Would you rather Splash vs. Interior Page 0

[The Voord]

17 hours ago, sfilosa said:

I have a lot of cover paintings to books (paperback or comic) I have never read (nor will ever read). I love the art, so I pay $1,000's to own them.

I'm intrigued as I'm a fan of painted art, nowadays specializing in movie poster paintings.  Do you have a link to your painted artworks?

[sfilosa]

I'm on CAF under Steven Filosa (not very creative). No movie posters. Mostly Boris Vallejo, Joe Jusko, Lucio Parrillo, Sanjulian, Enric, etc. Standard book/comic book covers.

* Painted art is framed in my living room and tv room.

* Colored art is framed in the our bedroom.

* Black and While art is framed in my office. Wife doesn't really like the Black and White art which is why all colored art is where she can see it. Not that she really likes it that much either.

 

[KPR Comics]

Of your examples, I'm all in on the pin-up.  But then I'm a sucker for radar-sense DD images.  All three are great, however.

[ESeffinga]

Depends on the content, for me.

An example: I used to own a mess of Tim Sale's Long Halloween art a decade or two ago. I had a couple portfolios of the stuff. A lot of it came from Mitch directly, when it was "dirt" cheap. I remember $75-85 panel pages. I eventually pared it back, sold off a few splashes and spreads, along with most of the panel pages. 

The single piece from that series I am personally most in love with is this one. It's the whole thing. The art, the timing, the story beats. The way it comes together. Says more of the medium and Tim, than super cool splash of Batman standing triumphant over badguy or whatever. Sometimes I just love my comic art to be really good at it's job.

https://www.comicartfans.com/GalleryPiece.asp?Piece=277330

Looking over what's hanging on the wall, I am a sucker for individual panel pages with verbal punchlines, vs something mid-stream in thought or sequence.

 

[Rick2you2]

As a follow-up, to those of you who are character-based collectors. The answer is too easy for more general collectors.
If you had to choose between a good p.1 half splash with a small character image of what you collect, and a pretty good panel page showing off your character nicely in several panels, from the same artist, how would you lean? Neither is a grail, and assume a journeyman artist for the sake of simplicity (but actually quite good).

[sfilosa]

3 hours ago, Rick2you2 said:

As a follow-up, to those of you who are character-based collectors. The answer is too easy for more general collectors.
If you had to choose between a good p.1 half splash with a small character image of what you collect, and a pretty good panel page showing off your character nicely in several panels, from the same artist, how would you lean? Neither is a grail, and assume a journeyman artist for the sake of simplicity (but actually quite good).

The answer is simple for me. I want "something actually happening in the art". 

I want the picture to tell a story (cover, splash or panel, I don't care). I'll give you an example (I don't own either one of these covers). Two FF covers, first is Pollard (1979) the second is Sienkiewicz (1980). Both sold in the past three months on Heritage. The first sold for $38k+ and the second $26k+. 

 

The first cover seems "iconic", but basically it is an image of Galactus and head shots of the FF. Nothing is really happening at all. The second cover (which sold for over 25% less ), has a ton of action. Love this cover. Forget if I even read the comic book. I could look at that and make my own story up. Once again, the Galactus cover has a big image of him. But take away some of the background, and the cover really just looks like a very nice commission sketch (Ok, much more detailed). But nothing is happening, no story and no action. Maybe it looks good as a large poster, but I'm not going to stare at it for a long time and see different things. On the Sienkiewicz cover, I could probably look at that multiple times and keep seeing something interesting.

Having the character big is nice, but to me, having a lot going on is much better. If I just want big images of a character, I should just collect convention sketches or get portrait commissions. So far, I have none in my collection. Not interested.

 

 

[grapeape]

1 hour ago, sfilosa said:

The answer is simple for me. I want "something actually happening in the art". 

I want the picture to tell a story (cover, splash or panel, I don't care). I'll give you an example (I don't own either one of these covers). Two FF covers, first is Pollard (1979) the second is Sienkiewicz (1980). Both sold in the past three months on Heritage. The first sold for $38k+ and the second $26k+. 

 

The first cover seems "iconic", but basically it is an image of Galactus and head shots of the FF. Nothing is really happening at all. The second cover (which sold for over 25% less ), has a ton of action. Love this cover. Forget if I even read the comic book. I could look at that and make my own story up. Once again, the Galactus cover has a big image of him. But take away some of the background, and the cover really just looks like a very nice commission sketch (Ok, much more detailed). But nothing is happening, no story and no action. Maybe it looks good as a large poster, but I'm not going to stare at it for a long time and see different things. On the Sienkiewicz cover, I could probably look at that multiple times and keep seeing something interesting.

Having the character big is nice, but to me, having a lot going on is much better. If I just want big images of a character, I should just collect convention sketches or get portrait commissions. So far, I have none in my collection. Not interested.

 

 

We’d have to ask the bidder who paid more for the “less interesting” cover if nostalgia played a part in how far he bid to win.

Otherwise I agree with your reasoning. That’s what’s so cool about art. We might have a general sense of what is good, bad, great art and what it should cost. However art appreciation is subjective so that’s why we will constantly marvel  over art that “went too high” or sold “ridiculously low.”

Such a great hobby (way of life honestly) collecting and admiring art.

 

 

[Rick2you2]

8 hours ago, sfilosa said:

The answer is simple for me. I want "something actually happening in the art". 

I want the picture to tell a story (cover, splash or panel, I don't care). I'll give you an example (I don't own either one of these covers). Two FF covers, first is Pollard (1979) the second is Sienkiewicz (1980). Both sold in the past three months on Heritage. The first sold for $38k+ and the second $26k+. 

 

The first cover seems "iconic", but basically it is an image of Galactus and head shots of the FF. Nothing is really happening at all. The second cover (which sold for over 25% less ), has a ton of action. Love this cover. Forget if I even read the comic book. I could look at that and make my own story up. Once again, the Galactus cover has a big image of him. But take away some of the background, and the cover really just looks like a very nice commission sketch (Ok, much more detailed). But nothing is happening, no story and no action. Maybe it looks good as a large poster, but I'm not going to stare at it for a long time and see different things. On the Sienkiewicz cover, I could probably look at that multiple times and keep seeing something interesting.

Having the character big is nice, but to me, having a lot going on is much better. If I just want big images of a character, I should just collect convention sketches or get portrait commissions. So far, I have none in my collection. Not interested.

 

 

I understand where you are coming from, but my approach is different. I am character-centric. So while I would happily buy a terrific battle piece with a good image of PS (rare), I do want a strong image of the lead. Here, there isn’t one, but the page is nicely framed around a different character. By the same token, the panel pages with a fight scene and good images of PS is not drop dead gorgeous. That would make the question too easy. This is just not a situation where preferences produce a clean “black and white” result. 
 

[Rick2you2]

7 hours ago, grapeape said:

We’d have to ask the bidder who paid more for the “less interesting” cover if nostalgia played a part in how far he bid to win.

Otherwise I agree with your reasoning. That’s what’s so cool about art. We might have a general sense of what is good, bad, great art and what it should cost. However art appreciation is subjective so that’s why we will constantly marvel  over art that “went too high” or sold “ridiculously low.”

Such a great hobby (way of life honestly) collecting and admiring art.

 

 

Isn’t comparing Pollard and Sienk, like mixing apples and oranges? Also, a Galactus fan might have a different view. 

[vodou]

33 minutes ago, Rick2you2 said:

Isn’t comparing Pollard and Sienk, like mixing apples and oranges?

Apples:apples in that period. Sienk having anything approaching a style of his own...still years to come in the future

Same with JrJr ASM in the early-mid 200s - the very definition of "house style" (aka "no style").

Some folks value these things highly based on signature and yet they are lacking exactly what adds value to that signature

[grapeape]

2 hours ago, vodou said:

Apples:apples in that period. Sienk having anything approaching a style of his own...still years to come in the future

Same with JrJr ASM in the early-mid 200s - the very definition of "house style" (aka "no style").

Some folks value these things highly based on signature and yet they are lacking exactly what adds value to that signature

There is wisdom in that observation. Seeing an artists work ignite with confidence and self expression vs. the work of an artist painstakingly following the style of the consensus look of a character(s).

Identifying an artists best work and spending my dollars on that work seems the prudent action to take. Still for a myriad of reasons collectors will buy what they like regardless. 

[Rick2you2]

3 hours ago, vodou said:

Apples:apples in that period. Sienk having anything approaching a style of his own...still years to come in the future

Same with JrJr ASM in the early-mid 200s - the very definition of "house style" (aka "no style").

Some folks value these things highly based on signature and yet they are lacking exactly what adds value to that signature

Agreed on Sienk. I still don't understand the pricing of the New Mutants pages. 

[sfilosa]

53 minutes ago, grapeape said:

There is wisdom in that observation. Seeing an artists work ignite with confidence and self expression vs. the work of an artist painstakingly following the style of the consensus look of a character(s).

Identifying an artists best work and spending my dollars on that work seems the prudent action to take. Still for a myriad of reasons collectors will buy what they like regardless. 

Totally agree with you on finding an artist's best work (though obviously that is subjective and of course costs has to be factored in), and striving to add that piece to your collection. I have wanted a Jim Starlin piece from the 70's from either Captain Marvel or Warlock / Strange Tales for many years. Haven't got one yet, but plenty of early Iron-Man art has been available at reasonable (also subjective) prices. That said, Starlin's style was not quite formed, in my opinion at the time, so I don't buy those as they don't fully represent why I want a Starlin piece.

My example of the two FF covers was more to represent that it seems that collectors sometimes just want a "big picture" of a character and are not looking at context/imagination/creativity, etc. of the art. I own a lot of Joe Jusko work, several covers, and pages from a book that Joe has said on many occasions is the work he is most proud of. See my CAF gallery for examples if needed. That said, of all the work I own, I have never paid as much for one piece as this sold for in a Heritage Auction awhile back. And to add to this, every piece of art I own of his is "significantly bigger" than this. It's a fine piece of art, but it feels that someone (and when I mean someone, remember these are in auctions so in theory at least two collectors wanted this pretty badly), just want a big picture of a character, pretty much doing nothing interesting.

 

 

I'm probably in the minority, but I want more out of art than just a portrait of a character. That's why I collect sequential art in the first place.

  

[grapeape]

59 minutes ago, sfilosa said:

Totally agree with you on finding an artist's best work (though obviously that is subjective and of course costs has to be factored in), and striving to add that piece to your collection. I have wanted a Jim Starlin piece from the 70's from either Captain Marvel or Warlock / Strange Tales for many years. Haven't got one yet, but plenty of early Iron-Man art has been available at reasonable (also subjective) prices. That said, Starlin's style was not quite formed, in my opinion at the time, so I don't buy those as they don't fully represent why I want a Starlin piece.

My example of the two FF covers was more to represent that it seems that collectors sometimes just want a "big picture" of a character and are not looking at context/imagination/creativity, etc. of the art. I own a lot of Joe Jusko work, several covers, and pages from a book that Joe has said on many occasions is the work he is most proud of. See my CAF gallery for examples if needed. That said, of all the work I own, I have never paid as much for one piece as this sold for in a Heritage Auction awhile back. And to add to this, every piece of art I own of his is "significantly bigger" than this. It's a fine piece of art, but it feels that someone (and when I mean someone, remember these are in auctions so in theory at least two collectors wanted this pretty badly), just want a big picture of a character, pretty much doing nothing interesting.

 

 

I'm probably in the minority, but I want more out of art than just a portrait of a character. That's why I collect sequential art in the first place.

  

In the recent HA auction I considered winning the back cover to the Marvel Treasury Edition Superman Spider-Man by Ross Andru. Iconic image of Superman and Spider-Man standing shoulder to shoulder. It went well below my guesstimate so I think I had a realistic shot to win it.

OK Lots to like

Two main crossover characters with no other distractions, published, iconic. As an investment a slam dunk. I rarely make investment my # 1 reason for chasing a piece of art though.

What ultimately inhibited me going for it is my knowledge of the interior pages. Many excellent fluid pages and DPS in that book. If I spend $$$ it would be on an interior page or DPS with great action.

In the end after watching that back cover for two months I knew I wasn’t in love with the piece. I don’t think it’s the best example I could get from that book. Others would disagree and say, “short of the front cover what more do you want?”

I totally get that !!
 

Don’t get me wrong. I’d be proud to own it. I simply realized that other factors like investment potential were overshadowing any personal desire to own it. I’m not a dealer looking to flip so I moved on.

The art I have in my collection at this point in my life is art I bought or acquired out of pure love for the art. That approach is not likely to change at this point in my life.

Now that I said that, again art appreciation is subjective. And collectors break their own rules all the time. A portrait of Dr. Doom for example might be sedentary or mundane to action lovers. To me the Mad Monarch of Latveria is the quintessential portrait subject. So while action, fluidity, are important to me I can discard that instantly for a “stagnant” portrait of a simmering Doom sitting on his throne.

I’ve said enough. I’ve said too much. 
I sure love this hobby (thing of ours).

🍇 + 🦍 

[delekkerste]

On 7/24/2020 at 10:31 PM, sfilosa said:

The answer is simple for me. I want "something actually happening in the art". 

I want the picture to tell a story (cover, splash or panel, I don't care). I'll give you an example (I don't own either one of these covers). Two FF covers, first is Pollard (1979) the second is Sienkiewicz (1980). Both sold in the past three months on Heritage. The first sold for $38k+ and the second $26k+.

I'm a big Sienkiewicz fan, but, I understand why the market values the Pollard cover higher:

1.  Cosmic Marvel premium

2.  Sienkiewicz not associated at all with FF

3.  Sinnott inks really mute most of the Sienkiewicz-ness of the cover, which, as it has been noted, was not really developed by 1980 anyway

4.  Lots of black ink on that Pollard cover - remember the Black Ink Laffer Curve for OA pricing

That said, if it was for my own collection, I'd prefer the Sienkiewicz/Sinnott collaboration, which is a more interesting and better drawn cover.  If it was for re-selling or trading, I'd probably take the Pollard cover, though. 

Edited July 27, 2020 by delekkerste

[Bronty]

So many ways to look at that Pepsi challenge.   The 219 has lots going on, sure, but the flip side of that is that some will find it too busy and the central monster is not drawn in an appealing way IMO.    
 

The pollard image doesn’t suffer from any of that, but the main figure isn’t drawn as well as you’d hope.   
 

Ultimately my 2 cents is that they are both adequate but not outstanding images and the premium is for the subject matter - lots of galactus and silver surfer fans, and few such covers. 
 

 

Edited July 29, 2020 by Bronty

[sfilosa]

1 hour ago, Bronty said:

So many ways to look at that Pepsi challenge.   The 219 has lots going on, sure, but the flip side of that is that some will find it too busy and the central monster is not drawn in an appealing way IMO.    
 

The pollard image doesn’t suffer from any of that, but the main figure isn’t drawn as well as you’d hope.   
 

Ultimately my 2 cents is that they are both adequate but not outstanding images and the premium is for the subject matter - lots of galactus and silver surfer fans, and few such covers. 
 

 

In economic terms (and you will probably see me say this in lots of post in the future), I look at the "opportunity costs" of buying the 219 instead of the Galactus cover. Basically, my dollars could get me the 219 and anywhere from 8-12 nice interior pages of the FF drawn by Pollard (I sold a nice one at ComicArtLive for less than $1k). I know most collectors don't think that way, and you can always rationalize buying a ton of interior pages instead of one cover, but in this case, you would still get a really nice cover plus a lot of interior pages. I'm not basing this on resale, just as collector.

[Bronty]

1 minute ago, sfilosa said:

In economic terms (and you will probably see me say this in lots of post in the future), I look at the "opportunity costs" of buying the 219 instead of the Galactus cover. Basically, my dollars could get me the 219 and anywhere from 8-12 nice interior pages of the FF drawn by Pollard (I sold a nice one at ComicArtLive for less than $1k). I know most collectors don't think that way, and you can always rationalize buying a ton of interior pages instead of one cover, but in this case, you would still get a really nice cover plus a lot of interior pages. I'm not basing this on resale, just as collector.

Sure.   We all have to weigh those opportunity costs.   But where does one draw that line?   There’s an infinite number of opportunity considerations.    It may do as much to cloud the trade off between these pieces as it does to clarify them. 

[bluechip]

A lot depends on the quality of the cover versus the Splash.  There are probably many examples where the cover was great and the splash sucked, and vice versa. 

Since Spider-man is the one I remember best, I recall that ASM 30 had an uncharacteristically lame Ditko cover but a pretty cool splash.  33 had a classic cover of Spidey crushed by machinery but the splash had an underwater building with word balloons and a fish (and this was Ditko not Kirby so building and fish were both unimpressive).    

Romita examples I remember include Amazing Spider-man 68 and 69, back-to-back classic covers.  The splash of 69 was so great it would arguably get many votes that it's even better than the cover.  But the splash of 68... I couldn't imagine anyone preferring it unless they're big fans of the Kingpin's big backside.    

So if anybody tells you there is some strict cover to splash metric determining value, beware.

   

Edited July 29, 2020 by bluechip

[grapeape]

Uhhh Bluechip....they were Flying Fish!!!!!

And lettering and Kibitzing by the great Artie Simek.

 

Edited July 30, 2020 by grapeape