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

[comix4fun]

7 minutes ago, tth2 said:

This is an abomination, but it's also totally different from the X-Men page, unless there are signatures from Hugh Jackman and other members of the cast of the X-Men movies that I didn't notice.

It is totally different. 

Arnie in GIANT blue sharpie along the bottom 1/4 of a Conan cover = Abomination

Adding 4-5 sigs (in the last couple of years) to the bottom of a landmark six-figure X-men piece (that survived for 30+ years without them) that are relatively unobtrusive = ill-advised and not particularly well thought out.

People tolerate signatures in the art area that were added 20-25-30 years ago given that there's not much they can do about it now, that it happened when perhaps the significance of the piece (like the 137) didn't have the same gravity on the hobby and when they certainly weren't as revered or valuable. People don't show the spirit of preservation and stewardship of the art when they add signatures to a piece like this, basically today, when it's survived this long without them and when almost none of the signatures added have anything to do with the pencils and inks on the piece itself. 

So the reaction to seeing an old sig in the art area of a piece where the sig was done in the 80's etc. is going to be different than when someone buys a piece at auction today and decides they are going to "enhance" it with several more signatures in the art area. 

[MyNameIsLegion]

this is Burkey's fault....him and his ubiquitous blue sharpie....

 

 

 

 

[J.Sid]

14 minutes ago, comix4fun said:

There are lots of things that 99% of the planet would think are cool, or great, or works, and they'd still be wrong.  

 

Unsigned, what would that one have sold for? 

Will it affect the value? Maybe slightly. I think there will still be 2 bidders undeterred by the sig.

Look, I wouldn't have had it done, but this outrage is silly. 

[comix4fun]

2 minutes ago, J.Sid said:

Unsigned, what would that one have sold for? 

Will it affect the value? Maybe slightly. I think there will still be 2 bidders undeterred by the sig.

Look, I wouldn't have had it done, but this outrage is silly. 

The Conan Cover? I didn't realize it was up for sale. Whomever posted it here just mentioned it was signed at a convention last year.

It's not outrage. It's incredulity that someone could have enough knowledge and appreciation to seek out, acquire, and own a piece of original art to something, unique and one of a kind, and SIMULTANEOUSLY demonstrate zero knowledge and a complete lack of appreciation that something is a piece of original art, unique and one of a kind. 

Of folks that are in the market for original art, know what OA is, and have the level of involvement in the hobby to the point that they'd be spending enough to acquire such a cover, (the people we're talking about doing the bidding if it were to go on the block) aren't the folks who would sluff off a 3 inch high 10 inch long blue sharpie signature directly in the art/image area as no biggie. I'm not talking about prints and posters crowd paying $1k for a $500 signature on a $3 poster. I am talking about the OA people who do the heavy lifting with the bidding panel on pieces such as this. 

[batman_fan]

Does anyone else think this piece could benefit from a lot of signatures?

[Eelco]

1 hour ago, comix4fun said:

It is totally different. 

Arnie in GIANT blue sharpie along the bottom 1/4 of a Conan cover = Abomination

Adding 4-5 sigs (in the last couple of years) to the bottom of a landmark six-figure X-men piece (that survived for 30+ years without them) that are relatively unobtrusive = ill-advised and not particularly well thought out.

People tolerate signatures in the art area that were added 20-25-30 years ago given that there's not much they can do about it now, that it happened when perhaps the significance of the piece (like the 137) didn't have the same gravity on the hobby and when they certainly weren't as revered or valuable. People don't show the spirit of preservation and stewardship of the art when they add signatures to a piece like this, basically today, when it's survived this long without them and when almost none of the signatures added have anything to do with the pencils and inks on the piece itself. 

So the reaction to seeing an old sig in the art area of a piece where the sig was done in the 80's etc. is going to be different than when someone buys a piece at auction today and decides they are going to "enhance" it with several more signatures in the art area. 

Exactly looking at the X-Men 137 I feel it is a shame they were added in the past couple of years.  

[Matches_Malone]

4 hours ago, tth2 said:

12 hours ago, delekkerste said:

I already know one major collector/potential bidder who says the sigs may be a dealbreaker for him.  So there! 

Cool, maybe I'll end up inadvertently winning it if collectors continue to obsess over completely immaterial things.

If the sigs on the Byrne piece are a deal breaker, then the potential bidder  wasn’t  truly interested in the  first place. IMO most collectors will look pass this kind of Sigs for high caliber OA.

The Conan piece with Arnie’s  blue sharpie sig it’s a whole different story.

Over/Under $12.5k?
 

[Carlo M]

51 minutes ago, Matches_Malone said:

If the sigs on the Byrne piece are a deal breaker, then the potential bidder  wasn’t  truly interested in the  first place. IMO most collectors will look pass this kind of Sigs for high caliber OA.

The Conan piece with Arnie’s  blue sharpie sig it’s a whole different story.

Over/Under $12.5k?
 

I had another good look at the UXM 137 DPS.  The piece is stellar, no doubt about it.  The signatures are truly unfortunate, but they are hardly distracting.  I would not change my bid by one single dollar because of the signatures, either way (up or down).  Let's look at it from a positive angle - the placement of the signatures could have been much much worse...

[Bronty]

5 hours ago, batman_fan said:

Does anyone else think this piece could benefit from a lot of signatures?

Step1, find giant fish with bizarre wings/fins.     Step 2, swim out to it, and find a way to ride its back underwater.   Step 3, when the fish decides to fly, strike a pose without the violent flying or leaping effecting your balance.    Make sure your hair is already dry.   

Seems plausible

Edited April 7, 2019 by Bronty

[Rick2you2]

31 minutes ago, Bronty said:

Step1, find giant fish with bizarre wings/fins.     Step 2, swim out to it, and find a way to ride its back underwater.   Step 3, when the fish decides to fly, strike a pose without the violent flying or leaping effecting your balance.    Make sure your hair is already dry.   

Seems plausible

It looks like an oversized Sea Robin (below), which incidentally, also has legs and is quite common:

[PhilipB2k17]

7 hours ago, comix4fun said:

It is totally different. 

Arnie in GIANT blue sharpie along the bottom 1/4 of a Conan cover = Abomination

Adding 4-5 sigs (in the last couple of years) to the bottom of a landmark six-figure X-men piece (that survived for 30+ years without them) that are relatively unobtrusive = ill-advised and not particularly well thought out.

People tolerate signatures in the art area that were added 20-25-30 years ago given that there's not much they can do about it now, that it happened when perhaps the significance of the piece (like the 137) didn't have the same gravity on the hobby and when they certainly weren't as revered or valuable. People don't show the spirit of preservation and stewardship of the art when they add signatures to a piece like this, basically today, when it's survived this long without them and when almost none of the signatures added have anything to do with the pencils and inks on the piece itself. 

So the reaction to seeing an old sig in the art area of a piece where the sig was done in the 80's etc. is going to be different than when someone buys a piece at auction today and decides they are going to "enhance" it with several more signatures in the art area. 

Yep. I have a Sal Buscema page that he signed in the art (although in a decent spot), 25 years ago. 

[PhilipB2k17]

3 hours ago, Carlo M said:

I had another good look at the UXM 137 DPS.  The piece is stellar, no doubt about it.  The signatures are truly unfortunate, but they are hardly distracting.  I would not change my bid by one single dollar because of the signatures, either way (up or down).  Let's look at it from a positive angle - the placement of the signatures could have been much much worse...

Those signatures won’t hurt its price at all. It’s stellar. 

[PhilipB2k17]

7 hours ago, J.Sid said:

Unsigned, what would that one have sold for? 

Will it affect the value? Maybe slightly. I think there will still be 2 bidders undeterred by the sig.

Look, I wouldn't have had it done, but this outrage is silly. 

It won’t go for the same price as it otherwise would have. The Irony is that an Arnold Sig tastefully in the margins or on the back (not in blue sharpie) might actually have benefitted the piece. 

Edited April 7, 2019 by PhilipB2k17

[PhilipB2k17]

On 4/1/2019 at 1:19 AM, tth2 said:

Yes, exactly! 

Have any of Dean's album covers been sold on the market?  I would imagine the Yes covers and the above Asia cover would command some insane prices.  

I’d love to own one of the Asia covers. 

[PhilipB2k17]

On 3/21/2019 at 8:26 AM, The Cimmerians Purse said:

Maybe not fine art market ... but it does transcend comic nerdom for sure. And that'll make it go big. 

 

I just hope a nerd gets it 

Well, Saddam Hussein was a big Rowena fan. 😂

[comix4fun]

5 hours ago, Matches_Malone said:

If the sigs on the Byrne piece are a deal breaker, then the potential bidder  wasn’t  truly interested in the  first place. IMO most collectors will look pass this kind of Sigs for high caliber OA.

The Conan piece with Arnie’s  blue sharpie sig it’s a whole different story.

Over/Under $12.5k?
 

I tend to agree. My annoyance over the new sigs in the art area on the 137 are pretty much that, annoyance. And it’s not so much with the art itself as with the poor stewardship of the person who acquired it, in failing to preserve it as it was. The only good decision he made was to pull the sharpie out of Stan’s hand and give him a ballpoint to keep this from being a disaster of Arnie-proportions. 

It may not impact the final number because the damage was minimized by placement, but it’s impossible to ignore, understand, or excuse that decision. 

[jjonahjameson11]

Just catching up on this thread and I can’t believe the amount of posts over signature placement on a $100K + piece.  I’m certain the new owner will be able to afford a couple hundred dollars to remove the sigs, if they bother him that much.  

Next item, please!?! 

Edited April 7, 2019 by jjonahjameson11

[tth2]

9 hours ago, comix4fun said:

It is totally different. 

Arnie in GIANT blue sharpie along the bottom 1/4 of a Conan cover = Abomination

Adding 4-5 sigs (in the last couple of years) to the bottom of a landmark six-figure X-men piece (that survived for 30+ years without them) that are relatively unobtrusive = ill-advised and not particularly well thought out.

People tolerate signatures in the art area that were added 20-25-30 years ago given that there's not much they can do about it now, that it happened when perhaps the significance of the piece (like the 137) didn't have the same gravity on the hobby and when they certainly weren't as revered or valuable. People don't show the spirit of preservation and stewardship of the art when they add signatures to a piece like this, basically today, when it's survived this long without them and when almost none of the signatures added have anything to do with the pencils and inks on the piece itself. 

So the reaction to seeing an old sig in the art area of a piece where the sig was done in the 80's etc. is going to be different than when someone buys a piece at auction today and decides they are going to "enhance" it with several more signatures in the art area. 

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. 

[tth2]

8 hours ago, batman_fan said:

Does anyone else think this piece could benefit from a lot of signatures?

Only if the signature took the form of a big red X all across the painting.

[delekkerste]

55 minutes 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. 

Edited April 7, 2019 by delekkerste