Is anyone here buying into monoprints 1 1

[Doc McCoy]

4 hours ago, filmboyuk said:

$2.5k

http://www.comiconart.com/GalleryPiece.asp?Piece=31663

Billed as Jorge's first interior page of Punchline.  Anyone thinking it's worth the $700 asking price?

 

Edited July 28, 2020 by Doc McCoy
Clarification

[Matches_Malone]

25 minutes ago, Doc McCoy said:

http://www.comiconart.com/GalleryPiece.asp?Piece=31663

Billed as the first interior page of Punchline.  Anyone thinking it's worth the $700 asking price?

 

Well It's Jorge's first interior page featuring Punchline. Different. Either way, it's somewhat high imo. But most of his other pages featuring Punchline have sold.  Sooner or later There will be be buyer for it. 

Edited July 28, 2020 by Matches_Malone

[Doc McCoy]

2 minutes ago, Matches_Malone said:

No, It's Jorge's first interior page featuring Punchline. Different. Either way, it's somewhat high imo. But most of his other pages featuring Punchline have sold.  Sooner or later There will be be buyer for it. 

Thanks.  Edited for clarity.

I had a couple early David Marquez mono-prints from his "All New X-Men" run, but ended up selling them.  They just weren't for me.  I do recognize that they are another option in the hobby though and are a way for younger collectors to afford art.  I think if the art depicts a singular moment in comics, I would consider it.  If the image was iconic and the price is right, I probably would give it some thought as well.

If I had seen this piece by Dauterman before it sold, I definitely would have give it some consideration for the $300 asking price: https://russelldauterman.square.site/product/marauders-01-variant-cover-red-queen-artist-s-proof/131?cp=true&sa=false&sbp=false&q=false&category_id=4

[Andahaion]

Well I bought a monoprint.  My first print in the OA world.  I have some fine art prints, so I think I might be less guarded against buying a print than most here.  Mikel Janin and Jorge Jimenez are two contemporary artists whose work I really enjoy, but they are both mainly digital artists.  After some homework and back and forth with the art rep figuring out the process, I felt ok spending $600 on this Hawkman #29 cover by Janin.  I do generally think they are priced too high for what they are (some are listed at $2K!).  That said, I just really love this image.  Lovely sentiment which gave me an emotional response.  Haven't read the book yet as it's not due to come out for a few weeks (I think).  That and it'll supposedly be the last issue from this volume of Hawkman stories.  The writer, Venditti, really did a great job with Hawkman along with the host of artists.  If you're a trade reader like me, I recommend picking up the first two (third trade comes out next week).

I will probably buy a Jimenez print also, but can't really say I plan to buy many more as with most of you I really prefer pencil and ink on the page.

[Matches_Malone]

Congrats!! That’s a pretty awesome image.  I personally haven’t taken the plunge…yet, but it has become a bit harder to resist some of the imagery coming from Jorge Jimenez current Batman run.
And it seems other collectors are starting to feel the same way, as his pieces are selling really well, all considering that they are all original prints, and not the standard pencil/ink on board. 
I think eventually the modern collector will make and an easy transition to collecting mono-prints. As for the “older” collector like myself, it’s about coming to terms with the idea that it’s an original 1 of 1 artist approve print, and not your run of the mill reproduction.    
 

[Rick2you2]

1 hour ago, Matches_Malone said:

Congrats!! That’s a pretty awesome image.  I personally haven’t taken the plunge…yet, but it has become a bit harder to resist some of the imagery coming from Jorge Jimenez current Batman run.
And it seems other collectors are starting to feel the same way, as his pieces are selling really well, all considering that they are all original prints, and not the standard pencil/ink on board. 
I think eventually the modern collector will make and an easy transition to collecting mono-prints. As for the “older” collector like myself, it’s about coming to terms with the idea that it’s an original 1 of 1 artist approve print, and not your run of the mill reproduction.    
 

But at what price point? 

[Matches_Malone]

25 minutes ago, Rick2you2 said:

But at what price point? 

Like any other piece of OA, that is up to each individual collector. 

[Rick2you2]

2 hours ago, Matches_Malone said:

Like any other piece of OA, that is up to each individual collector. 

Okay, let's be more specific.

If a pencil and ink piece of OA would sell for $1,000, recognizing individuals value things differently, is it reasonable to think a monoprint would sell for $1,000? 
How about $500? As little as $100? Maybe in the 25-33% range?

And what about proof it will not be duplicated? Is there any way to lock it in as a 1 of 1 print, realistically? Or do we just take the word of someone who may be the next Salvador Dali in the making?

[Matches_Malone]

4 hours ago, Rick2you2 said:

Okay, let's be more specific.

If a pencil and ink piece of OA would sell for $1,000, recognizing individuals value things differently, is it reasonable to think a monoprint would sell for $1,000? 
How about $500? As little as $100? Maybe in the 25-33% range?

And what about proof it will not be duplicated? Is there any way to lock it in as a 1 of 1 print, realistically? Or do we just take the word of someone who may be the next Salvador Dali in the making?

Is it reasonable to think a monoprint would sell for the same amount of pencil/ink piece? Why Not?  Understandably We OA collectors are instinctively inclined to make a direct comparison of the price between original pencil/ink vs an original monoprint.   It may seem like the correct approach, but I find it unfair, as they both exist in different art mediums.  This is one of the cases were technology has reinvented the art scene. Sort of the same way photography did a century ago.   Many believed that photography could not be art, because it was made by a machine rather than by human creativity. We see it different now, and we do not compare the value of a painting vs the value a photograph.   If you like it, and it if doesn’t exist in any other form…well then, the monoprint is your only option.   How much are you willing to pay is up to you. 
As for proof? It will be the same as any photographer approved photo-prints.  Photos come in a number of editions and  sizes reflected in a COA, which is approved and signed by the photographer. In this cases the COA it’s what determines provenance and if it is original, and not a reproduction.  The mono-print comes with a COA as well indicating that is 1 of 1 original print signed by the artist.  Is that enough proof?  Again, that’s up to the individual collector to decide. Make no mistake (about it), at the end of the day you are paying for provenance in the form of COA. And it seems some collectors have already come to terms with this. 
 

Edited October 14, 2020 by Matches_Malone

[Andahaion]

Here's a pic of the COA that came with my print, as well as the corresponding signature and hologram thingy placed on both the COA and back of the art.  I will say, the quality of the print is really good.  And no, I think it's clear there are no guarantees that mine will be the only one ever printed.

As to price...I might spring $1k-$2K for the right Jorge Jimenez cover.  But, as stated above I'm not looking to make monoprints my main collecting focus.  

 

[vodou]

1 hour ago, Matches_Malone said:

Is it reasonable to think a monoprint would sell for the same amount of pencil/ink piece? Why Not?

Getting to the heart of it: is it reasonable to think that a "very desirable" Jim Lee cover will one day sell for more than a "very desirable" Jack Kirby cover? Why not? The market (aka The Herd) moves as it does and we individuals either go along with or drop by the wayside. Mostly as we get older, we drop by the wayside. Monoprints will sell for whatever the market will bear, as everything that is not price regulated does. Today or not, one day a "very desirable" monoprint cover will sell for more than a "very desirable" traditional pencil/ink cover. It will happen. It's to each of us to care about that or not (go along with or wayside).

[vodou]

52 minutes ago, Andahaion said:

I think it's clear there are no guarantees that mine will be the only one ever printed.

Disagree. Your COA language pretty clearly identifies that the only way another print of this work (image) could exist is if it was unauthorized. Now, of course, the comic books themselves and any other advertising materials, if such exist, are other publisher-produced printings of this work (image) but are not artist-produced fine art prints. Perhaps the language on that COA could be rendered "tighter"?

[Andahaion]

3 minutes ago, vodou said:

Disagree. Your COA language pretty clearly identifies that the only way another print of this work (image) could exist is if it was unauthorized. Now, of course, the comic books themselves and any other advertising materials, if such exist, are other publisher-produced printings of this work (image) but are not artist-produced fine art prints. Perhaps the language on that COA could be rendered "tighter"?

That's likely my day job (and some pessimism) creeping in.  A statute can be quite clear, but there's usually someone who reads/interprets it differently regardless how the verbiage is tweaked.  It's all good, keeps me employed.  I liked the COA language, which is why I felt ok with the purchase.  That and I figure this hobby would talk if the vendor started breaking that agreement.  

[cstojano]

I forget where this discussion happened, I think it was on a statue collecting thread, or perhaps espressobeans.com (a print collecting website), but my sense was that the print collecting field is very loose with what constitutes a violation of such a COA. Runs are very specific. Change the size and it's a new run. In the COA above I would think the artist could change the paper, tweak the size, change the inks and not really violate the stated terms of the COA. Now individual artists charging a premium may have more integrity than this.  But watching what the big print players do (Mondo, Acme) with limited editions made me quite cautious.  Something that sells out (common) and then skyrockets on the aftermarket is prone to a new edition, usually a different size and switch from paper to canvas or some  such thing. 

[ShallowDan]

7 minutes ago, Andahaion said:

That's likely my day job (and some pessimism) creeping in.  A statute can be quite clear, but there's usually someone who reads/interprets it differently regardless how the verbiage is tweaked.  It's all good, keeps me employed.  I liked the COA language, which is why I felt ok with the purchase.  That and I figure this hobby would talk if the vendor started breaking that agreement.  

When I start playing out various scenarios in my mind with regards to these prints, I always come back to the fact that copyright to the O/A is held by the publisher and not the artist.  So, while the artist himself my only authorize this particular print, it seems that if DC were so inclined, they could either produce (or license) additional prints.  

Now obviously that's probably all academic nit-picking, but if Mondo or someone decided to jump in the game, I don't see how the artist could block this.

[Matches_Malone]

45 minutes ago, ShallowDan said:

When I start playing out various scenarios in my mind with regards to these prints, I always come back to the fact that copyright to the O/A is held by the publisher and not the artist.  So, while the artist himself my only authorize this particular print, it seems that if DC were so inclined, they could either produce (or license) additional prints.  

Now obviously that's probably all academic nit-picking, but if Mondo or someone decided to jump in the game, I don't see how the artist could block this.

True. But then we get into comparing value and price between the artist edition and the [insert company] edition.  One will stand above the other.  Just like book editions. 

[ShallowDan]

5 minutes ago, Matches_Malone said:

True. But then we get into comparing value and price between the artist edition and the [insert company] edition.  One will stand above the other.  Just like book editions. 

Agreed!  But it can definitely muddy the waters in a manner that doesn't (or very rarely) occur with O/A.

[Rick2you2]

52 minutes ago, ShallowDan said:

When I start playing out various scenarios in my mind with regards to these prints, I always come back to the fact that copyright to the O/A is held by the publisher and not the artist.  So, while the artist himself my only authorize this particular print, it seems that if DC were so inclined, they could either produce (or license) additional prints.  

Now obviously that's probably all academic nit-picking, but if Mondo or someone decided to jump in the game, I don't see how the artist could block this.

The copyright granted by the Copyright Act is held by the creator, not the publisher. The creator, however, can assign, license  or sell whatever rights he/she has to the publisher, as I expect many of them do. So, if the artist chooses to break his promise and make more copies, he may be in breach of contract, but not in violation of the copyright laws. That could potentially be very different in terms of damages if someone wanted to sue.

[Matches_Malone]

1 hour ago, vodou said:

Getting to the heart of it: is it reasonable to think that a "very desirable" Jim Lee cover will one day sell for more than a "very desirable" Jack Kirby cover? Why not? The market (aka The Herd) moves as it does and we individuals either go along with or drop by the wayside. Mostly as we get older, we drop by the wayside. Monoprints will sell for whatever the market will bear, as everything that is not price regulated does. Today or not, one day a "very desirable" monoprint cover will sell for more than a "very desirable" traditional pencil/ink cover. It will happen. It's to each of us to care about that or not (go along with or wayside).

 

Jorge Jimenez Batman 100 Mono Print sold for $6000.  I think that day is here. 

[Rick2you2]

2 hours ago, Matches_Malone said:

Is it reasonable to think a monoprint would sell for the same amount of pencil/ink piece? Why Not?  Understandably We OA collectors are instinctively inclined to make a direct comparison of the price between original pencil/ink vs an original monoprint.   It may seem like the correct approach, but I find it unfair, as they both exist in different art mediums.  This is one of the cases were technology has reinvented the art scene. Sort of the same way photography did a century ago.   Many believed that photography could not be art, because it was made by a machine rather than by human creativity. We see it different now, and we do not compare the value of a painting vs the value a photograph.   If you like it, and it if doesn’t exist and any other form…well then, the monoprint is your only option.   How much are you willing to pay is up to you. 
As for proof? It will be the same as any photographer approved photo-prints.  Photos come in a number of editions and  sizes reflected in a COA, which is approved and signed by the photographer. In this cases the COA it’s what determines provenance and if it is original, and not a reproduction.  The mono-print comes with a COA as well indicating that is 1 of 1 original print signed by the artist.  Is that enough proof?  Again, that’s up to the individual collector to decide. Make no mistake (about it), at the end of the day you are paying for provenance in the form of COA. And it seems some collectors have already come to terms with this. 
 

It isn’t just the provenance; it is the act and knowledge that something was hand drawn, and what you see is the final product, blemishes and all. Those blemishes and questionable judgements vanish on a computer, making them easier to do, along with repetitive portions. No cut and paste is possible.  On Bristol board they have to be worked over, covered over or incorporated, as originals—I think it’s tougher to do. Do the most expensive photo’s sell for the same as the most expensive paintings, or at least high end photographic works compared to comparable reputed painters (no cheating on comparable). I consider that a fairer comparison than multiple copies of a photo.