|
|
Post by G on Jul 27, 2012 10:32:14 GMT -5
I could halfway understand if this was a Classic Kirby, Ditko, Buscema, Frazetta, etc. But 2/3rds of a Million dollars for a completely jacked up cover done by McFarlane???!! Please!!! This is absolutely disgusting to me. McFarlane Cover Brings $657,250'X-Men' #1 Brings $492,937Published: 07/27/2012 01:16am icv2.com/articles/news/23526.htmlTodd McFarlane’s cover art for Amazing Spider-Man #328, which depicts Spider-Man battling the Hulk, has sold at auction for $657,250, Heritage Auctions announced Thursday. That topped the price for McFarlane’s art for Spider-Man #1, which sold for $358,500 in the same auction. The art was part of the Shamus Collection of Modern Masterworks, assembled by Martin Shamus, Wizard publisher Gareb and Steven Shamus’ father (see "Huge Heritage Auctions Coming"). The price for the cover art for Amazing Spider-Man #328 sets a new record for a single piece of American comic art, topping the price for a Dark Knight splash page by Frank Miller and Klaus Janson set last year ("Miller Page Goes for $448,125"). But that’s still far below the world record price for comic art, set this year for a Tintin cover (see "Tintin Cover Sold for $1.6 Million"). A CGC 9.8 copy of X-Men #1 from the same auction sold for $492,937.50, according to Hollywood Reporter; and a 9.6 copy of Avengers #1 went for $274,850. Those were both record prices for those books. |
|
|
|
Post by defiant1 on Jul 28, 2012 3:13:03 GMT -5
What a waste of money. I wouldn't pay $200 for that piece. It looks like crap. The cover is too busy and that's a horrible quality illustration of Hulk. It looks like it has a lot of white out on it. To pay a record price, I'd look for an image that is both pleasant visually, but also neat clean and presentable. If he has some boner for this one issue, I guess he should be happy. He pissed away enough money to feed 657,250 starving kids for one day. Good going. The buyer proved he has too much money and no taste all in one purchase.
df1
|
|
|
|
Post by G on Jul 28, 2012 15:45:09 GMT -5
Yeah, this is just the worst thing I've seen in a long time. It's not even significant. Okay, it has Spider-Man and the Hulk, but I agree, the Hulk looks like crap. It's not even the best cover during McFarlane's run on ASM. I personally think #316 (nice Venom Cover) was his best. And even that one I don't see commanding money like this. This particular cover, I could see in the $5,000 - $10,000 range. I would consider $20,000 outrageous. The Venom cover, I could see in the $20,000 - $30,000 range and maybe being outrageous at $50,000. And even that is just plain goofy but I give it for the pure fact it is McFarlane, it is iconic and its one of Venom's first serious cover shots. This one with the Hulk just doesn't compare but for the reasons I mention about I can see it in the $5,000 - $10,000 range.
I think its a crying shame someone paid this kind of stupid money for this piece. I'm not exactly sure why we continue to worship McFarlane. I remember when it came out, I remember being in the herd and thinking it was dynamic and different but it didn't take long to realize he is vastly untalented and basically has limited his art to poses. It was good when he pretty much quit drawing. He's a sham. And I think the more he was drawing, the more that was coming to light.
I actually respect and like Liefeld's art more and I'm hardly a fan of his.
|
|
|
|
Post by defiant1 on Jul 29, 2012 6:51:28 GMT -5
Yeah, this is just the worst thing I've seen in a long time. It's not even significant. Okay, it has Spider-Man and the Hulk, but I agree, the Hulk looks like crap. It's not even the best cover during McFarlane's run on ASM. I personally think #316 (nice Venom Cover) was his best. And even that one I don't see commanding money like this. This particular cover, I could see in the $5,000 - $10,000 range. I would consider $20,000 outrageous. The Venom cover, I could see in the $20,000 - $30,000 range and maybe being outrageous at $50,000. And even that is just plain goofy but I give it for the pure fact it is McFarlane, it is iconic and its one of Venom's first serious cover shots. This one with the Hulk just doesn't compare but for the reasons I mention about I can see it in the $5,000 - $10,000 range. I think its a crying shame someone paid this kind of stupid money for this piece. I'm not exactly sure why we continue to worship McFarlane. I remember when it came out, I remember being in the herd and thinking it was dynamic and different but it didn't take long to realize he is vastly untalented and basically has limited his art to poses. It was good when he pretty much quit drawing. He's a sham. And I think the more he was drawing, the more that was coming to light. I actually respect and like Liefeld's art more and I'm hardly a fan of his. I think Liefeld does care about comics. When I got back into comics in the 90's, I thought comics were crap. I still do. Lee, Liefeld, and Mcfarlane pale in comparison to the greats. As time went by, I became more tolerant of Lee, but I still think it's crap. I'd never look to own ANY of their art. df1 |
|
|
|
Post by Gilles on Oct 8, 2020 13:44:58 GMT -5
And I cannot sell classic Bisley harvest of evil for a record of 40.000 $
|
|
|
|
Post by defiant1 on Oct 18, 2020 20:51:54 GMT -5
Since the majority of people in the U.S. live week to week, finding people who can afford it is one of the biggest challenges.
Defiant1
|
|
