• When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.

Ratio of published to unpublished OA in your collection
1 1

36 posts in this topic

About 2:1 for me.  Have found if I love a piece, I don't care about its status re: publication. 

I've only personally commissioned one piece to date, but I enjoy collecting them for certain artists and appreciate their cost-effectiveness.  

I used to think I wasn't a fan of OA that was intended to be published but never made it for one reason or another; later realized that this sometimes happens with wonderful art.

Edited by exitmusicblue
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't have numbers but I know my collection skewed heavily toward unpublished in the first phase or two of the hobby and is now on the opposite ratio. It may be in the 50/50 range, maybe +/- 10%

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm very much skewed to the published  side. 99%.  In my 20 years of collecting I  personally commissioned one piece,  and only because it was part of  a charity event. 
I might have acquired 2 finished unpublished pieces at some point.  They didn't stay long in my collection  As they did not have  what I consider the attractive part of Collecting Original comic art.
I started collecting Original comic Art because I could see the published printed version of it,  and the appeal of owning the original of it. Besides the cost effectiveness, I never understood collecting unpublished or commission pieces.  I rather save the funds for a publish piece.
If cost was the factor, I would much rather go the route of prelims, as they would reflect and resemble the final version of the publish piece.  
 
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Published vs. unpublished doesn't mean as much as it used to, in terms of visibility. Thanks to social media. For example, an unpublished drawing of a popular subject posted to Instagram can be seen by more fans than many published covers (especially variant covers), which are really only seen by those who frequent comic shops. So the distinction doesn't always matter as much now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Nexus said:

Published vs. unpublished doesn't mean as much as it used to, in terms of visibility. Thanks to social media. For example, an unpublished drawing of a popular subject posted to Instagram can be seen by more fans than many published covers (especially variant covers), which are really only seen by those who frequent comic shops. So the distinction doesn't always matter as much now.

That's true.....

Unpublished:

731428706_jokertw.jpg.6cf82b55721822e1b73aa990e2f66b34.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Nexus said:

Published vs. unpublished doesn't mean as much as it used to, in terms of visibility. Thanks to social media. For example, an unpublished drawing of a popular subject posted to Instagram can be seen by more fans than many published covers (especially variant covers), which are really only seen by those who frequent comic shops. So the distinction doesn't always matter as much now.

If we logic that out one step further though, that variant cover - also on social media - can get the same clicks  as the unpublished drawing - and isn't published always more desirable than unpublished (the way a regular cover is more desirable than a variant?) 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Stefanomjr said:

If we logic that out one step further though, that variant cover - also on social media - can get the same clicks  as the unpublished drawing - and isn't published always more desirable than unpublished (the way a regular cover is more desirable than a variant?) 

Well, what I mean is while it's always been knee-jerk published > unpublished, these days, I wouldn't say a published variant Captain Carrot cover will be valued higher than a popular unpublished Batman drawing that got seen by 100X as many eyeballs on Instagram.

(I rep a guy who actually just did a CAPTAIN CARROT cover. I will be able to get more for his unpublished Batman drawing.)

Otherwise, a published X cover, variant or not, will in almost every case be valued higher than an unpublished drawing of the same subject.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, Nexus said:

Published vs. unpublished doesn't mean as much as it used to, in terms of visibility. Thanks to social media. For example, an unpublished drawing of a popular subject posted to Instagram can be seen by more fans than many published covers (especially variant covers), which are really only seen by those who frequent comic shops. So the distinction doesn't always matter as much now.

I don't agree with your definition. I have worked in the publishing world in one form or another since college. Publishing for me is to bring a work (a book, journal, piece of music, or other work) before the public for sale. The sale part is what distinguishes it from just posting online like in CAF or social media, collectors are not posting them to make money but to share.

Back to the original question. My collection is weighted towards published art, would say 6:1. I have over 100 iPod pieces, have some other commissions and a few prelims.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

only unpublished stuff I have are some convention sketches (like the $20-50 variety). 

I've probably got 60 OA pages and about 6 con sketches.

The 10:1 ratio would definitely balloon if it was a ratio of dollars spent. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

80:20 Published to Unpublished, and it's only that high because I'm considering the storyboards and production work for movies/TV shows I own as "unpublished".  The other unpublished stuff I have are high end sketches from Artists I like (Neal Adams and Erik Larson) along with a commission I had done from one of our own, which I absolutely love.

15280197006_dad537ac59_h.jpg

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Brian Peck said:

I don't agree with your definition. I have worked in the publishing world in one form or another since college. Publishing for me is to bring a work (a book, journal, piece of music, or other work) before the public for sale. The sale part is what distinguishes it from just posting online like in CAF or social media, collectors are not posting them to make money but to share.

Back to the original question. My collection is weighted towards published art, would say 6:1. I have over 100 iPod pieces, have some other commissions and a few prelims.

Given the amount of digital media, blogs, online comics, and virtual publications out there it may be time to expand the definition beyond traditional means of bringing creations before the public and certainly to expand it beyond normal transaction (one copy for one fee) parameters. 

Making a buck, or wanting to, has never really been the dividing line between something being published and unpublished...Common Sense by Paine started as a series of letters with no eye towards sale long before it was ever collected and sold. It was just a desire on his part to get his ideas out there by any means possible. Imagine if he'd had the internet. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14:1 ratio Published to Unpublished.

For anyone who wants to get even more crazy dissecting their collection, I'll ask this question:

What is the ratio of art in your collection that you know you are the sole collector to have owned (in other words art you purchased from the artist or through the art rep) vs. art that has moved through other collectors hands? For me it's about 3:1 Previously Owned to Sole Ownership.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

stuff framed and on the walls 22 published - 9 unpublished. That changes to 21/10 if you discount the prelim published in the back on an omnibus only. So almost 2:1, which surprises me as I think the stuff in the Itoyas is the opposite. Boy did I like con sketches and commissions for a long time...what was I thinking? (I know what I was thinking, it was getting artists I liked to draw what I wanted and not what was dictated by their jobs but that was not the way to go with 20/20 hindsight. Although it was groovy seeing 100 artists versions of Dr Strange but I wish I had purchased a Brunner cover or a Ditko page instead with that cash at the time.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, CartoonFanboy said:

14:1 ratio Published to Unpublished.

For anyone who wants to get even more crazy dissecting their collection, I'll ask this question:

What is the ratio of art in your collection that you know you are the sole collector to have owned (in other words art you purchased from the artist or through the art rep) vs. art that has moved through other collectors hands? For me it's about 3:1 Previously Owned to Sole Ownership.

Since my tastes run to comic art from the 80s and earlier with some newer art. I Would say 4:1 Previously Owned to Sole Ownership but that includes alot of commissions, non-comic art (pinups, rock art etc). I have bought some pre 90s artwork directly from the artists but mostly thru collectors and dealers. When I started out in the late 80s til the late 90s. I had limited access to many artists, since I live on the left coast.

 

 

Edited by Brian Peck
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Probably 8 published for every unpublished one. Although I also have a few pages intended for publication which never made it and some prelim's I don't count.

To answer this question:

9 hours ago, Matches_Malone said:

Besides the cost effectiveness, I never understood collecting unpublished or commission pieces.  I rather save the funds for a publish piece.

There are three reasons for me. First, there are artists who I specifically want to draw a Phantom Stranger image which otherwise would not exist. Second, I can't find one for sale, but I can find the artist. Third, I want a specific scene or variation which isn't in the market, like two characters sharing a beer at a bar, or Amy Reeder sketching my girlfriend, that sort of thing. 

But no, I would not ask the regular artist on a Batman book, for example, to draw a Batman.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Bird said:

stuff framed and on the walls 22 published - 9 unpublished. That changes to 21/10 if you discount the prelim published in the back on an omnibus only. So almost 2:1, which surprises me as I think the stuff in the Itoyas is the opposite. Boy did I like con sketches and commissions for a long time...what was I thinking? (I know what I was thinking, it was getting artists I liked to draw what I wanted and not what was dictated by their jobs but that was not the way to go with 20/20 hindsight. Although it was groovy seeing 100 artists versions of Dr Strange but I wish I had purchased a Brunner cover or a Ditko page instead with that cash at the time.)

About Dr. Strange--only in retrospect. At the time you bought them, I bet they were worth it to you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Rick2you2 said:

About Dr. Strange--only in retrospect. At the time you bought them, I bet they were worth it to you.

Correct I said it was groovy

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My collection is 100% published.

I think the reason for this is that I collect the pages more as a piece/momento of the narrative and story of the comic, than for the art alone. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
1 1