Mark Bagley's Miles Morales Spider-Man Cover Art Sells for $225,000 1 1

[comicinkking.com]

1 hour ago, Bronty said:

Okay, but it’s still the same discussion.

The OA for a mindless and poorly drawn 90s book that was super popular is going to outsell Maus art, to use your example, every time.   
 

Quality, whether it’s if image or of artwork or of story or of (fill in the blank), is only one driver, and really not the most important driver .    Buyers and sellers don’t buy and sell based on quality - they buy and sell based on supply and demand and neither of those things relate directly to quality of any type.  (Sure qiluality of any of thise metrics can affect demand but only indirectly and demand can be high for items that don’t meet whatever quality test you choose). 
 

To put it simply the ‘quality’ related to a piece of OA is only one reason to consider buying it.   There are many many others.   The first appearance of a character is one of those other drivers.   

"The OA for a mindless and poorly drawn 90s book that was super popular is going to outsell Maus art, to use your example, every time."

a) I don't think that's true.  b) Have you ever seen Maus art for sale?  If not, what are you basing this on?

"...they buy and sell based on supply and demand and neither of those things relate directly to quality of any type."

Why do you think certain items are "scarce"?  It is exactly because of quality.  What most people consider to be the "best of the best" is usually hard to find because everyone wants it.  If Herb Trimpe drew one issue of Doctor Bong, that would make it scarce.  It wouldn't make it valuable. 

[delekkerste]

I actually chatted with the original owner of the Miles Morales cover yesterday.  I didn't know at the time that he was the original owner; I just happened to mention the sale to him and he responded (in a public forum, not breaking any confidences here):

"I used to own that Miles Morales cover. LOL. Not that you can even tell it’s Miles if you don’t already know. Ugh.

I was the original buyer from Spencer Beck (paid $2200 IIRC). Even requested that he ask Mark Bagley for the headshot patch for the 2nd print cover (which Mark sent to me shortly thereafter). I sold it a year later for 8k+ (well before there was a Spider-Verse movie or anything like that). Fish then bought it from that guy a few years later for 30k IIRC."

No need to shed any tears for him, though...he rolled that money into other things that have also done exceedingly well.  

[GreatEscape]

Fantastic story of snowballing value... from "Oh!" (1st app but not full costume) to "Oh my!" (Into the Spider-verse) to "OMG!" (historic and significant / even better without mask)

[Rick2you2]

14 hours ago, comicinkking.com said:

Why do you think certain items are "scarce"?  It is exactly because of quality.  What most people consider to be the "best of the best" is usually hard to find because everyone wants it.  If Herb Trimpe drew one issue of Doctor Bong, that would make it scarce.  It wouldn't make it valuable. 

I can't agree with you on that. Take a look at John Byrne's artwork. His X-Men and some other appearances are expensive as hell, but then compare it to later work like Next Men, which is cheap. He didn't lose skill; he lost audience.

Someone earlier had commented that they consider full splashes the best (along with covers). I disagree. They are the showiest, and tend to command the highest prices, but in terms of moving the story along, they are like a pregnant pause. And, they may take a lot of illustrative skill, but in many cases, you better see their comic artistry in panel pages--making dull dialog or lulls in the action interesting. That's got to be harder.

Finally, let me add that "quality" is sometimes confused with style--is the artist's particular flair attracting attention or not. That's often a matter of personal taste, and market influence, not quality. Most people would agree that Bruce Timm is an excellent artist, but part of what makes him a hot commodity is the style in which he draws (like sexy cartoon women). 

Edited February 17, 2021 by Rick2you2

[Gatsby77]

1 minute ago, Rick2you2 said:

I can't agree with you on that. Take a look at Jim Byrne's artwork. His X-Men and some other appearances are expensive as hell, but then compare it to later work like Next Men, which is cheap. He didn't lose skill; he lost audience.

Someone earlier had commented that they consider full splashes the best (along with covers). I disagree. They are the showiest, and tend to command the highest prices, but in terms of moving the story along, they are like a pregnant pause. And, they may take a lot of illustrative skill, but in many cases, you better see their comic artistry in panel pages--making dull dialog or lulls in the action interesting. That's got to be harder.

Agree.

Jim Lee's work is arguably better in Batman: Hush and even in WildCATS than it was on Uncanny X-Men, yet the X-Men pieces will always be more expensive.

Context is all.

Ditto - Nobody cares that Steve Ditko did artwork for some relatively early Valiant books (including X-O # 6, Shadowman # 6 and Solar # 14-15).

[exitmusicblue]

This has been an eggcellent thread.

Bags has been the creator of many a notable, eventually $$$ cover.  I appreciate the fact that he hasn't Simonson'd us with them (as much as I love Walt and his work).

[tfish1]

I bought it for 30k before animated movie

sold it for $100k in 2019

 bought it back for $150k in 2020 and sold it for $200k

not certain if buyer resold for $225k

reading this thread maybe I should have kept it

[Chaykin Stevens]

7 hours ago, Rick2you2 said:

I can't agree with you on that. Take a look at Jim Byrne's artwork. His X-Men and some other appearances are expensive as hell, but then compare it to later work like Next Men, which is cheap. He didn't lose skill; he lost audience.

Many people prefer Terry Austin's inking to "Jim" Byrne's.

[Chaykin Stevens]

8 hours ago, Gatsby77 said:

Ditto - Nobody cares that Steve Ditko did artwork for some relatively early Valiant books (including X-O # 6, Shadowman # 6 and Solar # 14-15).

I think Ditko just did breakdowns for most of his Valiant stuff, so it might have quality against it as well as context.

Edited February 16, 2021 by Chaykin Stevens

[PhilipB2k17]

2 hours ago, tfish1 said:

I bought it for 30k before animated movie

sold it for $100k in 2019

 bought it back for $150k in 2020 and sold it for $200k

not certain if buyer resold for $225k

reading this thread maybe I should have kept it

One downside of this hobby in terms of valuation are all the tax dodging private sales. 

[Rick2you2]

3 hours ago, Chaykin Stevens said:

Many people prefer Terry Austin's inking to "Jim" Byrne's.

Oops. John Byrne. Definitely need more sleep.

[tth2]

4 hours ago, Chaykin Stevens said:

11 hours ago, Gatsby77 said:

Ditto - Nobody cares that Steve Ditko did artwork for some relatively early Valiant books (including X-O # 6, Shadowman # 6 and Solar # 14-15).

I think Ditko just did breakdowns for most of his Valiant stuff, so it might have quality against it as well as context.

The point is that there's a huge difference between the price of Ditko Spidey art and Ditko anything else art, including Dr. Strange art.

OA is commercial/illustrated art.  Context is everything.  There's a premium paid for pages that say "Snikt!", for god's sake.  Anyone who thinks it's all about aesthetics and quality is either deluding themselves or in the wrong hobby.

[Xatari]

On 2/14/2021 at 5:56 PM, Hal Turner said:

I'm a big fan of first appearances. Every major comic book character has had dozens of "important" storylines, but his or her first appearance? That's extra special.

Same for me. I actually collect first appearance OA. 

[comicinkking.com]

18 hours ago, Rick2you2 said:

I can't agree with you on that. Take a look at John Byrne's artwork. His X-Men and some other appearances are expensive as hell, but then compare it to later work like Next Men, which is cheap. He didn't lose skill; he lost audience.

Someone earlier had commented that they consider full splashes the best (along with covers). I disagree. They are the showiest, and tend to command the highest prices, but in terms of moving the story along, they are like a pregnant pause. And, they may take a lot of illustrative skill, but in many cases, you better see their comic artistry in panel pages--making dull dialog or lulls in the action interesting. That's got to be harder.

Finally, let me add that "quality" is sometimes confused with style--is the artist's particular flair attracting attention or not. That's often a matter of personal taste, and market influence, not quality. Most people would agree that Bruce Timm is an excellent artist, but part of what makes him a hot commodity is the style in which he draws (like sexy cartoon women). 

"He didn't lose skill; he lost audience."  Again, I am not talking about the artwork itself.  I'm talking about significance.  Pick a decade and you can find the most "important" books from that decade.  The works of Miller and Moore in the 80's for example.  And since you mentioned him, Byrne's X-men and FF work.  Byrne has done a TON of books - but those are considered his best works - they were huge at the time.  They were significant for that generation.  Lee/Kirby FF, Lee/Ditko Spidey, etc.  When future generations look back at comics, this is where they will be pointed because these were the high points - the "best of the best".  I'm just saying that, I HOPE, these things will be valued over "first appearances".  And I'm also ok with both being valued.  But I think one is more important than the other.

[Bronty]

Tth2 said it all.   Snikt.   
 

I think you’re starting with the idea that you don’t like first appearance art being highly valued , and trying to fit into some way to support that, including commingling several valuation factors into one, but this discussion boils down to : you’re not a fan of high prices in first appearance art.    Well, okay, there’s nothing wrong with having that reaction but it doesn’t need to have logical support, art doesn’t lend itself well to logic in the first place. 

Edited February 17, 2021 by Bronty

[Rick2you2]

4 hours ago, comicinkking.com said:

"He didn't lose skill; he lost audience."  Again, I am not talking about the artwork itself.  I'm talking about significance.  Pick a decade and you can find the most "important" books from that decade.  The works of Miller and Moore in the 80's for example.  And since you mentioned him, Byrne's X-men and FF work.  Byrne has done a TON of books - but those are considered his best works - they were huge at the time.  They were significant for that generation.  Lee/Kirby FF, Lee/Ditko Spidey, etc.  When future generations look back at comics, this is where they will be pointed because these were the high points - the "best of the best".  I'm just saying that, I HOPE, these things will be valued over "first appearances".  And I'm also ok with both being valued.  But I think one is more important than the other.

When future generations look back at comics, it will probably be with the same reaction which we give Horatio Alger stories: we know of them (maybe even character names like "Ragged D*ck" or "Mark the Match Boy"), but books? Uh-uh. Or how about "Tom Brown's School Days"? A well read series from the late nineteen hundreds, and completely forgotten? And first appearances...yea sure. If anything, future generations will marvel at how we didn't value things like war comics or romance--things that deal with real people. Most of the stuff we value will likely be viewed in much the same way we view jewelry made with human hair--historic curiosities to be valued as such.

[jjonahjameson11]

You don't even have to go that far back into history to uncover forgotten works.

See what kind of reaction you get from a teenager when you mention Duran Duran or Wham! (dude, like, you mean that thing Deadpool mentioned?).  Oh, that's 80's stuff?  Man, you're such a 'Boomer'.  

[Rick2you2]

55 minutes ago, jjonahjameson11 said:

You don't even have to go that far back into history to uncover forgotten works.

See what kind of reaction you get from a teenager when you mention Duran Duran or Wham! (dude, like, you mean that thing Deadpool mentioned?).  Oh, that's 80's stuff?  Man, you're such a 'Boomer'.  

My kids are in their 20’s and they love that old music, and other stuff dating back to the 1960’s. Twenty- three, skidoo.

[comicinkking.com]

18 hours ago, Bronty said:

Tth2 said it all.   Snikt.   
 

I think you’re starting with the idea that you don’t like first appearance art being highly valued , and trying to fit into some way to support that, including commingling several valuation factors into one, but this discussion boils down to : you’re not a fan of high prices in first appearance art.    Well, okay, there’s nothing wrong with having that reaction but it doesn’t need to have logical support, art doesn’t lend itself well to logic in the first place. 

"I think you’re starting with the idea that you don’t like first appearance art being highly valued"

How about I say what I think, and you say what you think.  Instead of you saying what you think I think.

[comicinkking.com]

17 hours ago, Rick2you2 said:

When future generations look back at comics, it will probably be with the same reaction which we give Horatio Alger stories: we know of them (maybe even character names like "Ragged D*ck" or "Mark the Match Boy"), but books? Uh-uh. Or how about "Tom Brown's School Days"? A well read series from the late nineteen hundreds, and completely forgotten? And first appearances...yea sure. If anything, future generations will marvel at how we didn't value things like war comics or romance--things that deal with real people. Most of the stuff we value will likely be viewed in much the same way we view jewelry made with human hair--historic curiosities to be valued as such.

Time will tell, but I think of comics as an art form like jazz, film, or great novels.  Instead of pointing to things that fell out of favor (like Alger), why not focus on the things that have had lasting cultural significance?  Shakespeare, Mozart, Van Gogh....