The McSpidey DPS Rankings...
0

25 posts in this topic

441 posts

For all of you McSpidey-maniacs!!...Mr. McFarlane had 12 double page splash(DPS) examples published during his 15 issue run on Spider-Man(1991). There were no DPS examples published during his 28 issue run on The Amazing Spider-Man series. Rank the 12 Spider-Man DPS examples, from 'Best' to 'Worst' using the numbers 1-12 where #1=Best & #12=Worst. Or, just make it easy on yourself & pick your Top 4 examples!!

Spider-Man issue 1 = UNDENIABLE #1
Spider-Man issue 2 =
Spider-Man issue 3 =
Spider-Man issue 4 =
Spider-Man issue 5 =
Spider-Man issue 6 =
Spider-Man issue 7 =
Spider-Man issue 8 =
Spider-Man issue 10 =
Spider-Man issue 11 =
Spider-Man issue 14 =
Spider-Man issue 16 =

Issue 1806883488_Spider-Man1DPS.thumb.jpg.354a102722d9d0cdca8f47c140bc413d.jpg

Issue 2

271598911_Spider-Man2DPS.thumb.jpg.b7ff6b4481622ff3e86edffe2cb54caf.jpg

Issue 3

1781341903_Spider-Man3DPS.thumb.jpg.9316cd59618f0c43d043be9eb09753bb.jpg

Issue 4

1791096837_Spider-Man4DPS.thumb.jpg.51379a460dec59023d700700802f47b1.jpg

Issue 5

239811210_Spider-Man5DPS.thumb.jpg.e6ea5e2e9b35c2163bed6bed4c95d8e9.jpg

Issue 6

873560433_Spider-Man6DPS.thumb.jpg.acf8c6aa436092f9c874f765077ec9b2.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,934 posts
33 minutes ago, First Upgrade said:

For all of you McSpidey-maniacs!!...Mr. McFarlane had 12 double page splash(DPS) examples published during his 15 issue run on Spider-Man(1991). There were no DPS examples published during his 28 issue run on The Amazing Spider-Man series. Rank the 12 Spider-Man DPS examples, from 'Best' to 'Worst' using the numbers 1-12 where #1=Best & #12=Worst. Or, just make it easy on yourself & pick your Top 4 examples!!

Spider-Man issue 1 = UNDENIABLE #1
Spider-Man issue 2 =
Spider-Man issue 3 =
Spider-Man issue 4 =
Spider-Man issue 5 =
Spider-Man issue 6 =
Spider-Man issue 7 =
Spider-Man issue 8 =
Spider-Man issue 10 =
Spider-Man issue 11 =
Spider-Man issue 14 =
Spider-Man issue 16 =

Issue 1806883488_Spider-Man1DPS.thumb.jpg.354a102722d9d0cdca8f47c140bc413d.jpg

Issue 2

271598911_Spider-Man2DPS.thumb.jpg.b7ff6b4481622ff3e86edffe2cb54caf.jpg

Issue 3

1781341903_Spider-Man3DPS.thumb.jpg.9316cd59618f0c43d043be9eb09753bb.jpg

Issue 4

1791096837_Spider-Man4DPS.thumb.jpg.51379a460dec59023d700700802f47b1.jpg

Issue 5

239811210_Spider-Man5DPS.thumb.jpg.e6ea5e2e9b35c2163bed6bed4c95d8e9.jpg

Issue 6

873560433_Spider-Man6DPS.thumb.jpg.acf8c6aa436092f9c874f765077ec9b2.jpg

12 hardly “worst” but I get what you’re aiming at. Curious if board members owning a DPS will show and tell?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
441 posts
17 minutes ago, grapeape said:

12 hardly “worst” but I get what you’re aiming at.

Sometimes, comparing McSpidey DPS's feels like comparing Hattori Hanzo swords...you just don't do it!

However, we'll almost always hear/read someone championing an example over another, & perhaps brazenly accuse the example being sold/auctioned as 'the cheapest[weakest] one you're gonna get...!'

20200729_150841.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,174 posts

I love them all, but for the sake of fairness, you did indicate this is going to be a ranking of double page splashes.  So using this criteria, the double page SPREADS from issues 8 and 14 should be removed from contention.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,398 posts

@First Upgrade you should re-start this thread as a poll

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,013 posts
5 hours ago, First Upgrade said:

Issue 16

1385544468_Spider-Man16DPS.thumb.jpg.03b9ae597551c060bf37b92ff65accc5.jpg

 

I'd pay more for this than most of the covers :luhv:

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
441 posts

The 12 McSpidey "Double Page Spreads", sorted from "Best" to "Worst"...

Spider-Man issue 1 - "Best"
Spider-Man issue 11
Spider-Man issue 8
Spider-Man issue 6
Spider-Man issue 7
Spider-Man issue 3
Spider-Man issue 14
Spider-Man issue 16
Spider-Man issue 4
Spider-Man issue 5
Spider-Man issue 2
Spider-Man issue 10 - "Worst"

In that order, I would also set their valuations from highest to lowest. If the auction were to take place during 2021, then I guesstimate the Spider-Man #1 DPS to sell for no less than $250,000...

(No offence to those who do not  discuss "numbers".)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,634 posts

Maybe it’s a generational thing, but considering all the hubbub about his work, I don’t see it as justified. Yes, some of it is very, very good, maybe great, but how much for that art? 

On a more absolute scale, 1-10, with 10 the best, how do you rate them? I can see some 8’s, maybe a bit higher at best, but others just seem cluttered. And, I do not like the coloring, which seems somewhat harsh (and not His doing).

Edited by Rick2you2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
441 posts

Undoubtedly, at least 'some' of, the 'younger' buyers [not to be mistaken for 'art collectors', whatever the BLEEP that means] are 'seeing' aesthetic & monetary values in McFarlane's Amazing Spider-Man/Spider-Man original art work(s) which can & have been partially influenced by generational 'constructs' or context. Nevertheless, there have also existed some 'older' buyers whom have had, & may still do, the ability to 'see' aesthetic & monetary value in bidding or buying McFarlane's ASM/Spider-Man work. For example, the father of Jeff Nason. His father once purchased multiple examples of McFarlane's ASM/Spider-Man work 'back in the day' for young Jeff. A pair of which recently sold in the most recent HA Signature Auction.

With a few assumptions/modifications, on a scale of 1-10, where 10 is the 'Best' & 1 is the 'Worst', my rankings are as follows:

Spider-Man issue 1 = 10
Spider-Man issue 11 = 9
Spider-Man issue 8 = 8.5
Spider-Man issue 6 = 8.0
Spider-Man issue 7 = 7.5
Spider-Man issue 3 = 7
Spider-Man issue 14 = 6
Spider-Man issue 16 = 5
Spider-Man issue 4 = 4
Spider-Man issue 5 = 3
Spider-Man issue 2 = 2
Spider-Man issue 10 = 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25,952 posts
6 hours ago, Rick2you2 said:

Maybe it’s a generational thing, but considering all the hubbub about his work, I don’t see it as justified. Yes, some of it is very, very good, maybe great, but how much for that art? 

 

Its a fallacy to equate quality of art (if such a thing can even be measured) with the price of art.   The two often have nothing to do with each other.    It doesn't need to be great art to have a great price tag.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25,952 posts
8 hours ago, Rick2you2 said:

 

On a more absolute scale, 1-10, with 10 the best, how do you rate them? I can see some 8’s, maybe a bit higher at best, but others just seem cluttered. And, I do not like the coloring, which seems somewhat harsh (and not His doing).

I don't like any of them either, except the issue 1 piece, and I was a macfarlane fan as a kid.    Post marvel I felt it got horribly cluttered.   It had started before that but I think marvel kept him in check a bit.

Edited by Bronty

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
173 posts
9 hours ago, vodou said:

Price is strictly a function of demand.

As most people lack taste, it's no surprise that tasteless art is often quite expensive (aka 'in high demand' :) ).

 

I mean, mayonnaise and licorice taste pretty nasty but both have their staunch fans.

 

On 7/29/2020 at 3:25 PM, First Upgrade said:

1781341903_Spider-Man3DPS.thumb.jpg.9316cd59618f0c43d043be9eb09753bb.jpg

I

 

 

I'm too tired at the moment to rank them all but this one with the Lizard is my #1 from the bunch.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,177 posts

If you twist my arm, my order is 1 & then 11, as they are the only visually legible splashes. I think a lot of that blame probably lies with the colorist.

16 as my runner up, perhaps because of the “special” help of Rob Liefeld (I presume he covered the feet?) 

The Spider-Man image in 16 is so laughably bad, I had to look twice. 
 

Yay.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,368 posts

Is that Frank Zappa putting in a guest appearance in the second example?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,177 posts
19 hours ago, Bronty said:

Its a fallacy to equate quality of art (if such a thing can even be measured) with the price of art.   The two often have nothing to do with each other.    It doesn't need to be great art to have a great price tag.

So true, as has been driven home to me over and over again here. 

2 ends of the spectrum, with everyone falling somewhere in between. Plenty for everybody. 

ART collectors — art COLLECTORS

The only bit that I disagree with a smidge is the part in parens. Art can be evaluated and judged, but it only works with enough education. Kind of like math, you gotta study and learn how it works.
 

There is always going to be that grey area when comparing high end but dissimilar works, akin to arguing about theoretical physics, but you can still look at a basic equation and know if the math is wrong.

Simply being able to draw something that looks kind of like a math equation doesn’t mean it actually makes sense. Art can be drawn in all kinds of styles. All kinds of applications. It doesn’t ha e to look the same. You can bend the rules, you can break the rules. 

But some with enough education can generally look at art and tell if the artist has done their homework. If they are breaking rules or if they don’t know what they are doing and just faking it. It’s why many most comic artists tend to like the work of certain comic artists and not others. Or why they can find things of value of work in another artist without actually liking it. 

It doesn’t mean art that is bad at being “Art” has any impact on its value in dollars. Or in enjoyment of its potential owners.
 

To put it in other terms, If someone adores their hastily drawn Micky Mouse tattoo, it could absolutely mean the world to them for some nostalgic reason, (reminder of a trip, of childhood, of a dead relative, of better days) and still be nothing more than kitschy scribbles to someone else with an objective eye.

Similarly, there may be a piece that looks like smudged garbage hanging in the Whitney to someone who thinks the Golden Dr Strange poster is the epitome of great illustration.

There are all kinds of reasons art can be important. And there are all kinds of objective reasons for it to be deemed “good” or “bad” by folks that study such things. And the folks that didn’t study and didn’t do their homework continue to stand up in front of class and draw the most embarrassing things. Many because all they choose to look at is the work of their friends and classmates, and not their school books. 
 

But so long as they have others buying those things, bully for them! It’s hard work making a living as an artist. Having people appreciate it is wonderful. Often being the first or early is good enough. 
 

Mark making doesn’t all have to be Art with that capital A. If it means something to someone in their life, and this is the thing I’ve taken from all my exchanges with Bronty over the years, if a piece has a real connection with enough people and changes their lives, even if the craftsmanship is poor, then at least that work has accomplished something.
 

Even if academics turn their nose up at it. It can be that Mickey Mouse tattoo. Even for millions of people. Be it early Magic card art, or props from Krull, or buying Trimpe comic pages. What matters is the personal connection to the thing. That in some level is an achievement in itself. It’s not necessarily what I might see as art or the type of work I may respond to, but I have my own kind of respect for it. Even when the volumes of money spent on those things continues to admittedly shock me.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25,952 posts

You can get educated , sure.    And as you say that will no doubt increase ones appreciation for  certain works and allow one to turn a more discerning eye to certain works.

At the end of the day though, an opinion (educated or otherwise) on a work is art is both subjective and unverifiable.   I can’t get out my greatness ruler and objectively “measure” its greatness.   I can try and interpret it within educated guidelines and I can probably make my assessment that this A+ Picasso is on some level better than an amateur drawing, but I can’t measure an A+ Picasso against a different A+ Picasso or an A+ cezanne.    
 

Except in ways that have little  to do with the piece itself (ie price).   Because surely, the price of fine art is not related to its greatness either .    And that is the part that you may not be considering... fine art is “collected” just the same.    Simply on a different set of parameters.     If the artist gets famous, the works become “key” whether good or not.   It no longer matters as long as someone wealthy can tick off their checklist by acquiring it.

In other words - the marketplace aspects of art collecting which you may not care for - they are pervasive and affect all types of art.     One can’t get away from it and one has to accept it IMO to fully understand what they are doing when they collect art.

Edited by Bronty

Share this post


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
0