Art Prices 3 3

[J.Sid]

10 hours ago, romitaman said:

Nope...McFarlane was never "HIGHEST VALUED ONLY....... he was tied....with HERB TRIMPE!

Sure he was. The McFarlane auction came a few years before the Trimpe one that tied it. 

(Also, there was the SM1 cover for $300k+ and several other pieces that topped $100k which helped justify my prior statement, the dropoff for Trimpe is pretty drastic by comparison) 

[vodou]

My answer:

1. Spider-Man $100k

2. Amazing Spider-Man (not Spectacular, Web of, Electric Company, etc) $100k

3. #100 (inclusive of comic collecting round number OCD and image specifically assigned to reflect previous 99 issues of history) $28k

4. John Romita $250k

5 Frank Giacoia $0.00 (maybe even a negative number as detraction!)

[Bronty]

5 minutes ago, vodou said:

My answer:

1. Spider-Man $100k

2. Amazing Spider-Man (not Spectacular, Web of, Electric Company, etc) $100k

3. #100 (inclusive of comic collecting round number OCD and image specifically assigned to reflect previous 99 issues of history) $28k

4. John Romita $250k

5 Frank Giacoia $0.00 (maybe even a negative number as detraction!)

You can't have a meaningful answer without considering who the alternate would be.    Buscema vs Lieber vs Frazetta vs Heath or whatever.  

Not a bad set of numbers otherwise although I'd have 3 a little higher and 4 a little lower

Edited March 24, 2018 by Bronty

[vodou]

1 minute ago, Bronty said:

You can't have a meaningful answer without considering who the alternate would be.    Buscema vs Lieber vs Frazetta vs Heath or whatever.  

Not a bad set of numbers otherwise although I'd have 3 a little higher and 4 a little lower

I know what you mean, and I guess I'm agreeing with those that would see a lower overall number if it was somebody else -as a fill-in artist. I'm having a hard time imagining what the number/s look like due to the number of variable by saying it's Buscema (or whoever) that had the long run following Ditko instead. That's a bit like saying, what would 2018 look like if I went back in time and murdered Adolph in the cradle, just another case of SIDs? Too many variables immediately split off and then spread out over way too much time!

[vodou]

5 minutes ago, Bronty said:

You can't have a meaningful answer without considering who the alternate would be.    Buscema vs Lieber vs Frazetta vs Heath or whatever.  

Not a bad set of numbers otherwise although I'd have 3 a little higher and 4 a little lower

You know what, I think under consideration I agree with you: the iconic image -by anybody does carry a bit more than "by John Romita", so I'll modify a bit to:

3. #100 (inclusive of comic collecting round number OCD and image specifically assigned to reflect previous 99 issues of history) $98k

4. John Romita $180k

[Bronty]

1 minute ago, Bill C said:

just that

Got it!    What I got, I'm not sure, but I got it!

[delekkerste]

2 hours ago, vodou said:

The poll, informal or otherwise, then is how much of ASM #100 $478k is in $ due to:

1. Spider-Man

2. Amazing Spider-Man (not Spectacular, Web of, Electric Company, etc)

3. #100 (inclusive of comic collecting round number OCD and image specifically assigned to reflect previous 99 issues of history)

4. John Romita

5 Frank Giacoia

With all due respect to everyone on all sides of this debate, I don't think anyone pays $478K for this cover unless there is more to it than just being a big Spidey/Romita/OCD/round number/etc. fan.  There may be some big game/trophy hunting aspect to it, and almost assuredly a strong nostalgia affinity for that cover in particular.  I mean, I'm a Spidey and Romita fan, but, I have no particular nostalgia for that specific issue or cover, which is perhaps why I'd much rather have the #97, 98, 101, 121, 122 or 123 covers to it (just to name some of the contemporaneous issues around it, and, yes, I'm aware that a number of those are by Kane).

In any case, at the end of the day, I don't think the value of art breaks down cleanly into prescribed scoring categories as has been attempted at least a couple of times in this thread.  People have a lot of different motivations for wanting to own art, and oftentimes it has nothing to do with what's actually drawn on the board (e.g., personal nostalgia, historical relevance, bragging rights, financial/investment considerations, etc.)  

[Bronty]

9 minutes ago, delekkerste said:

With all due respect to everyone on all sides of this debate, I don't think anyone pays $478K for this cover unless there is more to it than just being a big Spidey/Romita/OCD/round number/etc. fan.  There may be some big game/trophy hunting aspect to it, and almost assuredly a strong nostalgia affinity for that cover in particular.  I mean, I'm a Spidey and Romita fan, but, I have no particular nostalgia for that specific issue or cover, which is perhaps why I'd much rather have the #97, 98, 101, 121, 122 or 123 covers to it (just to name some of the contemporaneous issues around it, and, yes, I'm aware that a number of those are by Kane).

In any case, at the end of the day, I don't think the value of art breaks down cleanly into prescribed scoring categories as has been attempted at least a couple of times in this thread.  People have a lot of different motivations for wanting to own art, and oftentimes it has nothing to do with what's actually drawn on the board (e.g., personal nostalgia, historical relevance, bragging rights, financial/investment considerations, etc.)  

so what you're saying is... the formula breaks down when there is no female on the cover... because the CUP variable becomes indeterminate?

Edited March 24, 2018 by Bronty

[Kevin76]

I only have A - artwork, how much can I get for A- art?  

Seriously, I got my A- art in 2006, but before everything blew up I guess?  Idk, I haven't bought any new art since 2006 since I can't afford anything I want. Anyway, if i was collecting today and can't afford the big names, I'd work collect today's hot artists and try to get the best stuff I could afford and hang onto it. That's probably anyone's best bet if 60s-80's art isn't within your reach.  

[Panelfan1]

2 hours ago, Kevin76 said:

I only have A - artwork, how much can I get for A- art?  

Seriously, I got my A- art in 2006, but before everything blew up I guess?  Idk, I haven't bought any new art since 2006 since I can't afford anything I want. Anyway, if i was collecting today and can't afford the big names, I'd work collect today's hot artists and try to get the best stuff I could afford and hang onto it. That's probably anyone's best bet if 60s-80's art isn't within your reach.  

If you are comfortable doing so - what is this A art you speak of?

[NC101]

On 3/21/2018 at 9:17 AM, ESeffinga said:

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.

I don't think that's necessarily true - I first saw a picture of Guernica when I was a teenager and had never even heard of the Spanish Civil War and it absolutely blew me away. I still don't know the first thing about that war, or the context in which the work was received, and I've spent a decent amount of time looking at reproductions of the painting. I agree with you that context and significance also play a role in pricing, but it's also an incredible image and I think that has a lot to do with how valuable it is.

Edited December 21, 2019 by NewCollector101

[Noob19]

My experiences with Guernica match yours. I was incredibly moved by it when I first saw it. Knew next to nothing about the Spanish Civil War and wasn't aware of the connection.

Edited December 21, 2019 by Noob19
hmmmh

[Rick2you2]

2 hours ago, NewCollector101 said:

I don't think that's necessarily true - I first saw a picture of Guernica when I was a teenager and had never even heard of the Spanish Civil War and it absolutely blew me away. I still don't know the first thing about that war, or the context in which the work was received, and I've spent a decent amount of time looking at reproductions of the painting. I agree with you that context and significance also play a role in pricing, but it's also an incredible image and I think that has a lot to do with how valuable it is.

I saw the original image when I was young. It is a hell of a painting. Did you ever hear "Spanish Bombs" by the Clash? Listen to the language. That's the same war.

Don't forget that the Spanish Civil War came just before World War II. WW II opened up a pandora's box to horror around the world, which had not been seen by the public (although, it certainly happened to lesser degrees). After WW II, the Spanish Civil War didn't seem so bad. In that sense Guernica dates itself. 

[NC101]

4 minutes ago, Rick2you2 said:

Did you ever hear "Spanish Bombs" by the Clash?

I have! It's been a long time since I listened to it though, thanks for bringing it up.

[mtlevy1]

1 hour ago, NewCollector101 said:

I have! It's been a long time since I listened to it though, thanks for bringing it up.

"The only band that matters"

[Rick2you2]

1 hour ago, mtlevy1 said:

"The only band that matters"

As a Ramones fan, I might take issue with that, but they were good.

[mtlevy1]

49 minutes ago, Rick2you2 said:

As a Ramones fan, I might take issue with that, but they were good.

When you google "Only band that matters", you get the Clash...but I agree there are other bands that matter