NY Times article on collecting original art

[Red Hook]

In today's paper... also online. As usual, the mainstream press is a year or two behind developments in the hobby. And the usual cliches about comic book collecting abound.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/30/arts/design/30comi.html?_r=1&ref=arts&oref=slogin

[Mariner]

In today's paper... also online. As usual, the mainstream press is a year or two behind developments in the hobby. And the usual cliches about comic book collecting abound.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/30/arts/design/30comi.html?_r=1&ref=arts&oref=slogin

Decent article. The cliches are there for a reason. They are easy to understand for civilians. And if you buy anything hoping not to take a bath if you need to resell it, I would recommend remebering at all times what the civilians think.

When you're talking with friends who are comic geeks it is easy to get caught up into thinking that some modern title or character is "better than Batman" and so the books or the art should be worth as much or even more.

[Red Hook]

I do wish the author had referenced even a bit the scandalous way in which original art was kept from silver age artists (like Kirby) and moved into private hands via questionable practices.

That's a much better story, but would require more than a few calls to places like Heritage.

[Khumbu]

In some ways he did reply to the Kirby incident in that in the sixties and before the art was treated as pieces of paper that was not important. The only reason it is so important now is that is Kirby. Joe Schmoe and others didn't get their art saved either, no reason to give them back their art. It was the practice of the time, it still doesn't make it right, but no one cared until everybody started forking over big time cash for the art.