• 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.

July Heritage Auction Sorta Shaping Up!
3 3

519 posts in this topic

1 hour ago, MagnusX said:

 

Hi:

I am on the fence about buying this book,
what is your opinion.

Thanks

I did not buy it. In general, I’m trying to cut down the clutter in my house that’s why.
 

To me, this is the kind of book that you flip through once and you probably don’t need to go through it again, unless, you’re super fan of Kirby and want these pinups collected in one place. If I bought this book it would be so that my kids can draw the art over tracing paper. They are not yet old enough though. 
 

Hope that helps.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, MagnusX said:

 

Hi:

I am on the fence about buying this book,
what is your opinion.

Thanks

My opinion is more of a question: who authorized the printing as copyright owner? Kirby’s heirs? Marvel? Hopefully not just the owner of the page, or someone may have a legal problem on their hands.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Rick2you2 said:

My opinion is more of a question: who authorized the printing as copyright owner? Kirby’s heirs? Marvel? Hopefully not just the owner of the page, or someone may have a legal problem on their hands.

Looks like marvel/IDW licensed.

 

DB0959FA-E7D2-4661-90BA-49A3892BB407.thumb.png.0d75dc2f354876ca2e3de0b840efcb92.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The book is legit and mostly is composed of the published, colored pinups. Every so often they added the original art in there. Just so happens the Alicia is one of them. Also included in the book is that “Clobbering Time” Thing pinup, but not the original art, of which Jim Halperin posted in CAF in December of 2019. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, John E. said:

The book is legit and mostly is composed of the published, colored pinups. Every so often they added the original art in there. Just so happens the Alicia is one of them. Also included in the book is that “Clobbering Time” Thing pinup, but not the original art, of which Jim Halperin posted in CAF in December of 2019. 

If the artwork all predates 1975, then copyright is much easier—but not fair to the artists.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, jjonahjameson11 said:

McKean Sandman 6 cover = $18K...what's the end price on this one?  $80K?  Sandman covers below #10 rarely come around so, anyone care to hazard a guess?

I think McKean covers for Sandman are a bit tough to my mind. They probably sound amazing to people who see the size and have seen the comic covers in person, but as an objet d'art, I think a lot of folks might find them weird, odd and even underwhelming in person. I think the idea of them and what they represent is super cool, but in reality, they can have some really fugly bits going on around the periphery of the cool stuff. Black boards with glue goop, etc. They were made for the photographic reproduction. Many of them had things that have died, fallen off or otherwise didn't hold up to posterity. Some have had bits replaced, so they don't leave empty holes. They are a bit Julian Schnabel in MOMA with the plates falling off, to differing degrees.

And to be frank, I don't think the central paintings that McKean did are all that great on many of them. They were fine, again, reproduced small, but when you see the whole thing at full scale... for my money, it's just not where McKean is great. Great McKean painting comes MUCH later in his career, as he really stretches out and develops his artistic chops. But then those pieces aren't Sandman. So there's the rub.

I think of the early Sandman covers, this one is certainly one of the cooler ones, for the objects in the shelves. I thought the TPB cover Heritage auctioned off a few years ago was pretty stellar. I think that went in the 20s?

I cant remember the Dream of 1000 Cats cover sold for, but that one was super rad as an art piece, as well as bragging rights for a Sandman cover. Also not as huge.

I dunno if any of this goes through the minds of other Sandman fans, like it does mine, but I had and sold my Sandman cover (Game of You arc), and never went hunting for another. Remember when Eder revealed he had a couple, and seeing the Death one for the first time. I was disappointed, actually. It's total history, but it's just not that attractive to look at IMO. Be sure to blow the second Heritage image up that shows everything around the central image. The hanging electrical/gaffer tape. And the odd goopy stuff down at the bottom? Might look less obtrusive in the flesh, but my experience is that it just jumps out more. And the linger it's around the more I find myself looking at that stuff and not the art.

I'm sure this one will do OK. People spend lots on stuff irregardless of how it presents, just for the ever more important bragging rights in the internet age.

My £.02

 

 

 

 

Edited by ESeffinga
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, ESeffinga said:

I'm sure this one will do OK. People spend lots on stuff irregardless of how it presents

 

yeah.   Who wouldn't want the OA to action 1?   As art its incredibly uninteresting.   But context matters.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Me. I’d be so much happier with different art for much less money. My only interest in Action 1 would be to sell for good stuff.

 

But hey...  IMO a piece like that belongs on a museum. And it’s not uninteresting. Visually that art is iconic. But I’d not want it on my wall. Different strokes...
 

 

Edited by ESeffinga
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/15/2020 at 8:00 AM, Rick2you2 said:

If the artwork all predates 1975, then copyright is much easier—but not fair to the artists.

Why wouldn't it be fair to the artists? The images are Marvel's to use as they please. I'm not sure what is unfair about that. Jack Kirby got paid to draw this for Marvel. He got paid well. He knew that it could be used in other publications. Why is it unfair to him?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, ESeffinga said:

I think McKean covers for Sandman are a bit tough to my mind. They probably sound amazing to people who see the size and have seen the comic covers in person, but as an objet d'art, I think a lot of folks might find them weird, odd and even underwhelming in person. I think the idea of them and what they represent is super cool, but in reality, they can have some really fugly bits going on around the periphery of the cool stuff. Black boards with glue goop, etc. They were made for the photographic reproduction. Many of them had things that have died, fallen off or otherwise didn't hold up to posterity. Some have had bits replaced, so they don't leave empty holes. They are a bit Julian Schnabel in MOMA with the plates falling off, to differing degrees.

And to be frank, I don't think the central paintings that McKean did are all that great on many of them. They were fine, again, reproduced small, but when you see the whole thing at full scale... for my money, it's just not where McKean is great. Great McKean painting comes MUCH later in his career, as he really stretches out and develops his artistic chops. But then those pieces aren't Sandman. So there's the rub.

I think of the early Sandman covers, this one is certainly one of the cooler ones, for the objects in the shelves. I thought the TPB cover Heritage auctioned off a few years ago was pretty stellar. I think that went in the 20s?

I cant remember the Dream of 1000 Cats cover sold for, but that one was super rad as an art piece, as well as bragging rights for a Sandman cover. Also not as huge.

I dunno if any of this goes through the minds of other Sandman fans, like it does mine, but I had and sold my Sandman cover (Game of You arc), and never went hunting for another. Remember when Eder revealed he had a couple, and seeing the Death one for the first time. I was disappointed, actually. It's total history, but it's just not that attractive to look at IMO. Be sure to blow the second Heritage image up that shows everything around the central image. The hanging electrical/gaffer tape. And the odd goopy stuff down at the bottom? Might look less obtrusive in the flesh, but my experience is that it just jumps out more. And the linger it's around the more I find myself looking at that stuff and not the art.

I'm sure this one will do OK. People spend lots on stuff irregardless of how it presents, just for the ever more important bragging rights in the internet age.

My £.02

 

 

 

 

Did you see the cover to #8 in person?

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
3 3