The Official September Heritage Auction Thread
2 2

369 posts in this topic

10 hours ago, Rick2you2 said:

I like the matting in the context of this piece. Yes, it is loud, but so is the coloring in the artwork. And the subject matter is raucous, too. If it were candy, it would be like Skittles. So, going with the theme and coloring works for me. Making it serious takes away from the entertaining loudness of the piece. By the same token, I wouldn’t hang it with a bunch of black and whites in the living room. More likely, the entertainment room, near the pool table, if there is one.

Well, is the referee the show or are the athletes?   Is the matting what you want to look at or the art?  🤷‍♂️ 

Edited by Bronty
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/2/2020 at 1:05 AM, batman_fan said:

I can't go back and look at old catalogs.  I end up crying too much.

You're looking at decades old prices through today's lens and thinking that decades old dollars and circumstances are today's dollars and circumstances - they aren't.  Those were expensive prices back then relative to what most people were earning.

My father bought a house in 1970 for $35,000.  Today, that same house is $500,000.  People later said "Oh - you should have bought 10 houses in the same neighbourhood - you would have been a multi millionaire now!!"  True, BUT they're forgetting, or not knowing, that he had to take out a mortgage to buy that house and relative to his annual salary at that time, $35,000 was a HUGE amount of $.  

In 1967, one could have bought the best big block Corvette with enough horse power for lift off for just over $5 grand.  That same model today - everything original - would be worth millions.  One should have bought dozens.  True, BUT, one problem - the average annual income in 1967 was a little over $7,000.

Another thing to consider - no one had a crystal ball back then (they don't have them now for that matter)  Was comic art a fad destined to burn out or was it something that had some merit?  No one could say for sure.  Had prices reached their peak at $100/page; $500/page; or GASP!!! $1,000/page???? Again, no one knew.

Moral here - prices are relative.  So...that considered - no need to cry   :tink:

Edited by pemart1966
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, pemart1966 said:

You're looking at decades old prices through today's lens and thinking that decades old dollars and circumstances are today's dollars and circumstances - they aren't.  Those were expensive prices back then relative to what most people were earning.

My father bought a house in 1970 for $35,000.  Today, that same house is $500,000.  People later said "Oh - you should have bought 10 houses in the same neighbourhood - you would have been a multi millionaire now!!"  True, BUT they're forgetting, or not knowing, that he had to take out a mortgage to buy that house and relative to his annual salary at that time, $35,000 was a HUGE amount of $.  

In 1967, one could have bought the best big block Corvette with enough horse power for lift off for just over $5 grand.  That same model today - everything original - would be worth millions.  One should have bought dozens.  True, BUT, one problem - the average annual income in 1967 was a little over $7,000.

Another thing to consider - no one had a crystal ball back then (they don't have them now for that matter)  Was comic art a fad destined to burn out or was it something that had some merit?  No one could say for sure.  Had prices reached their peak at $100/page; $500/page; or GASP!!! $1,000/page???? Again, no one knew.

Moral here - prices are relative.  So...that considered - no need to cry   :tink:

If most of the folks were weeping over art prices back that far I would agree....but the way art has spiked over just the last 20-25 years, nothing really, outside of the cost of college education and some tech stocks, has moved like artwork. 

Most people are lamenting auction catalogs from 1992-2000 at this point. 

I remember a cover I saw at San Diego in 1997 or 1998 for $600 which I narrowly missed. 

 By 2005, when I caught up with it again it was $9,000.

By 2014, it was $30,000. 

I think that's where the tears come in. With nothing (including most personal incomes) not rising as fast as the tide it's hard to not notice that the ships have sailed. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, pemart1966 said:

You're looking at decades old prices through today's lens and thinking that decades old dollars and circumstances are today's dollars and circumstances - they aren't.  Those were expensive prices back then relative to what most people were earning.

My father bought a house in 1970 for $35,000.  Today, that same house is $500,000.  People later said "Oh - you should have bought 10 houses in the same neighbourhood - you would have been a multi millionaire now!!"  True, BUT they're forgetting, or not knowing, that he had to take out a mortgage to buy that house and relative to his annual salary at that time, $35,000 was a HUGE amount of $.  

In 1967, one could have bought the best big block Corvette with enough horse power for lift off for just over $5 grand.  That same model today - everything original - would be worth millions.  One should have bought dozens.  True, BUT, one problem - the average annual income in 1967 was a little over $7,000.

Another thing to consider - no one had a crystal ball back then (they don't have them now for that matter)  Was comic art a fad destined to burn out or was it something that had some merit?  No one could say for sure.  Had prices reached their peak at $100/page; $500/page; or GASP!!! $1,000/page???? Again, no one knew.

Moral here - prices are relative.  So...that considered - no need to cry   :tink:

Another difference between life then vs. now that's easy to forget is the ridiculously easy access most people have to credit.  A couple of decades ago, many of these types of purchases were made with saved dollars, not yet-to-be-earned dollars.  I think easy (and cheap, depending on who you are) access to money is a contributing driver of some of the inflation in collectibles. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, ShallowDan said:

Another difference between life then vs. now that's easy to forget is the ridiculously easy access most people have to credit.  A couple of decades ago, many of these types of purchases were made with saved dollars, not yet-to-be-earned dollars.  I think easy (and cheap, depending on who you are) access to money is a contributing driver of some of the inflation in collectibles. 

Back in the mid 70s/early 80s a lot of guys set up at shows were doing comics/art part time.  Show transactions were strictly cash.  In fact, the technology probably didn't even exist to allow credit cards to be used at shows during that time.  Transactions done by responding to ads in the CBG were done by mail with payment by either money order or cheque.

Edited by pemart1966
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Bronty said:

Well, is the referee the show or are the athletes?   Is the marring what you want to look at or the art?  🤷‍♂️ 

I don’t see it that way. To me, the piece is decorative, and the loud matting amplified its decorative nature by blending with the colors and tone of the piece. With all the subtlety of a brick, might as well let its “ brickiness” shine through. Let me add that while I can respect the piece, I would not buy it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You don't have to see it that way That is exactly what it does, regardless.

It's like "extending" the artist's conceived visual area. Compositionally, many artists give great thought to exactly where things start and stop in a given image. Usually to strike a harmonious balance.
Not all artist's mind you, and I'm not speaking to this piece so much as the practice of matching art to mat board.
IMO it's a horrendous look, and in this case does that particular piece no favors.

I want to see the art, not someone's poor idea of interior decorating.
 

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, ESeffinga said:

You don't have to see it that way That is exactly what it does, regardless.

It's like "extending" the artist's conceived visual area. Compositionally, many artists give great thought to exactly where things start and stop in a given image. Usually to strike a harmonious balance.
Not all artist's mind you, and I'm not speaking to this piece so much as the practice of matching art to mat board.
IMO it's a horrendous look, and in this case does that particular piece no favors.

I want to see the art, not someone's poor idea of interior decorating.
 

 

 

 

Touching on that a little further, a friend has a Conan piece where Conan deflects some lightning with his shield.    Putting aside the perhaps questionable idea of deflecting electricity with a big piece of metal....   the framer was given free license to frame as they see fit.    Well... they actually decided to extend the lightning bolt into the mat themselves (ie the framer painted the lightning into the mat himself to carry the image into the mat past where the artist had ended it.    Looked brutal of course.   

Talk about not realizing your role.   You're the framer.   Frame the art... don't try to be the artist.       That's an extreme example but yeah, the mat and frame should stay out of the artist's way!

I think most people framing their first paintings try to make the frame and mat "awesome" in order to match their enthusiam for the art.   As they being to collect more painted work, they come to realize that less is more.     You're interfering with the art in a very real way.

I'm surprised how few frame store types seem to understand this, btw.    I think they try and get too involved in making it "awesome" themselves because if they aren't pushing some wild frame and mat choice on you, then they feel like their advice has no value.     "Keep it simple" isn't super sexy advice if you are helping people pick frames for their paintings all day, but its the right advice.

Edited by Bronty
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, pemart1966 said:

You're looking at decades old prices through today's lens and thinking that decades old dollars and circumstances are today's dollars and circumstances - they aren't.  Those were expensive prices back then relative to what most people were earning.

My father bought a house in 1970 for $35,000.  Today, that same house is $500,000.  People later said "Oh - you should have bought 10 houses in the same neighbourhood - you would have been a multi millionaire now!!"  True, BUT they're forgetting, or not knowing, that he had to take out a mortgage to buy that house and relative to his annual salary at that time, $35,000 was a HUGE amount of $.  

In 1967, one could have bought the best big block Corvette with enough horse power for lift off for just over $5 grand.  That same model today - everything original - would be worth millions.  One should have bought dozens.  True, BUT, one problem - the average annual income in 1967 was a little over $7,000.

Another thing to consider - no one had a crystal ball back then (they don't have them now for that matter)  Was comic art a fad destined to burn out or was it something that had some merit?  No one could say for sure.  Had prices reached their peak at $100/page; $500/page; or GASP!!! $1,000/page???? Again, no one knew.

Moral here - prices are relative.  So...that considered - no need to cry   :tink:

Very true.

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, comix4fun said:

If most of the folks were weeping over art prices back that far I would agree....but the way art has spiked over just the last 20-25 years, nothing really, outside of the cost of college education and some tech stocks, has moved like artwork. 

Most people are lamenting auction catalogs from 1992-2000 at this point. 

I remember a cover I saw at San Diego in 1997 or 1998 for $600 which I narrowly missed. 

 By 2005, when I caught up with it again it was $9,000.

By 2014, it was $30,000. 

I think that's where the tears come in. With nothing (including most personal incomes) not rising as fast as the tide it's hard to not notice that the ships have sailed. 

I think the point is more that very few things appeared cheap at the time they were up for sale. 

As X% of average income back then versus Y% of average income today, perhaps they were cheaper in relative terms back then, but by the same token it would've felt crazy at that time to spend more than X% of average income. 

It's only in hindsight that things appeared to be cheap.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Norinn Radd said:

This piece was ogled extensively at the end of the July HA auction thread before some genius person took it on themselves to begin this thread. :smile: and Wow is right.

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, tth2 said:

I think the point is more that very few things appeared cheap at the time they were up for sale. 

As X% of average income back then versus Y% of average income today, perhaps they were cheaper in relative terms back then, but by the same token it would've felt crazy at that time to spend more than X% of average income. 

It's only in hindsight that things appeared to be cheap.

I agree with that more than the comparison to what other things cost outside of whatever hobby we're talking about. 

With OA especially, the "value" of items is almost entirely dependent on where their cost stands relative to peer pieces. The comfort level is the same. It feels like yesterday that the doubling of Killing Joke page prices seemingly every 24 months was met with terror. "Whattaya mean they cost $6,000 now? They were just $3,000!!" It's much harder to step out and pay an outsized price on a piece of OA for that reason. The speed in which you can wrap your mind around "future value" or "never gonna see this again" usually determined whether you got the piece or lost out to someone more willing to step out and pay up. That was much more so the case than what else that money could buy at the time the OA was purchased.

I've had that discussion with dozens of collectors over the years. You get tunnel vision on prices and costs in whatever hobby you are in. It's only when you step out to use money for something else (Car, House, and "Flat Screen" was particularly popular in the mid-2000's as a point of comparison) that you realize the bubble of dollar valuation you'd been in that whole time. That still happens to me when I pick up items in other collecting areas outside of art or comics and the items give me the same joy or nostalgic bump at a cost that's less than the buyer's premium on most art purchases. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Another Frazetta oil added as well. Interestingly you have to get through a lot of text to come to the fact that this isn't the published version. It is a near contemporary recreation by Frazetta. How does that affect value?

Edited by cstojano
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, cstojano said:

Another Frazetta oil added as well. Interestingly you have to get through a lot of text to come to the fact that this isn't the published version. It is a near contemporary recreation by Frazetta. How does that affect value?

Princess of Mars?

 

https://comics.ha.com/itm/original-comic-art/frank-frazetta-a-princess-of-mars-painting-original-art-1970-/p/7234-203001.s?ic4=GalleryView-Thumbnail-071515#auction-info

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, wombat said:
2 hours ago, cstojano said:

Another Frazetta oil added as well. Interestingly you have to get through a lot of text to come to the fact that this isn't the published version. It is a near contemporary recreation by Frazetta. How does that affect value?

Princess of Mars?

 

https://comics.ha.com/itm/original-comic-art/frank-frazetta-a-princess-of-mars-painting-original-art-1970-/p/7234-203001.s?ic4=GalleryView-Thumbnail-071515#auction-info

 

Interesting.  Clearly won't be worth as much as the published version, but it's not a typical recreation because of the circumstances under which it was created, so will probably still go for a ton.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, wombat said:

Is the location of the published Princess of Mars painting known? Since Frazetta never got it back from the publisher initially. Did Frank ever get the original back? Considering its one of his most famous and coveted paintings, did the Frazettas after try and recover it?

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Brian Peck said:

Is the location of the published Princess of Mars painting known? Since Frazetta never got it back from the publisher initially. Did Frank ever get the original back? Considering its one of his most famous and coveted paintings, did the Frazettas after try and recover it?

All I know is that Frank Jr. and the Museum do not have it. 

Link to post
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
2 2