How big is the pool of buyers for six-figure O/A? 0

[Carlo M]

1 hour ago, Bronty said:

At the end of the day you have to realize that your attitude (and sometimes mine!) amounts to the old man waving his fist at the neighborhood kids.

First of all, nothing is in a vacuum and we can't really consider the art totally void of context even if we try.    

Secondly, if we make a point of saying we appreciate comic art "for the art" only and not for nostalgia and/or context we are lying to ourselves.    If we were able to truly appreciate art only for the sake of the art we would not be limiting ourselves to comic art in the first place.

As an example - let's say I only like Chaykin Star Wars pages "for the art."    How pompous am I ?    I limit myself to a specific medium, artist, and even title and then tell myself that I am only in it for the art?    In that example, I'm a ridiculous tuh-watte.

To make a long story short art has little to no 'intrinic value'.   Almost all of the value (at least as viewed by a marketplace) is dependent everything besides the image - the artist's body of work, and fame, the subject matter, etc etc ad nauseam.       Looking for intrinsic value is searching for something that isn't there.

So that's my canned rant on context and image.   Now, as it relates to this image, those who just want the cover as a 'cultural totem' as Seffinga puts it won't care about the sparse image.     You may not like the sparse image and may want more lines on the page for your money.    I agree actually as pieces that are too sparse don't do much for me.    However, lots of lines, few lines... neither has any intrinsic value.   As decoration art stripped of all context its a $100 piece either way.

This was an interesting contribution and I pondered on this.  Yet, when you say "art has little to no intrinsic  value" and then you move on to making the link into the artist's body of work and fame, is that not what "intrinsic value" is about? I will give you an example.  I am a total sucker for '70s Defenders.  Loved loved loved all the run from 1 through circa issue 70.  And yet there are certain issues from that run the art of which I would not want to own even if  it was given to me from free.  I am not going to name names but some of the art simply does not make the cut, fullstop.  So nostalgia and context can get you only to a certain point, but then there has to be also some "intrinsic" quality (and yes I will qualify Sal  Buscema's work on that run as quality work!).

[Rick2you2]

2 hours ago, Bronty said:

At the end of the day you have to realize that your attitude (and sometimes mine!) amounts to the old man waving his fist at the neighborhood kids.

First of all, nothing is in a vacuum and we can't really consider the art totally void of context even if we try.    

Secondly, if we make a point of saying we appreciate comic art "for the art" only and not for nostalgia and/or context we are lying to ourselves.    If we were able to truly appreciate art only for the sake of the art we would not be limiting ourselves to comic art in the first place.

As an example - let's say I only like Chaykin Star Wars pages "for the art."    How pompous am I ?    I limit myself to a specific medium, artist, and even title and then tell myself that I am only in it for the art?    In that example, I'm a ridiculous tuh-watte.

To make a long story short art has little to no 'intrinic value'.   Almost all of the value (at least as viewed by a marketplace) is dependent everything besides the image - the artist's body of work, and fame, the subject matter, etc etc ad nauseam.       Looking for intrinsic value is searching for something that isn't there.

So that's my canned rant on context and image.   Now, as it relates to this image, those who just want the cover as a 'cultural totem' as Seffinga puts it won't care about the sparse image.     You may not like the sparse image and may want more lines on the page for your money.    I agree actually as pieces that are too sparse don't do much for me.    However, lots of lines, few lines... neither has any intrinsic value.   As decoration art stripped of all context its a $100 piece either way.

I don't agree that art can't have "intrinsic value", but perhaps I used a poor choice of words. 

Many years ago, I dated a woman who did nothing more than evaluate the quality of art, stripped of identity, and whether it was good or bad. She actually had a Masters Degree in it, which she had to create, but her skills were in demand to evaluate pieces.

I was thinking of starting a thread on this point, but I may as well give examples now. What this consists of is breaking down an image that I think we often do unconsciously to arrive at something we like or not. Take a look at a particular, say, cover. Is the image balanced, so that the eye is drawn to the center? Are the four corners of the image balanced not only to avoid distraction from the center but as between themselves (e.g., white space in the upper right corners, brown corners on the bottom for earth). Has the artist made any glaring anatomical errors, or spatial errors which distract from the object of the piece (e.g., too short a leg for a character where the leg is behind him)? Has the artist used a rendering style appropriate to the subject matter (No Charles Schultz stylization in a horror title). Has the artist produced an overcrowded background? Are objects on the image badly spaced? Are the images dynamic without being overdone? Things like that. I don't care whether the artist is Chaykin, Lee or anyone else, you can definitely compare the quality of image along these lines.

Now, pricing is a different matter. That is certainly a function of nostalgia, "group think" ("I gotta have that McSpidey; look who did it!"), and the marketplace et al. Hell, I would be the last one to claim I only buy "good art". Furthermore, a lot of highly appreciated artists hew to the sorts of considerations I mention above. Now, does any of this have an intrinsic worth more than $100? That's a different call. But I can figure out if the $100 piece is "good", "mediocre" or "bad". And if that makes me an old man waving my fist at the kids, maybe they will actually pay attention before plunking down $5K on something so-so.

[Bronty]

2 hours ago, Carlo M said:

This was an interesting contribution and I pondered on this.  Yet, when you say "art has little to no intrinsic  value" and then you move on to making the link into the artist's body of work and fame, is that not what "intrinsic value" is about?

Thanks.   To answer your question...   Per google:   ""Intrinsic value" is a philosophical concept, wherein the worth of an object or endeavor is derived in and of itself—or, in layman's terms, independent of other extraneous factors"

_{In other words, the value of the art, stripped of the body of work, the name of the artist, etc.   Just as a utterly random picture to hang on your wall.   Decorative value.}

Edited December 8, 2020 by Bronty

[Bronty]

1 hour ago, Rick2you2 said:

I don't agree that art can't have "intrinsic value", but perhaps I used a poor choice of words. 

Many years ago, I dated a woman who did nothing more than evaluate the quality of art, stripped of identity, and whether it was good or bad. She actually had a Masters Degree in it, which she had to create, but her skills were in demand to evaluate pieces.

I was thinking of starting a thread on this point, but I may as well give examples now. What this consists of is breaking down an image that I think we often do unconsciously to arrive at something we like or not. Take a look at a particular, say, cover. Is the image balanced, so that the eye is drawn to the center? Are the four corners of the image balanced not only to avoid distraction from the center but as between themselves (e.g., white space in the upper right corners, brown corners on the bottom for earth). Has the artist made any glaring anatomical errors, or spatial errors which distract from the object of the piece (e.g., too short a leg for a character where the leg is behind him)? Has the artist used a rendering style appropriate to the subject matter (No Charles Schultz stylization in a horror title). Has the artist produced an overcrowded background? Are objects on the image badly spaced? Are the images dynamic without being overdone? Things like that. I don't care whether the artist is Chaykin, Lee or anyone else, you can definitely compare the quality of image along these lines.

Now, pricing is a different matter. That is certainly a function of nostalgia, "group think" ("I gotta have that McSpidey; look who did it!"), and the marketplace et al. Hell, I would be the last one to claim I only buy "good art". Furthermore, a lot of highly appreciated artists hew to the sorts of considerations I mention above. Now, does any of this have an intrinsic worth more than $100? That's a different call. But I can figure out if the $100 piece is "good", "mediocre" or "bad". And if that makes me an old man waving my fist at the kids, maybe they will actually pay attention before plunking down $5K on something so-so.

You're mixing concepts here.   Value is one thing.   Worth in money.     Technical competence is another.

As the market for lots of artists proves, you don't need technical competence to get to large values in the marketplace.    Even if intrinsic value is almost nil.

Miller has pretty well the same degree of technical competence on that DK cover vs any similar piece from that time.   And as simply random drawings they all have pretty well the same value too.   But with all the context brought in, now that cover is (maybe) 175k and another piece might be 10k.

I know you know all that.    But again, it can't be repeated often enough, quality of art and price/value of art, are not the same thing and have very little to do with each other.     

I think sometimes collectors begin to believe that oh, the reason Joe Kubert war pages are so much is because he was a great artist.    Well... no.   I like Joe Kubert's art a lot, but the reason his pages do well on the market is because they are synonymous with the publisher and genre.   A Joe Kubert strawberry shortcake page is not of interest.  

There are some really horrible pieces of art I'd pay six figures for and be happy to cut the check.    Quality is one thing.   Price another.

Edited December 8, 2020 by Bronty

[Timely]

3 hours ago, Carlo M said:

This was an interesting contribution and I pondered on this.  Yet, when you say "art has little to no intrinsic  value" and then you move on to making the link into the artist's body of work and fame, is that not what "intrinsic value" is about? I will give you an example.  I am a total sucker for '70s Defenders.  Loved loved loved all the run from 1 through circa issue 70.  And yet there are certain issues from that run the art of which I would not want to own even if  it was given to me from free.  I am not going to name names but some of the art simply does not make the cut, fullstop.  So nostalgia and context can get you only to a certain point, but then there has to be also some "intrinsic" quality (and yes I will qualify Sal  Buscema's work on that run as quality work!).

70's Defenders ROCK!

https://www.comicartfans.com/gallerypiece.asp?piece=1681446

[Foolkiller]

I'm going to be somewhat intentionally vague about answering.  I've paid very aggressively to get into art and buy pieces that I thought were very nice and high end, to some degree regardless of what others have thought of the relative value.  Sometimes I'm right, some times I'm wrong.  I have and would not hesitate to put all cash new money into certain six figure pieces.  The ones that I have paid high on, I have zero regrets.  Having access to material is one of the keys in comics or in art or in any collectible, and by spending aggressively, I've found it has certainly shaken top end things loose that would not otherwise be offered.  

[vodou]

1 hour ago, Bronty said:

A Joe Kubert strawberry shortcake page is not of interest. 

Neal Adams and Gene Colan Archie come to mind, and those are not hypothetical!

[PhilipB2k17]

22 hours ago, PhilipB2k17 said:

Here’s an irony for you. Due to life circumstances, I have been saving up a lot of cash. I now have enough to go buy some of the nicer pieces in my OA wheelhouse (Still talking high 4 figures though). But I find the more abstain, the easier it gets to be disciplined and not impulse buy. There’s really only been one piece that popped up that I tried pulling the trigger on, but someone beat me to it. I’ve kicked the tires in a couple others. But I’m really not in the buying mood right now. 
 

it’s weird. The more cash I have on hand, the less I want to spend it. 

And...ironically the day after I posted this, I saw a piece pop up and I bought it. Go figure. 

Edited December 8, 2020 by PhilipB2k17

[PhilipB2k17]

2 hours ago, Foolkiller said:

I'm going to be somewhat intentionally vague about answering.  I've paid very aggressively to get into art and buy pieces that I thought were very nice and high end, to some degree regardless of what others have thought of the relative value.  Sometimes I'm right, some times I'm wrong.  I have and would not hesitate to put all cash new money into certain six figure pieces.  The ones that I have paid high on, I have zero regrets.  Having access to material is one of the keys in comics or in art or in any collectible, and by spending aggressively, I've found it has certainly shaken top end things loose that would not otherwise be offered.  

If you have the money to spend, great. 99% of the rest of us don’t, And we never get to see that stuff unless it pops up at heritage or someone posts it at CAF. 

[Xatari]

8 hours ago, Foolkiller said:

I'm going to be somewhat intentionally vague about answering.  I've paid very aggressively to get into art and buy pieces that I thought were very nice and high end, to some degree regardless of what others have thought of the relative value.  Sometimes I'm right, some times I'm wrong.  I have and would not hesitate to put all cash new money into certain six figure pieces.  The ones that I have paid high on, I have zero regrets.  Having access to material is one of the keys in comics or in art or in any collectible, and by spending aggressively, I've found it has certainly shaken top end things loose that would not otherwise be offered.  

I love this. I am also new to the hobby and was very aggressive in going after pieces I feel hold a lot of future value monetarily and present value sentimentally. 
 

https://www.comicartfans.com/GalleryDetail.asp?GCat=140502

[PhilipB2k17]

I think the people who thought this hobby would die out as collectors age out might have been mistaken. Money attracts collectors. The prices this art has been getting turns the eye of Comic book collectors, who then start down the path. 

[Rick2you2]

15 hours ago, Bronty said:

You're mixing concepts here.   Value is one thing.   Worth in money.     Technical competence is another.

As the market for lots of artists proves, you don't need technical competence to get to large values in the marketplace.    Even if intrinsic value is almost nil.

Miller has pretty well the same degree of technical competence on that DK cover vs any similar piece from that time.   And as simply random drawings they all have pretty well the same value too.   But with all the context brought in, now that cover is (maybe) 175k and another piece might be 10k.

I know you know all that.    But again, it can't be repeated often enough, quality of art and price/value of art, are not the same thing and have very little to do with each other.     

I think sometimes collectors begin to believe that oh, the reason Joe Kubert war pages are so much is because he was a great artist.    Well... no.   I like Joe Kubert's art a lot, but the reason his pages do well on the market is because they are synonymous with the publisher and genre.   A Joe Kubert strawberry shortcake page is not of interest.  

There are some really horrible pieces of art I'd pay six figures for and be happy to cut the check.    Quality is one thing.   Price another.

I completely agree with you that price and quality are not the same thing and have little to do with each other. Where we part ways is the choice of words you are using, and the thrust of my earlier comments.

"Value" and "worth" are synonyms for each other. Just look up synonyms for each of them and see for yourself. That is the way I usually use those words. Unfortunately another synonmym for "worth" is price, as in: "what's my car worth"? So, things do get bollixed up.

But calling the things I referenced to be issues of "technical competence" is demeaning to artistic skill. Installing a new door handle requires "technical competence"; it does not require a sense of artistry. What I listed were categories "in gross", not intending them to be viewed as flip switches. So, one piece of art may have a better central focus than another, or perhaps an artist is particularly good at facial expression. Mondrian's work is particularly strong on elemental balance: light large objects in one quandrant balanced against small dark ones in an opposing quadrant, for example. That is an example of skill, not technical competence. 

There is no reason why we, as presumed conoisseurs of this art form, cannot discuss the elements of pieces for comparative purposes--not for price, but purely aesthetics--to determine why something is better or worse. What I gave are examples of categories, by no means exhaustive, of things to evaluate.

And as to Joe Kubert, I would love to see a Strawberry Shortcake page of his. For example, has he modified his more typical style to a simpler line approach for Strawberry Shortcake? Maybe he didn't/can't. Not all artists make the jump between genres successfully. Would I want that in my collection as a "typical" example of his art? Probably not, but I might want it because it could demonstrate his verisimilitude as an artist.  Perhaps it might be an interesting exercise on these boards to take one of those McSpidey DPS's and take it apart, element by element, so members can see what others think of specific aspects of the work itself. It might be a good exercise to see what makes something "good" to most of us, or where our opinions differ. And remember, none of this has to do with price--purely aesthetics.

[Bronty]

14 hours ago, PhilipB2k17 said:

If you have the money to spend, great. 99% of the rest of us don’t, And we never get to see that stuff unless it pops up at heritage or someone posts it at CAF. 

Ah come on.   Aggressive is a relative term.   You are just as capable of aggressively chasing a certain segment as someone with more money.    You would just have to choose a less pricey segment.    

[Bronty]

2 hours ago, Rick2you2 said:

I completely agree with you that price and quality are not the same thing and have little to do with each other. Where we part ways is the choice of words you are using, and the thrust of my earlier comments.

"Value" and "worth" are synonyms for each other. Just look up synonyms for each of them and see for yourself. That is the way I usually use those words. Unfortunately another synonmym for "worth" is price, as in: "what's my car worth"? So, things do get bollixed up.

But calling the things I referenced to be issues of "technical competence" is demeaning to artistic skill. Installing a new door handle requires "technical competence"; it does not require a sense of artistry. What I listed were categories "in gross", not intending them to be viewed as flip switches. So, one piece of art may have a better central focus than another, or perhaps an artist is particularly good at facial expression. Mondrian's work is particularly strong on elemental balance: light large objects in one quandrant balanced against small dark ones in an opposing quadrant, for example. That is an example of skill, not technical competence. 

There is no reason why we, as presumed conoisseurs of this art form, cannot discuss the elements of pieces for comparative purposes--not for price, but purely aesthetics--to determine why something is better or worse. What I gave are examples of categories, by no means exhaustive, of things to evaluate.

And as to Joe Kubert, I would love to see a Strawberry Shortcake page of his. For example, has he modified his more typical style to a simpler line approach for Strawberry Shortcake? Maybe he didn't/can't. Not all artists make the jump between genres successfully. Would I want that in my collection as a "typical" example of his art? Probably not, but I might want it because it could demonstrate his verisimilitude as an artist.  Perhaps it might be an interesting exercise on these boards to take one of those McSpidey DPS's and take it apart, element by element, so members can see what others think of specific aspects of the work itself. It might be a good exercise to see what makes something "good" to most of us, or where our opinions differ. And remember, none of this has to do with price--purely aesthetics.

Sure, no argument.    

My point in beating the drum is to highlight that any discussion of quality, technical competence, skill, whatever you want to call it... has little or no place in a discussion of value.  More often than not it just confuses the discussion.    A lot of people have trouble accepting that bad art can have a big price tag.    They'd rather twist their mind into accepting it as good art as a way to understand the price (or really, as a way to resolve their cognitive dissonance).

I collect illustrations from early video games.   Nobody, myself included, would call this good art, but I'd pay some six figure amount for it.    There are far better game illustrations for which I'd pay far less.

Frankly, its the same in comics, its just harder to see when you're in it.    You might pay $$$$$$ for a wonky asm and only to have $$$$ for a really well done black knight.    You might have to pay $$$$$$ for a Lee Xmen and $$$$ for a Lee Dr Strange of the same quality.   Etc etc etc etc ad infinitum.    Taking it to the extreme.. such as the example below... helps clarify the reasoning.

 

Edited December 9, 2020 by Bronty

[jjonahjameson11]

5 hours ago, PhilipB2k17 said:

I think the people who thought this hobby would die out as collectors age out might have been mistaken. Money attracts collectors. The prices this art has been getting turns the eye of Comic book collectors, who then start down the path. 

Money also attracts dealers.  That's why we've seen long-time comic book dealers dabble in OA...more and more of them every year.

[Rick2you2]

2 hours ago, Bronty said:

Ah come on.   Aggressive is a relative term.   You are just as capable of aggressively chasing a certain segment as someone with more money.    You would just have to choose a less pricey segment.    

And, you may get even better art if you do. 🙂

[delekkerste]

7 hours ago, PhilipB2k17 said:

I think the people who thought this hobby would die out as collectors age out might have been mistaken.

I think when the Gen Xers and early Millennials age out, we'll see it affect the market in a big way.  But, that could be 15-20 years from now just to hit the inflection point and some years more before people figure out what's going on.  

In the meantime, we are living in a Bizarro world where gravity has been removed from all markets, not just comic art.  In fact, some of the gains I'm seeing in other collectibles verticals and, of course, in the financial markets, make OA's gains this year look positively sedate by comparison.  I am pretty much ragingly bullish on everything these days because currencies are being debased into oblivion and people are bored out of their minds.  Buy Buy Buy Buy Buy!

[exitmusicblue]

53 minutes ago, delekkerste said:

I think when the Gen Xers and early Millennials age out, we'll see it affect the market in a big way.  But, that could be 15-20 years from now just to hit the inflection point and some years more before people figure out what's going on.  

In the meantime, we are living in a Bizarro world where gravity has been removed from all markets, not just comic art.  In fact, some of the gains I'm seeing in other collectibles verticals and, of course, in the financial markets, make OA's gains this year look positively sedate by comparison.  I am pretty much ragingly bullish on everything these days because currencies are being debased into oblivion and people are bored out of their minds.  Buy Buy Buy Buy Buy!

Word.  And in those 20+ years, who knows what else will happen?  Earlier on in the 20th century, could anyone have predicted or even imagined the movie boom to come?  Many young fans have been minted in recent years, and in light of the many of them with an inclination towards art... like my little nephew who asked for Darth Vader comics this X-Mas... I just feel this market is unpredictable for the long-term, esp. given Disney's desire to keep alive its flagships in whatever ways possible (some of those unknown to us, even possibly uninvented, in 2021).

As sports cards are rooted to an enduring game that continues to evolve -- in marketing and markets, to boot -- superheroes (and OA) are rooted to comics, which also continue to evolve.  Long-term viabilty certainly isn't guaranteed, but the combination of images and words on sequential pages (or a screen) continues be an enduring medium for humans.  : )  

Edited December 9, 2020 by exitmusicblue

[PhilipB2k17]

57 minutes ago, delekkerste said:

I think when the Gen Xers and early Millennials age out, we'll see it affect the market in a big way.  But, that could be 15-20 years from now just to hit the inflection point and some years more before people figure out what's going on.  

In the meantime, we are living in a Bizarro world where gravity has been removed from all markets, not just comic art.  In fact, some of the gains I'm seeing in other collectibles verticals and, of course, in the financial markets, make OA's gains this year look positively sedate by comparison.  I am pretty much ragingly bullish on everything these days because currencies are being debased into oblivion and people are bored out of their minds.  Buy Buy Buy Buy Buy!

I agree that it will effect the market in a big way. But what I think will happen is that a lot of the overpriced nostalgia bronze and copper age stuff and the 2nd & 3rd tier - and below - silver age stuff will plummet in value. But, you’ll see some 90’s to modern pages skyrocket. 

[pinupcartooncollector]

1 hour ago, delekkerste said:

I think when the Gen Xers and early Millennials age out, we'll see it affect the market in a big way.  But, that could be 15-20 years from now just to hit the inflection point and some years more before people figure out what's going on.  

In the meantime, we are living in a Bizarro world where gravity has been removed from all markets, not just comic art.  In fact, some of the gains I'm seeing in other collectibles verticals and, of course, in the financial markets, make OA's gains this year look positively sedate by comparison.  I am pretty much ragingly bullish on everything these days because currencies are being debased into oblivion and people are bored out of their minds.  Buy Buy Buy Buy Buy!

My kid just informed me (and a quick google search proved it true), that a box of unopened Pokemon cards sold for $350K+.