2 hours ago, AnkurJ said:

So would we say that

character >>> artist >>> content 

is the order of decision when looking at a piece to buy?

Nice one sentence to sum up 8 pages of posts? 

I think you are on the right track but a few points. Should add historical importance ( seems like that is a big driver in price) and as JJ mentioened where does nostalgia land? I also think the order should have artist should go before character?

But pretty good break down Ankur!

[zhamlau]

22 minutes ago, RICKYBOBBY said:

3 hours ago, AnkurJ said:

So would we say that

character >>> artist >>> content 

is the order of decision when looking at a piece to buy?

Nice one sentence to sum up 8 pages of posts? 

I think you are on the right track but a few points. Should add historical importance ( seems like that is a big driver in price) and as JJ mentioned where does nostalgia land? I also think the order should have artist should go before character?

But pretty good break down Ankur!

I agree in general, but wouldn't we want issues like the title and cost/value ratio added? How much it costs compared to its relative worth I think is fair to say the number one driver on pieces. If we doing a full break down would it look something like this?

Cost to Value>Character>Title>Artist>Content>Rarity>Condition

[Bronty]

6 hours ago, grapeape said:

"No disrespect....but".  I love that put down, Those gifted to create like Humble Jazzy john Create beautifully. Than..we have you. Dismissive critic. ASM 100 Cover was always the ASM cover most of us pegged as a giant. Iconic imagery burned to the brain by a "more than stellar artist " I assure you. Get hold of Romita back issues and do your homework. You simply don't get a free pass to drag down a great comic artist to mere pedestrian bullpen run of the mill guy.

If you think I’m being dismissive of his talent you arent reading carefully enough.    What I’m being dismissive of is the role talent has in prices.    Again, Liefeld material is hot right now remember?   It’s not about talent/skill/technical proficiency.   It’s about having created something that people remember.   Romita did that (and so did Liefeld)  so his prices are high and no one can take that from him.   But don’t confuse his having had a role in the most important time and place in comics with being Frazetta or Rockwell or da Vinci.    They simply aren’t the same thing.    

Edited March 21, 2018 by Bronty

[Bronty]

@ESeffinga

Yes, Guernica et al has context too, just context in fine art which works a little diffferently.    Those collectors appear to collect famous moments too.   And Guernica fits squarely within that.     

[delekkerste]

21 minutes ago, Bronty said:

If you think I’m being dismissive of his talent you arent reading carefully enough.    What I’m being dismissive of is the role talent has in prices.    Again, Liefeld material is hot right now remember?   It’s not about talent/skill/technical proficiency.   It’s about having created something that people remember.   Romita did that so his prices are high and no one can take that from him.   But don’t confuse his having had a role in the most important time and place in comics with being Frazetta or Rockwell or something.    They simply aren’t the same thing.

I agree partially with what you're saying, but, think you are overstating the case by dismissing almost completely the role talent has in prices.  Sure, Herb Trimpe found himself penciling the 1st appearance of Wolverine - it could have been anyone and the price of the OA would still be the same.  But, I think that's very different from John Romita coming in and building on what Lee/Ditko had created and creating what became the definitive take on the character and his supporting cast for decades to come, as well as setting the standard for the house style.  I don't think you could have popped in Don Heck or Sal Buscema or even John Buscema and have had ASM (or Marvel as a whole) become what it did.  No offense to Russ Heath, but, no way does he take Spidey to the heights that Lee/Romita did.

Why is Neal Adams Batman so much more valuable than the artists that came 10 years before and 10 years after him?  You can't make the "right place, right time" argument there.  Why is Todd McFarlane Spidey art more valuable than that of JRJR and Frenz and Larsen and Bagley?  It's not like Adams or McFarlane created these respective characters.  Why is Byrne X-Men art more valuable than Cockrum X-Men art, even Cockrum's 1st run art (with the exception of GSXM 1 and maybe some XM 94 pages, of course, because then you're back to the "it could have been anyone" assigned to that book and it would still be valuable argument), which preceded Byrne's run on the title?  

I could go on and on and on in highlighting examples where talent is recognized by the market and is not just a case of being in the right place at the right time at the right publisher on the right title.  Just look at the premium/discount you get when different inkers ink a particular penciller - putting aside pages which feature key moments that transcend the quality of the art, the better inkers will get a premium because, well, talent.  And, of course that's not to say that title/character doesn't matter (though, even there I can point to Bernie Wrightson - never worked on anything more popular than the 3rd-tier character Swamp Thing and yet his talent alone has resulted in prices being where the are today), but, I don't think you can just say that talent doesn't matter and it's all down to publisher, title, character, etc. and that the talent is a distant consideration and largely interchangeable.  For some things like the Hulk #180 page, yes.  But, that's ignoring all the superior talent runs that are valuable but have nothing to do with being in the right place and time, or the art that is valuable on talent alone.  Dave Stevens!  Never worked on a mainstream Marvel or DC title (at least in any kind of sustained capacity).  And yet, his early '80s indie covers of no-name space vixens and the like would fetch tens of thousands of dollars (many tens in some cases).  Talent, nostalgia, and nostalgia for talent.  Nothing to do at all with right place, right time working on the right characters from the right company.  

[Bronty]

1 minute ago, delekkerste said:

I agree partially with what you're saying, but, think you are overstating the case by dismissing almost completely the role talent has in prices.  Sure, Herb Trimpe found himself penciling the 1st appearance of Wolverine - it could have been anyone and the price of the OA would still be the same.  But, I think that's very different from John Romita coming in and building on what Lee/Ditko had created and creating what became the definitive take on the character and his supporting cast for decades to come, as well as setting the standard for the house style.  I don't think you could have popped in Don Heck or Sal Buscema or even John Buscema and have had ASM (or Marvel as a whole) become what it did.  No offense to Russ Heath, but, no way does he take Spidey to the heights that Lee/Romita did.

Why is Neal Adams Batman so much more valuable than the artists that came 10 years before and 10 years after him?  You can't make the "right place, right time" argument there.  Why is Todd McFarlane Spidey art more valuable than that of JRJR and Frenz and Larsen and Bagley?  It's not like Adams or McFarlane created these respective characters.  Why is Byrne X-Men art more valuable than Cockrum X-Men art, even Cockrum's 1st run art (with the exception of GSXM 1 and maybe some XM 94 pages, of course, because then you're back to the "it could have been anyone" assigned to that book and it would still be valuable argument), which preceded Byrne's run on the title?  

I could go on and on and on in highlighting examples where talent is recognized by the market and is not just a case of being in the right place at the right time at the right publisher on the right title.  Just look at the premium/discount you get when different inkers ink a particular penciller - putting aside pages which feature key moments that transcend the quality of the art, the better inkers will get a premium because, well, talent.  And, of course that's not to say that title/character doesn't matter (though, even there I can point to Bernie Wrightson - never worked on anything more popular than the 3rd-tier character Swamp Thing and yet his talent alone has resulted in prices being where the are today), but, I don't think you can just say that talent doesn't matter and it's all down to publisher, title, character, etc. and that the talent is a distant consideration and largely interchangeable.  For some things like the Hulk #180 page, yes.  But, that's ignoring all the superior talent runs that are valuable but have nothing to do with being in the right place and time, or the art that is valuable on talent alone.  Dave Stevens!  Never worked on a mainstream Marvel or DC title (at least in any kind of sustained capacity).  And yet, his early '80s indie covers of no-name space vixens and the like would fetch tens of thousands of dollars (many tens in some cases).  Talent, nostalgia, and nostalgia for talent.  Nothing to do at all with right place, right time working on the right characters from the right company.  

Adams and McFarlane etc are examples are a new artist and/or artist/writer team breathing new life into stale characters.    That's quite different than Romita, who was tasked with continuing what had started before.    I don't think anyone would argue Romita was a groundbreaking artist, even if he is their favorite artist.

And, you're right in that there are some artists (Stevens is a great example) where the skill is so obviously at a whole other level that anything they touch is gold, strictly for the immense visual appreciation we have of their art.   

However, in my view, Romita was good but not 'at a whole other level' kind of good.   We can agree or disagree on that, it doesn't really matter IMO.    At the end of the day, I will just restate that the skill of the particular artist in examples such as Romita has SOME affect on price, yes.    But its well down the list IMO.   

More to the point, what I'm saying is that the skill of the artist isn't why we collect what we collect.     If you like Romita, why aren't you paying ASM prices for Romance?   Because its about whether the work as a whole was memorable, and the skill of the artist has only a limited role in that, or everything they touch - all of it, would be memorable.   (Now in Stevens' case that's probably true!).

[vodou]

10 minutes ago, delekkerste said:

I agree partially with what you're saying, but, think you are overstating the case by dismissing almost completely the role talent has in prices.  Sure, Herb Trimpe found himself penciling the 1st appearance of Wolverine - it could have been anyone and the price of the OA would still be the same.  But, I think that's very different from John Romita coming in and building on what Lee/Ditko had created and creating what became the definitive take on the character and his supporting cast for decades to come, as well as setting the standard for the house style.  I don't think you could have popped in Don Heck or Sal Buscema or even John Buscema and have had ASM (or Marvel as a whole) become what it did.  No offense to Russ Heath, but, no way does he take Spidey to the heights that Lee/Romita did.

Why is Neal Adams Batman so much more valuable than the artists that came 10 years before and 10 years after him?  You can't make the "right place, right time" argument there.  Why is Todd McFarlane Spidey art more valuable than that of JRJR and Frenz and Larsen and Bagley?  It's not like Adams or McFarlane created these respective characters.  Why is Byrne X-Men art more valuable than Cockrum X-Men art, even Cockrum's 1st run art (with the exception of GSXM 1 and maybe some XM 94 pages, of course, because then you're back to the "it could have been anyone" assigned to that book and it would still be valuable argument), which preceded Byrne's run on the title?  

I could go on and on and on in highlighting examples where talent is recognized by the market and is not just a case of being in the right place at the right time at the right publisher on the right title.  Just look at the premium/discount you get when different inkers ink a particular penciller - putting aside pages which feature key moments that transcend the quality of the art, the better inkers will get a premium because, well, talent.  And, of course that's not to say that title/character doesn't matter (though, even there I can point to Bernie Wrightson - never worked on anything more popular than the 3rd-tier character Swamp Thing and yet his talent alone has resulted in prices being where the are today), but, I don't think you can just say that talent doesn't matter and it's all down to publisher, title, character, etc. and that the talent is a distant consideration and largely interchangeable.  For some things like the Hulk #180 page, yes.  But, that's ignoring all the superior talent runs that are valuable but have nothing to do with being in the right place and time, or the art that is valuable on talent alone.  Dave Stevens!  Never worked on a mainstream Marvel or DC title (at least in any kind of sustained capacity).  And yet, his early '80s indie covers of no-name space vixens and the like would fetch tens of thousands of dollars (many tens in some cases).  Talent, nostalgia, and nostalgia for talent.  Nothing to do at all with right place, right time working on the right characters from the right company.  

Yes. To all of the above.

But you're really just describing how (for example) "ASM fans" (character and title collectors) pick and choose among "ASM artists". With "artists" first and foremost being christened that by Stan or later whoever was making assignments during whatever era. "Artist" has almost nothing to do with whatever qualities would rank the world of "them", unless they (so-called "artists") were published on ASM!

The kool-aid-goggles in this thread are amazing. As long as everybody is willing to acknowledge the above, and how much their respective "I don't give a-uh-huh" re: artists on any title, character, company, or unpublished (!!) they don't have hardon nostalgia for is in service of this fact, then all good

[PhilipB2k17]

23 minutes ago, delekkerste said:

I agree partially with what you're saying, but, think you are overstating the case by dismissing almost completely the role talent has in prices.  Sure, Herb Trimpe found himself penciling the 1st appearance of Wolverine - it could have been anyone and the price of the OA would still be the same.  But, I think that's very different from John Romita coming in and building on what Lee/Ditko had created and creating what became the definitive take on the character and his supporting cast for decades to come, as well as setting the standard for the house style.  I don't think you could have popped in Don Heck or Sal Buscema or even John Buscema and have had ASM (or Marvel as a whole) become what it did.  No offense to Russ Heath, but, no way does he take Spidey to the heights that Lee/Romita did.

Why is Neal Adams Batman so much more valuable than the artists that came 10 years before and 10 years after him?  You can't make the "right place, right time" argument there.  Why is Todd McFarlane Spidey art more valuable than that of JRJR and Frenz and Larsen and Bagley?  It's not like Adams or McFarlane created these respective characters.  Why is Byrne X-Men art more valuable than Cockrum X-Men art, even Cockrum's 1st run art (with the exception of GSXM 1 and maybe some XM 94 pages, of course, because then you're back to the "it could have been anyone" assigned to that book and it would still be valuable argument), which preceded Byrne's run on the title?  

I could go on and on and on in highlighting examples where talent is recognized by the market and is not just a case of being in the right place at the right time at the right publisher on the right title.  Just look at the premium/discount you get when different inkers ink a particular penciller - putting aside pages which feature key moments that transcend the quality of the art, the better inkers will get a premium because, well, talent.  And, of course that's not to say that title/character doesn't matter (though, even there I can point to Bernie Wrightson - never worked on anything more popular than the 3rd-tier character Swamp Thing and yet his talent alone has resulted in prices being where the are today), but, I don't think you can just say that talent doesn't matter and it's all down to publisher, title, character, etc. and that the talent is a distant consideration and largely interchangeable.  For some things like the Hulk #180 page, yes.  But, that's ignoring all the superior talent runs that are valuable but have nothing to do with being in the right place and time, or the art that is valuable on talent alone.  Dave Stevens!  Never worked on a mainstream Marvel or DC title (at least in any kind of sustained capacity).  And yet, his early '80s indie covers of no-name space vixens and the like would fetch tens of thousands of dollars (many tens in some cases).  Talent, nostalgia, and nostalgia for talent.  Nothing to do at all with right place, right time working on the right characters from the right company.  

I personally do not value Byrne X-Men art higher than Cockrum 1st run X-Men art.  I suspect a big reason that people do, is because of the storylines Byrne drew. Cockrum was a hell of an artist, and designed most of those new characters.

[PhilipB2k17]

24 minutes ago, delekkerste said:

I agree partially with what you're saying, but, think you are overstating the case by dismissing almost completely the role talent has in prices.  Sure, Herb Trimpe found himself penciling the 1st appearance of Wolverine - it could have been anyone and the price of the OA would still be the same.  But, I think that's very different from John Romita coming in and building on what Lee/Ditko had created and creating what became the definitive take on the character and his supporting cast for decades to come, as well as setting the standard for the house style.  I don't think you could have popped in Don Heck or Sal Buscema or even John Buscema and have had ASM (or Marvel as a whole) become what it did.  No offense to Russ Heath, but, no way does he take Spidey to the heights that Lee/Romita did.

Why is Neal Adams Batman so much more valuable than the artists that came 10 years before and 10 years after him?  You can't make the "right place, right time" argument there.  Why is Todd McFarlane Spidey art more valuable than that of JRJR and Frenz and Larsen and Bagley?  It's not like Adams or McFarlane created these respective characters.  Why is Byrne X-Men art more valuable than Cockrum X-Men art, even Cockrum's 1st run art (with the exception of GSXM 1 and maybe some XM 94 pages, of course, because then you're back to the "it could have been anyone" assigned to that book and it would still be valuable argument), which preceded Byrne's run on the title?  

I could go on and on and on in highlighting examples where talent is recognized by the market and is not just a case of being in the right place at the right time at the right publisher on the right title.  Just look at the premium/discount you get when different inkers ink a particular penciller - putting aside pages which feature key moments that transcend the quality of the art, the better inkers will get a premium because, well, talent.  And, of course that's not to say that title/character doesn't matter (though, even there I can point to Bernie Wrightson - never worked on anything more popular than the 3rd-tier character Swamp Thing and yet his talent alone has resulted in prices being where the are today), but, I don't think you can just say that talent doesn't matter and it's all down to publisher, title, character, etc. and that the talent is a distant consideration and largely interchangeable.  For some things like the Hulk #180 page, yes.  But, that's ignoring all the superior talent runs that are valuable but have nothing to do with being in the right place and time, or the art that is valuable on talent alone.  Dave Stevens!  Never worked on a mainstream Marvel or DC title (at least in any kind of sustained capacity).  And yet, his early '80s indie covers of no-name space vixens and the like would fetch tens of thousands of dollars (many tens in some cases).  Talent, nostalgia, and nostalgia for talent.  Nothing to do at all with right place, right time working on the right characters from the right company.  

A good example of this is Bolland Judge Dredd vs Carlos Ezquerra Judge Dredd.

 

[PhilipB2k17]

8 minutes ago, Bronty said:

Adams and McFarlane etc are examples are a new artist and/or artist/writer team breathing new life into stale characters.    That's quite different than Romita, who was tasked with continuing what had started before.    I don't think anyone would argue Romita was a groundbreaking artist, even if he is their favorite artist.

And, you're right in that there are some artists (Stevens is a great example) where the skill is so obviously at a whole other level that anything they touch is gold, strictly for the immense visual appreciation we have of their art.   

However, in my view, Romita was good but not 'at a whole other level' kind of good.   We can agree or disagree on that, it doesn't really matter IMO.    At the end of the day, I will just restate that the skill of the particular artist in examples such as Romita has SOME affect on price, yes.    But its well down the list IMO.   

More to the point, what I'm saying is that the skill of the artist isn't why we collect what we collect.     If you like Romita, why aren't you paying ASM prices for Romance?   Because its about whether the work as a whole was memorable, and the skill of the artist has only a limited role in that, or everything they touch - all of it, would be memorable.   (Now in Stevens' case that's probably true!).

Indeed. Romita was mostly aping Ditko when he first started on ASM. He himself says he was copying Ditko for the 1st year. http://www.syfy.com/syfywire/watch-john-romita-sr-on-replacing-steve-ditko-and-how-stan-lee-saved-comics

[delekkerste]

29 minutes ago, Bronty said:

More to the point, what I'm saying is that the skill of the artist isn't why we collect what we collect.     If you like Romita, why aren't you paying ASM prices for Romance?  

Same reason why you wouldn't pay LeBron James the same amount to play baseball as you would to play basketball.  Of course context matters - very few are buying any kind of art based purely on perceived talent and skill.  I don't think the fact that Romita ASM prices are where they are vs. Romita romance OA prices means that the skill of the artist isn't why we collect what we collect.  I think it just means that we appreciate the skill when applied to something in a context that is meaningful to us.  That said, I do agree that skill/talent is often not the highest priority when evaluating the market value of comic book art.  

As for Adams and McFarlane, yes, they breathed new life into stale characters, but, it's still an example of skill/talent defeating random opportunity (right place, right time).  Yes, maybe both characters (Bats and Spidey) were ripe for a turnaround, but, lesser talents would have just prolonged the staleness, no?  

22 minutes ago, PhilipB2k17 said:

I personally do not value Byrne X-Men art higher than Cockrum 1st run X-Men art.  I suspect a big reason that people do, is because of the storylines Byrne drew. Cockrum was a hell of an artist, and designed most of those new characters.

I agree that Cockrum's contribution/achievements are underrated; I'm just talking about prices in the marketplace where we both acknowledge that Byrne > Cockrum

21 minutes ago, PhilipB2k17 said:

A good example of this is Bolland Judge Dredd vs Carlos Ezquerra Judge Dredd.

 

Agreed!  Carlos Ezquerra is Steve Ditko to Bolland's Romita as far as Judge Dredd is concerned. Though, in this case, "Romita" has far eclipsed "Ditko" based on skill/talent/aesthetics. 

Edited March 21, 2018 by delekkerste