Heritage May 16 - 18 Comic Art Signature Auction - Chicago 3 3

[J.Sid]

3 hours ago, delekkerste said:

Really bad coffee stains can absolutely detract from value. At best, if the piece is good enough, these are things that people can look past. It would only be weird if bad sigs and coffee stains actually *added* value. 

Really bad coffee stains? Sounds like the exception not the rule.

Anywhere else on the planet, coffee stains would be 100% negative. Cars, furniture,books, illustration.... anything. But in our hobby people are like "it adds a certain charm. I'm sure Jack was burning the midnight oil when he drew that one..."  or "well, it's the only one in existence so if that page is the one, you simply overlook it"

[Brian Peck]

3 hours ago, delekkerste said:

Signatures don't detract from value, but badly-placed ones that evoke images of mall plaques can. 

Really bad coffee stains can absolutely detract from value. At best, if the piece is good enough, these are things that people can look past. It would only be weird if bad sigs and coffee stains actually *added* value. 

The color vs. black and white issue, on the other hand, is a quirk that is particular to our hobby, though, understandable given that it is the norm. 

Signatures can lessen the pool of buyers which could effect value. Especially in auctions.

[Brian Peck]

3 hours ago, delekkerste said:

Signatures don't detract from value, but badly-placed ones that evoke images of mall plaques can. 

Marvel Feature #2........... THORNE     

[MyNameIsLegion]

33 minutes ago, J.Sid said:

 

They almost never add to the value. They only have the potential to detract. (Frazetta being a notable exception)

again- Signatures are not the same as autographs. For most comics in the last 40-50 years there's little question who the artist is- so having it "signed" like a Picasso is unnecessary. There's no question as to whether that individual is the artist.  There's actually more question of whether or not the signature is real. Or, and this does affect our little corner of the hobby quite a bit.  The infamous John Romita signature. The D Bros have peddled more art with his signature for things he isn't credited for than anyone, and if Romita so much as farted in the same zip-code as that piece of art, it's given a significant price bump soley for the signature when there is very little evidence or documentation that Romita ever touched THAT PARTICULAR PAGE at all.  Unless a learned artist opines that something look like it was Romita's hand, (and more often than not, you need an inker's opinion) theres' really no way to say for sure. But boy howdy if Romita signed it, $$$$$$$$$$$$$$.

[tth2]

13 hours ago, delekkerste said:

14 hours ago, tth2 said:

Only comic OA collectors, who still carry over a comic collector's focus on condition, think this way.

If someone had a painting by Picasso from early in his career that was unsigned for some reason and got him to sign it decades later near his death, and assuming it was witnessed by credible witnesses so that there was no question why the paint for the signature was not the same age as the paint of the painting, and assuming that he didn't sign right in the middle of the relevant image being depicted, there is no world in which that painting would not be considered to be more valuable as a result of Picasso's signing or in which it would be considered to be somehow marred by Picasso (the artist) signing his own work. 

Sure, because he would have done it neatly and unobtrusively, in an area where you would expect him to sign a piece. If these sigs on the DPS were done in the margins, it would be a plus. But, it's 4 sigs in the art area, and 3 of the signers never touched the art except to autograph it. 

It's not a condition issue, it's about detracting from the image and cheapening the art by treating it like you would a mass produced collectible. 

There is no "margin" in fine art paintings.  Margins are something that only exist in the world of commercial art.  So technically, Picasso, Monet, etc. all signed their paintings in "the art area", but out of the main image area, just like the signatures in this piece..   

[delekkerste]

5 hours ago, tth2 said:

There is no "margin" in fine art paintings.  Margins are something that only exist in the world of commercial art.  So technically, Picasso, Monet, etc. all signed their paintings in "the art area", but out of the main image area, just like the signatures in this piece..   

A Picasso signature in an otherwise monochrome area of canvas near one of the corners of the painting <> not one, not two, not three, but FOUR signatures in varying positions, in different inks and line weights, over actual drawn art in a relatively small B&W drawing   

[delekkerste]

7 hours ago, J.Sid said:

Really bad coffee stains? Sounds like the exception not the rule.

Anywhere else on the planet, coffee stains would be 100% negative. Cars, furniture,books, illustration.... anything. But in our hobby people are like "it adds a certain charm. I'm sure Jack was burning the midnight oil when he drew that one..."  or "well, it's the only one in existence so if that page is the one, you simply overlook it"

Coffee stains are 100% negative to me, as in, there is no piece with coffee stains that has been improved or higher valued with them, IMO. The examples you cite just look like rationalizations that people make to look past them; i don't think anyone actually values the art more because of them.  

If Steve Wynn can put an elbow through a Picasso and Steve Cohen can get past that (it was repaired and sold 7 years later to Cohen for more than the pre-elbow price), I guess people can look past some minor coffee stains on OA if they have to...

Edited April 8, 2019 by delekkerste

[tth2]

2 hours ago, delekkerste said:

Coffee stains are 100% negative to me, as in, there is no piece with coffee stains that has been improved or higher valued with them, IMO. The examples you cite just look like rationalizations that people make to look past them; i don't think anyone actually values the art more because of them.  

If Steve Wynn can put an elbow through a Picasso and Steve Cohen can get past that (it was repaired and sold 7 years later to Cohen for more than the pre-elbow price), I guess people can look past some minor coffee stains on OA if they have to...

Of course.  These aren't comics where there are multiple copies and the only way to value one copy over another other is grade/condition.

Whether "Le Rêve" has a hole in it from Steve Wynn's elbow or not, it's the only "Le Rêve" in the world.  Similarly, the X-Men 137 DPS is the only one, whether there are some unobtrusive signatures on it or not.

[delekkerste]

Just now, tth2 said:

Of course.  These aren't comics where there are multiple copies and the only way to value one copy over another other is grade/condition.

Whether "Le Rêve" has a hole in it from Steve Wynn's elbow or not, it's the only "Le Rêve" in the world.  Similarly, the X-Men 137 DPS is the only one, whether there are some unobtrusive signatures on it or not.

These are obtrusive signatures that people will have to look past. I'm not saying that it's necessarily going to impact the final price (I'm expecting a healthy gain over the 2015 result), just that it's a  travesty that someone had this done to the piece in the first place. 

Though, I guess this isn't the worst idea he's had.  

[Bronty]

18 minutes ago, delekkerste said:

These are obtrusive signatures that people will have to look past. I'm not saying that it's necessarily going to impact the final price (I'm expecting a healthy gain over the 2015 result), just that it's a  travesty that someone had this done to the piece in the first place. 

Though, I guess this isn't the worst idea he's had.  

I think that anyone that wants it bad enough to spend 200k or whatever on it... they aren't going to let it stop them.    Anyone that lets those signatures stop them probably wasn't going to win in the first place.    Yes that's based on no facts or research but you know how it is... the winner on big pieces usually doesn't need any encouragement and usually won't be dissuaded either

As for the link, come again?    Who's the owner then?   Are you saying it was owned by his former manager?

Edited April 8, 2019 by Bronty

[Bronty]

16 minutes ago, delekkerste said:

These are obtrusive signatures that people will have to look past. I'm not saying that it's necessarily going to impact the final price (I'm expecting a healthy gain over the 2015 result), just that it's a  travesty that someone had this done to the piece in the first place. 

Though, I guess this isn't the worst idea he's had.  

Happy Endings for nonagenarian Lee?   Oh my!    By the Hairy Hosts of Hoggoth indeed!

Edited April 8, 2019 by Bronty

[delekkerste]

7 minutes ago, Bronty said:

As for the link, come again?    Who's the owner then?

OA Collector Extraordinaire  

At least this is what I have heard from at least 3 different sources...  

Edited April 8, 2019 by delekkerste

[Bronty]

1 minute ago, delekkerste said:

OA Collector Extraordinaire  

At least this is what I have heard from at least 3 different sources...  

Huh.   

[Bronty]

2 minutes ago, delekkerste said:

OA Collector Extraordinaire  

At least this is what I have heard from at least 3 different sources...  

This explains the signatures, and explains a bit of your disgust with the whole thing

[delekkerste]

Just now, Bronty said:

This explains the signatures, and explains a bit of your disgust with the whole thing

A very good UXM #136 page is also on the block, as is an X-Men-less (only Xavier and Lilandra) page from #137. 

[PhilipB2k17]

14 hours ago, delekkerste said:

Signatures don't detract from value, but badly-placed ones that evoke images of mall plaques can. 

Really bad coffee stains can absolutely detract from value. At best, if the piece is good enough, these are things that people can look past. It would only be weird if bad sigs and coffee stains actually *added* value. 

The color vs. black and white issue, on the other hand, is a quirk that is particular to our hobby, though, understandable given that it is the norm. 

What if the art was originally painted in color? Why would that be worth less?

[Bronty]

3 minutes ago, PhilipB2k17 said:

What if the art was originally painted in color? Why would that be worth less?

Comic collectors don't understand paintings for .. "mess."    Comic artists are also generally "messy" painters when they paint at all (often "painted" comic art is just line art with watercolor - not really a painting per se but an inked illustration colored with paint - very different process).

Basically, the collectors don't understand it, and the artists generally suck at it, because B&W is the norm.    

Edited April 8, 2019 by Bronty

[PhilipB2k17]

2 minutes ago, Bronty said:

Comic collectors don't understand paintings for .. "mess."    Comic artists are also generally "messy" painters when they paint at all (often "painted" comic art is just line art with watercolor - not really a painting per se).

Basically, the collectors don't understand it, and the artists generally suck at it, because B&W is the norm.    

Depends on the artist. This Cover to Grumble by Farel Dalrymple is great.

 

[delekkerste]

14 minutes ago, PhilipB2k17 said:

What if the art was originally painted in color? Why would that be worth less?

It's more nuanced than that. Obviously, Frazetta is known primarily for his paperback, magazine, movie poster, etc. images painted in (full color) oils, so, that is what people covet the most. There are probably second-tier oils worth as much as his best B&W Famous Funnies/WSF (B&W) covers.  All of Alex Ross' finished artwork is color - if he started doing B&W pen & ink work, it wouldn't be worth as much.  James Jean is known for his (full color) paintings, and so they go for more than his pencil-only, pen & ink or mixed media work, generally speaking.

You have to find a true apples-to-apples comparison. I can think of one data point - the Jim Lee/Scott Williams/Joe Chiodo X-Men Marvel Press Poster (#108, "Grounded") which was also used as the cover of the "X-Men: Mutant Genesis" TPB. This was done originally in pen & ink, and Chiodo applied colors directly onto the board.  It looks fantastic in person (I used to own it) - it really captures that era of the X-Men better in color than it does in B&W, as all of those characters' costumes were very much associated with certain color schemes.  

Anyway, it is a fantastic, full-team image, published at least twice.  I'm not going to put a number on its value, but, I think most in-the-know people would probably say that it would be worth even more in B&W than color, because no serious OA collector will have a problem with B&W, but color may limit the pool of potential buyers at any given price point.  

One well-known collector and active Boardie explained it to me once this way:  "Ours is a black & white hobby".  Obviously there are exceptions, but they are exceptions that prove the rule. 

Edited April 8, 2019 by delekkerste

[Bronty]

19 minutes ago, PhilipB2k17 said:

Depends on the artist. This Cover to Grumble by Farel Dalrymple is great.

 

 

That's very nicely done, its lovely.    But comic artists generally suck at painting.    Drawing in b&w or in pencil is their forte.     Even on this lovely piece, its on display.   Its not hard to see the artist drew directly onto the board (see edges) and then applied a thin layer of watercolor or goauche perhaps.    Lovely work, and so on, but its a twist on what I was referring to earlier.   In spirit, more of a colored drawing than a painting.   Outlines filled in with paint, coloring book style.   Particularly obvious on the buildings at the top.   Now, she's skillful enough that I don't mean that in any negative way.   But the point is... drawing not painting is really what they do best.     Look at a boris, or a frazetta.    Those are fully realized in paint.   Not outlines that they've colored in.

Edited April 8, 2019 by Bronty