HA February Auction 6 6

[tth2]

2 hours ago, cstojano said:

2 hours ago, aokartman said:

"The board has been affixed to a larger illustration board with a recreation of the header/logo added to the top."

While it is just a sidebar in the description, and this is a unique classic example, here is a case of restoration which will be interesting to follow.  David

I don't know to make of this. The whiteout (or whatever they used back then) suggested to me something of the period done during the production process. Same with the mounting on another board. Curious how others read this.

Clearly it's now toxic waste that all self-respecting OA collectors should stay away from.

[cstojano]

49 minutes ago, tth2 said:

Clearly it's now toxic waste that all self-respecting OA collectors should stay away from.

Yeah, of course, we all know that  I have been tempted to post my ranked list of Frazetta FF covers (this isn't my #1, not that it matters because I can't afford any of them)

[Bronty]

11 hours ago, tth2 said:

I could not care less about restoration to a header/logo.

But I hope it's a deal breaker for other collectors. 

well what it sounds like to me is that the small square of art existed as a cut piece, the way it does with certain era Archie covers.   Then they glued that cut piece onto a whole board for presentation since a cut piece makes the whole thing look small and unloveable.   Wouldn't bother me too much, but it is more than just resto to a logo.     I'm not in the market for six figure pieces anyways but that's my 2c.

[Bronty]

11 hours ago, tth2 said:

Clearly it's now toxic waste that all self-respecting OA collectors should stay away from.

No need to be dramatic?   Which would you prefer?  that it was one piece, or that it was assembled like this?   Obviously its still very, very desirable and valuable either way.   We are just talking about the last bit of value at the margins here, which is what condition issues generally amount to with OA, at least in my mind.

[Bronty]

11 hours ago, tth2 said:

I could not care less about restoration to a header/logo.

But I hope it's a deal breaker for other collectors. 

Halfway sounds like you want to bid on it

If so, good luck!

[Weird Paper]

It's a great piece and should pull in $150-$300K or more. That said, and not to denigrate this cover at all, but it is, arguably, the weakest of the Frazetta FF covers. I mean, if you had to rank them top to bottom, keeping in mind that it's like pointing out the weakest team ever to win a Super Bowl.

[vodou]

2 hours ago, Weird Paper said:

It's a great piece and should pull in $150-$300K or more. That said, and not to denigrate this cover at all, but it is, arguably, the weakest of the Frazetta FF covers. I mean, if you had to rank them top to bottom, keeping in mind that it's like pointing out the weakest team ever to win a Super Bowl.

Just to put another number on it, I'm guessing $500k all in. Just a dummy guess no, based on nothing but gut

[Bronty]

I agree.   The way nice Frazetta pieces have been selling 300 would be low IMO.

[aokartman]

It does seem like a nice opportunity for a collector who would like to downsize their stash and concentrate on single, top shelf pieces for whatever reason.  Or a nouveau riche with fondness for everything this cover represents.  The cover has enough crossover collectibility to be considered blue chip for a variety of collectors, including investors in fine art, even (perhaps). 

Spoken from someone who is downsizing, but not even close to being a player on this piece, so please don't take offense from my peanut gallery remarks.

David

 

[artcollector9]

kind of surprised or confused about some of the negative comments on the Frazetta piece re: new logo? The piece has been conserved and the logo and attending type gives the art the proper context (i.e. it's a comic book cover not just a fine illustration). Weakest? On the contrary, It's close up and beautiful figures make it one of the best of the run- (not that any of them are a dog!) 

This is the top of the hobby.  Frazetta is the finest illustrator of the second half of the 20th century ...hes in the same league as Parrish and Rockwell... Frazetta did precious little comic work and these covers are among the finest art ever created in comics, period. The Sci-Fic genre is perfect for Frank and the love he had for it shows. 

I think this is 500K or so...I'd rather have this at $600K than Death Dealer 5 for $1.8 Mil!

Edited December 6, 2018 by artcollector9

[romitaman]

13 hours ago, Weird Paper said:

It's a great piece and should pull in $150-$300K or more. That said, and not to denigrate this cover at all, but it is, arguably, the weakest of the Frazetta FF covers. I mean, if you had to rank them top to bottom, keeping in mind that it's like pointing out the weakest team ever to win a Super Bowl.

way...WAY HIGHER it will sell for.

[Unca Ben]

16 minutes ago, romitaman said:

way...WAY HIGHER it will sell for.

Mike channeling Yoda  

[BCarter27]

I've always been kind of lukewarm about the Famous Funnies covers. I guess I'm more of a Canaveral guy. Still, beautiful brushwork here.

[BCarter27]

23 hours ago, artcollector9 said:

Frazetta is the finest illustrator of the second half of the 20th century ...hes in the same league as Parrish and Rockwell...

Now, that's a statement worthy of further discussion! 

Parrish, Rockwell, and Wyeth were (mostly) pre-1950. And in terms of weekly or monthly readership there is a long laundry list of other illustrators whose fame in their time would dwarf Frazetta's.

In terms of today's values, Frazetta chases Wyeth and Parrish by a fairly sizable gap. Yes, Frazetta has some nice seven-figure sales, but I think the other two have a lot more six-figure sales and a higher floor overall.

Just focusing on post-1950, Frazetta might be the clear winner in terms of today's values. Nagel second? Bob Peak or Drew Struzan third?

But even staying with post-1950, I'm not sure I would call him the "finest". That's a pretty subjective word (see "fine art"). Dynamic and exciting, definitely. Trend-setting... yes, but only in fantasy art. He didn't have the crossover impact of someone like Nagel, Dave McKean, or Android Jones into other areas of illustration and design. I think his movie poster art followed the existing 60s camp/goofy trend (but obviously was still recognizably Frazetta) while Peak struck out on his own.

But dayum I love some Franzonis! Easily the most masculine illustrator of all time.

And yet his content is what keeps him out of the bigger, mainstream institutions, which would drive up his pricing.

 

Edited December 7, 2018 by BCarter27

[Brian Peck]

2 minutes ago, BCarter27 said:

Now, that's a statement worthy of further discussion! 

Parrish, Rockwell, and Wyeth were (mostly) pre-1950. And in terms of weekly or monthly readership there is a long laundry list of other illustrators whose fame in their time would dwarf Frazetta's.

In terms of today's values, Frazetta chases Wyeth and Parrish by a fairly sizable gap. Yes, Frazetta has some nice seven-figure sales, but I think the other two have a lot more six-figure sales and a higher floor overall.

Just focusing on post-1950, Frazetta might be the clear winner in terms of today's values. Nagel second? Bob Peak or Drew Struzan third?

But even staying with post-1950, I'm not sure I would call him the "finest". That's a pretty subjective word (see "fine art"). Dynamic and exciting, definitely. Trend-setting... yes, but only in fantasy art. He didn't have the crossover impact of someone like Nagel, Dave McKean, or Android Jones into other areas of illustration and design. I think his movie poster art followed the existing 60s camp/goofy trend (but obviously was still recognizably Frazetta) while Peak struck out on his own.

But dayum I love some Franzonis! Easily the most masculine illustrator of all time.

But his content is what keeps him out of the bigger, mainstream institutions that would drive up his pricing.

 

While I like Nagel, I would not call him an illustrator. His work was more design than illustration.

[BCarter27]

16 minutes ago, Brian Peck said:

While I like Nagel, I would not call him an illustrator. His work was more design than illustration.

I would counter by saying he's still a commercial illustrator; he's just more graphic than illustrative or painterly.

Edited December 7, 2018 by BCarter27

[Bronty]

30 minutes ago, BCarter27 said:

 

Just focusing on post-1950, Frazetta might be the clear winner in terms of today's values. Nagel second? Bob Peak or Drew Struzan third?

 

 

I think you'd also have to limit it to North America. 

I don't think Peak is in the conversation, personally.   Lots of Peaks aren't really worth all that much.   

Nagels and Struzans... meh.    They have good value but so do Kirby and Ditko and lots of other comic and non-comic artists.   

At the end of the day for stuff post 1950 its more about subject matter than anything.

[BCarter27]

17 hours ago, Bronty said:

I think you'd also have to limit it to North America. 

I don't think Peak is in the conversation, personally.   Lots of Peaks aren't really worth all that much.   

Nagels and Struzans... meh.    They have good value but so do Kirby and Ditko and lots of other comic and non-comic artists.   

At the end of the day for stuff post 1950 its more about subject matter than anything.

Any other high-value post-1950 illustrators come to mind? (non-comics) Who are we missing? I'd have to take a closer look at prices, but maybe Boris or Whelan are higher value than Peak (although not as in the public mind because of Peak's movie posters.)

[delekkerste]

19 minutes ago, BCarter27 said:

Any other high-value post-1950 illustrators come to mind? (non-comics) Who are we missing? I'd have to take a closer look at prices, but maybe Boris or Whelan are higher value than Peak (although not as in the public mind because of Peak's movie posters.)

I'm struggling to think of a non-comics illustrator who's works are more valuable than Frazetta post-1950, but, would he top a list for critical reception, popularity, influence, etc.? 

My vote would probably go to Robert McGinnis. To me, he is the quintessential illustrator of the post-1950 period.  

[GreatEscape]

Based on auction results, the most valuable non-comics illustrator is arguably Andy Warhol.  Perhaps more famous for silkscreen pop-art, Warhol was also a prolific illustrator with paintings, pen and ink drawings, watercolor pieces in the thousands.  In fact, his signature piece-- a set of 32 Campbell Soup Cans-- are paintings that have become pop icons (not unlike Frazetta) and not close to being his most valuable.  Several of his pieces have fetched up to $100 million.  A simple "Banana" colored pencils drawing for the cover of The Velvet Underground is one of the most recognized pieces of pop artwork.

The Warhol estate auctions 10-12 pieces per year to benefit the estate and the Warhol foundation...I'm told their inventory still numbers "a couple of thousand" pieces    and want to avoid flooding the market to protect market value for all the museums and Warhol collectors. 

By the way, I'm reading a fascinating book on Contemporary Art market which I find many similarities to OA market....highly recommended!