August HA Auction 1 1

[Matches_Malone]

Sal Buscema Captain America #137 ...$96K ....Jeeezus!!!!

[artdealer]

8 hours ago, zhamlau said:

Ouch I took a bath on that Michael golden avengers annual 10 page. Lost so much on that page that it eliminated all profit I made off the larger deal I made to get it. Damn...

Next time, consign to me!

[drdroom]

Sal's work on these two covers is so completely unmarked by any sort of interest, originality, or finesse that I wonder if that's not actually an advantage of his work for character-based collectors? Isn't this work sort of the pure distillation of "How to Draw Comics the Marvel Way"? –a natural progression in which John B. stripped out the plastic originality of Kirby, and then Sal B. stripped out the figure artistry of John, to arrive at these pure corporate ideograms of the valued superhero characters? In other words, there's almost no artist getting in between you and the idea of "Iron Man" or "Dr Strange."

[tth2]

1 hour ago, drdroom said:

Isn't this work sort of the pure distillation of "How to Draw Comics the Marvel Way"? –a natural progression in which John B. stripped out the plastic originality of Kirby, and then Sal B. stripped out the figure artistry of John, to arrive at these pure corporate ideograms of the valued superhero characters? In other words, there's almost no artist getting in between you and the idea of "Iron Man" or "Dr Strange."

[zhamlau]

5 hours ago, adamstrange said:

Russ Heath, Joe Kubert and, last but not least, Will Eisner.

Will Eisner was only doing his own work, and was a shadow of his former self. Russ Heath the same (pains me to admit it)....but i think Joe Kubert comes close. His style was so strong he could only really make his work happen though. Sal was the catch all inker for a lot of folks.

 

Did some catch up review. Sal was working on large name material as an artist appropriate for the job from 1968-2018. Granted many jobs he has done in the last 5-10 years have had a nostalgic component, but he was still doing issue inking up to last year. His window of main stream character/company/title work is 50 years. That surpasses all three listed (each a giant in the field) in terms of them producing marketable high quality work and not just getting work due to the nostalgic draw. 

None of the three can say that, Sal holds that spot alone...also If the only way to combat someone saying an artist is top 5 all time...is to bring up other guys who also could be on that list as being of equal qualifications...I think helps out the argument I’m making.

 

I stand by top 5 greatest American comic book artist.

Edited August 3, 2019 by zhamlau

[zhamlau]

1 hour ago, drdroom said:

Sal's work on these two covers is so completely unmarked by any sort of interest, originality, or finesse that I wonder if that's not actually an advantage of his work for character-based collectors? Isn't this work sort of the pure distillation of "How to Draw Comics the Marvel Way"? –a natural progression in which John B. stripped out the plastic originality of Kirby, and then Sal B. stripped out the figure artistry of John, to arrive at these pure corporate ideograms of the valued superhero characters? In other words, there's almost no artist getting in between you and the idea of "Iron Man" or "Dr Strange."

Completely disagree. Having a purity of form and intent in a visual narrative medium like comics isn’t some failure of the creator. What you call distilled and without grace, I call clean and distinctive to his own style and ability. You can hate one the process that got there but you can’t deny the technical and layout strength of the work...well you can since it’s all opinion, but I and many others would disagree.

[Ricksneatstuff]

On 8/1/2019 at 7:03 PM, batman_fan said:

+1, What the heck happened?

I predicted 80 on that. I think that is a classic 50’s Sunday.  I was willing to go up to 50 including BP but it went for $62,500 plus BP in the auction but this is the result that is showing on site. 

Edited August 3, 2019 by Ricksneatstuff

[batman_fan]

10 minutes ago, Ricksneatstuff said:

I predicted 80 on that. I think that is a classic 50’s Sunday.  I was willing to go up to 50 including BP but it went for $62,500 plus BP in the auction but this is the result that is showing on site. 

I am certain (but getting senile) that the origin hammer was $80k.  I remember distinctly because I had to drive home from work and change my underwear.  Something changed between the final hammer and the updated price.

Edited August 3, 2019 by batman_fan

[stinkininkin]

2 hours ago, drdroom said:

Sal's work on these two covers is so completely unmarked by any sort of interest, originality, or finesse that I wonder if that's not actually an advantage of his work for character-based collectors? Isn't this work sort of the pure distillation of "How to Draw Comics the Marvel Way"? –a natural progression in which John B. stripped out the plastic originality of Kirby, and then Sal B. stripped out the figure artistry of John, to arrive at these pure corporate ideograms of the valued superhero characters? In other words, there's almost no artist getting in between you and the idea of "Iron Man" or "Dr Strange."

That's a pretty good description!  Hard to disagree.

[comix4fun]

37 minutes ago, zhamlau said:

\

Did some catch up review. Sal was working on large name material as an artist appropriate for the job from 1968-2018. Granted many jobs he has done in the last 5-10 years have had a nostalgic component, but he was still doing issue inking up to last year. His window of main stream character/company/title work is 50 years. That surpasses all three listed (each a giant in the field) in terms of them producing marketable high quality work and not just getting work due to the nostalgic draw. 

None of the three can say that, Sal holds that spot alone...also If the only way to combat someone saying an artist is top 5 all time...is to bring up other guys who also could be on that list as being of equal qualifications...I think helps out the argument I’m making.

 

I stand by top 5 greatest American comic book artist.

 

Wait, are you including the last 20 years where he spot inked an issue here and there on a title as part of an unbroken run of work? When's the last time he penciled an issue? 

That's like saying Minnie Minoso had a 31 year career, isn't it? 

If you're going to use longevity as part of the criteria to elevate him above giants like Eisner and Kubert then it seems gilding the lily to claim inking an issue here and there (which is the sum total of his output for at least the last decade) is some unbroken iron-man run of penciling/creating issues since 1968. 

While I admire his workman-like approach and ability to ink at all at his age I'm going to have to disagree that anything in Sal's output over the last 20 years makes those 20 years the tie breaker between him and a titan of the medium like Eisner. 

Edited August 3, 2019 by comix4fun

[zhamlau]

18 minutes ago, comix4fun said:

 

Wait, are you including the last 20 years where he spot inked an issue here and there on a title as part of an unbroken run of work? When's the last time he penciled an issue? 

That's like saying Minnie Minoso had a 31 year career, isn't it? 

If you're going to use longevity as part of the criteria to elevate him above giants like Eisner and Kubert then it seems gilding the lily to claim inking an issue here and there (which is the sum total of his output for at least the last decade) is some unbroken iron-man run of penciling/creating issues since 1968. 

While I admire his workman-like approach and ability to ink at all at his age I'm going to have to disagree that anything in Sal's output over the last 20 years makes those 20 years the tie breaker between him and a titan of the medium like Eisner. 

Yeah the last 5 or so years was pretty spotty mostly inking granted but each of the three has issues

1.Eisner was only doing his own creator driven work, so it’s not like he was getting work he was just out self publishing the same stuff over and over. It was nostalgia driven for the last 20 years of his career you can argue.

2. Kubert has such a distinct style that it was basically hiring him to draw his same lines and characters after his 35 year window (putting it 46-81 when he started just being Kubert for the name draw of it).

3. Heath again his window when you were hiring him for his ability to tell the story and not just be “Russ Heath:Icon” is 30-35 years.

 

Yes these HOF caliber talents had long careers very close to Sal agreed. But Sal worked on nearly every type of book from every major publisher and worked constantly from 68 on, and only on major material. He went right to the big show with no minor league time (Dave Winfield ?) and did dozens of books a year for decade after decade adapting to the times and styles of the era and whatever partner he was working with.

None of the other three can say that.

[ESeffinga]

Jack of all trades. Master of none.

Just because one works consistently doesn’t mean they are necessarily good at it.

Edited August 3, 2019 by ESeffinga

[GreatEscape]

Interesting debate.  Economists use "market capitalization" (the net market value of all outstanding shares) and "gross domestic product" (the market value of all final goods produced) to define and compare the productivity of companies and nations alike.  Applying these concepts here, I am inclined to rank artists in terms of the (theoretical) GROSS COMIC ART PRODUCT (GCAP) aggregate market value of all the published comic artwork produced over his/her lifetime.   This would naturally reward professional longevity, market value (using relative collector demand and pricing as a proxy) and diversity of contributions (e.g., penciller, inker, painter but not writer).  At the same time, this approach would discount (1) artists with exceptional talents/influence but brief careers; and (2) artists who left comics industry for commercial work like Eisner, Schomburg, Steranko, etc.

Simply, if I were to put a market value on all the published comic art produced (known, existent or not) by any artist (G-CAP market value), my Top 5 would probably be:

1. Jack Kirby (artist 1936 - 1994)- King Kirby is #1, no surprise.  

2. Charles Schulz - 50 years of Peanuts, over 18,000 strips.  Probably the most financially successful artist earning $30-40MM per year.

3. John Romita Sr. (artist 1949 - 2007)- 60 years at Timely, DC and Marvel...prolific penciller and inker.  Long Spidey and DD runs and I’m told he pencilled, inked or “face edited” on every Marvel title throughout his career.  

4. Frank Frazetta (artist 1947 - late 90s)  The legend...painter, Warren/EC/National comic artist, strips, and book covers.  Some of Frank's published sketches are more valuable than many artists' prime covers. 

5. John Buscema (artist 1948 - 1997) - THE primary artist for all Marvel titles that Kirby conceptualized like FF, Thor, Avengers plus Spidey and Conan.

Apologies to Osamu Tezuka (artist 1946-1989) - Godfather of Japanese manga, and later graphic novels. Staggering artistic production / page count but hard to value/assess FMV....and to Joe Shuster who drew Action #1-24 (FMV would be astronomical   )

That's my   YMMV.

 

Edited August 3, 2019 by GreatEscape

[Bronty]

That would be a great metric if all the art existed but it doesn't.    Which means there's a whole extra layer of guessing involved.   

Of all of those, the only one that's easy to calculate to any degree is Schulz.   The museum has half of it and most of the rest should exist.   They fetch say 30k on average when you do a weighted average on the market value of 6 dailies and one sunday, making his output worth about $540m (18,000 x 30,000).   Perhaps you reduce that by 10% or 20% to account for whatever art may have been destroyed.

Edited August 3, 2019 by Bronty

[vodou]

26 minutes ago, Bronty said:

Which means there's a whole extra layer of guessing involved.   

Another layer is Tezuka. Not all exists though enough does to make what doesn't moot for the conversation. But when almost nil is on the market..? And value is determined by all the usual metrics but most and especially is driven by absolute (artificial) scarcity...value is impossible to determine (if all was 'out there' and 'available' within any 25 year period of time as we tend to enjoy among all other 'names' in the hobby). You'll have that same problem with just all notable manga artists.

Moebius? His name is going to be in there. Prolific and $$$. Same with some other European superstars, though re: Herge you do have that manga artist problem at work again. (For that matter, also with Schulz as half is owned institutionally.)

I think this way of looking at things really only works if you're limiting to what's most popular on this Board: 1940s-present superheroes. (And Peanuts, and Prince Valiant, and blah blah handful of obvious non-superhero whales.) But the cull to get to that...is there anything much left to say at that point that isn't already visible on HA completed sales?

Edited August 3, 2019 by vodou
clarity

[tth2]

3 hours ago, GreatEscape said:

Interesting debate.  Economists use "market capitalization" (the net market value of all outstanding shares) and "gross domestic product" (the market value of all final goods produced) to define and compare the productivity of companies and nations alike.  Applying these concepts here, I am inclined to rank artists in terms of the (theoretical) GROSS COMIC ART PRODUCT (GCAP) aggregate market value of all the published comic artwork produced over his/her lifetime.   This would naturally reward professional longevity, market value (using relative collector demand and pricing as a proxy) and diversity of contributions (e.g., penciller, inker, painter but not writer).  At the same time, this approach would discount (1) artists with exceptional talents/influence but brief careers; and (2) artists who left comics industry for commercial work like Eisner, Schomburg, Steranko, etc.

Simply, if I were to put a market value on all the published comic art produced (known, existent or not) by any artist (G-CAP market value), my Top 5 would probably be:

1. Jack Kirby (artist 1936 - 1994)- King Kirby is #1, no surprise.  

2. Charles Schulz - 50 years of Peanuts, over 18,000 strips.  Probably the most financially successful artist earning $30-40MM per year.

3. John Romita Sr. (artist 1949 - 2007)- 60 years at Timely, DC and Marvel...prolific penciller and inker.  Long Spidey and DD runs and I’m told he pencilled, inked or “face edited” on every Marvel title throughout his career.  

4. Frank Frazetta (artist 1947 - late 90s)  The legend...painter, Warren/EC/National comic artist, strips, and book covers.  Some of Frank's published sketches are more valuable than many artists' prime covers. 

5. John Buscema (artist 1948 - 1997) - THE primary artist for all Marvel titles that Kirby conceptualized like FF, Thor, Avengers plus Spidey and Conan.

Apologies to Osamu Tezuka (artist 1946-1989) - Godfather of Japanese manga, and later graphic novels. Staggering artistic production / page count but hard to value/assess FMV....and to Joe Shuster who drew Action #1-24 (FMV would be astronomical   )

That's my   YMMV.

 

If we're including foreign artists, then Herge's market cap probably dwarfs everybody.  His work routinely goes for over $1m. 

[Bronty]

^ it’s another one of those things that really can’t be calculated IMO.   The vast vast majority of his work is owned by his museum.    Hard to say where the art would be valued without that supply taken out of the equation.   

[jjonahjameson11]

12 hours ago, zhamlau said:

Will Eisner was only doing his own work, and was a shadow of his former self. Russ Heath the same (pains me to admit it)....but i think Joe Kubert comes close. His style was so strong he could only really make his work happen though. Sal was the catch all inker for a lot of folks.

 

Did some catch up review. Sal was working on large name material as an artist appropriate for the job from 1968-2018. Granted many jobs he has done in the last 5-10 years have had a nostalgic component, but he was still doing issue inking up to last year. His window of main stream character/company/title work is 50 years. That surpasses all three listed (each a giant in the field) in terms of them producing marketable high quality work and not just getting work due to the nostalgic draw. 

None of the three can say that, Sal holds that spot alone...also If the only way to combat someone saying an artist is top 5 all time...is to bring up other guys who also could be on that list as being of equal qualifications...I think helps out the argument I’m making.

 

I stand by top 5 greatest American comic book artist.

Nick Cardy?

Murphy Anderson?

Gil Kane?

John Romita Jr?

D-i-c-k Giordano?

Neal Adams?

George Perez?

Shelly Moldoff?

Al Williamson?

[Ricksneatstuff]

I received an email regarding the Peanuts Sunday final hammer discrepancy that explains the situation and was told I was free to share. @batman_fan @spider9698

 

Edited August 3, 2019 by Ricksneatstuff

[adamstrange]

13 hours ago, zhamlau said:

Will Eisner was only doing his own work, and was a shadow of his former self. Russ Heath the same (pains me to admit it)....but i think Joe Kubert comes close. His style was so strong he could only really make his work happen though.