Adding the designer's name does not change the median by one dollar

The result is clear enough to merit examination, and fragile enough to require that we say straight away what it does not establish.

We will see what this measure proves and what it does not prove, why the allocation has no effect on this type of fund, in which cases on the contrary it does, and how to record the information despite everything.

What the measure establishes

These amounts all relate to what was requested on August 29, 2026, never to what was paid. The two segments remain counted separately, otherwise the comparison would lose all meaning.

Here is the caveat, and it is important: the two questions largely pick up the same announcements.The author's name appears in many titles in this catalog, so adding this word does not select a distinct population. The measure therefore does not establish that no individual ad sells for more in the name of the author.

What it establishes is more limited and remains interesting.The name of the author does not allow us to isolate a more expensive segment: it does not function as a commercial quality filter, whereas the mention of a first appearance always functions as one.

Why attribution remains ineffective here

Four reasons combine, and they relate to the production conditions of the time.

The booklets were not signed on the cover.Credits appeared inside when they appeared, and often only partially. A buyer could not choose a booklet based on its author: the information was not in front of him.

Almost the entire title is in the same hand.When an author produces the essential part of a series, his name no longer distinguishes anything within it. A criterion that applies to all copies cannot sort some of them.

The audience of this catalog buys a period.As with other characters from the same collection, the purchasing decision relates to a publisher, an aesthetic, and a decade. The author is part of the setting of this period rather than detached from it.

Rarity does not vary with author.The relevant booklets were printed and destroyed in the same proportions, regardless of the hand that drew them. However, it is rarity, not prestige, which creates a lasting price gap.

The combination of these four factors is enough to cancel the expected effect.An author's reputation only becomes a price criterion if it allows one object to be distinguished from another., and here she does not allow it.

When allocation on the contrary raises prices

Three configurations produce the opposite effect, and it is useful to know how to recognize them.

The exceptional participation.A renowned author who contributes to one or two issues of a series that he did not create creates an isolated point, immediately identifiable, and the market quickly seizes it.

The first published work.The point of origin of a career works exactly like the point of origin of a character, with the same intensity — and often on obscure booklets that nothing else distinguishes.

The creation of a lasting figure.This is the only case where the author and the character merge: the number concerned is searched for the figure which appears there, and the attribution is added to this search instead of replacing it.

None of these three configurations applies to an author who has produced the bulk of a title over several years.Regular work, that which builds reputation, is precisely that which the market does not know how to value— a paradox that we find in almost all long careers.

Which makes attribution difficult to establish

Wanting to document who did what on these documents poses concrete problems.

How to use this information anyway

Attribution does not make the price, but it serves another purpose, and this use is underestimated.

It provides a reading thread.Following an author through several series from the same era gives a coherent journey, whereas following a character requires crossing unrelated styles.

It allows you to identify ignored booklets.Titles without an identifiable character are not sought after by anyone and remain cheap, even though they sometimes contain an author's best work.

It protects against unpleasant editorial surprises.Knowing when a team changes avoids buying the continuation of a series that you liked precisely what has just ended.

These three uses are documentary and not financial, which is consistent with what the measurement shows.Attribution is a reading tool, not an indicator of value, and treating it as such avoids predictable disappointment.

This asymmetry has a practical consequence for those who buy: the most interesting booklets to read from a regular author are almost always among the least expensive of his production, since nothing indicates them.

A precaution on the concept of signature

A related point deserves to be explicitly excluded, because confusion is common.

The assignment of work and the handwriting of a copy are two separate things. The first says who made the boards; the second is a subsequent intervention on a particular object.

They don't obey the same rules at all.A signature on a booklet creates a unique copy where there were thousands, which is exactly the type of rarity that the market pays for — provided it is verifiable, which poses its own difficulties.

The result measured here therefore says nothing about the signed copies. It concerns only attribution, that is to say information which is equally valid for all copies of the same number.

Information shared by all copies cannot distinguish one, and it is this elementary property, more than any consideration of reputation, which explains the absence of difference observed.

The gap between recognition and remuneration

This result ties in with a broader observation on how careers translate, or not, into amounts.

The recognition of an author is established over time, and the market only knows how to remunerate points.A reputation is built through repetition — hundreds of pages, year after year — while a price is formed on what is unique and identifiable.

These two logics are not only different, they are opposed. What establishes a reputation is the abundance of work; what establishes a price is the rarity of the object.

Hence an unpleasant and perfectly regular consequence:the most prolific authors of a period are those whose work sells for the cheapest, not because it would be worth less, but because it is everywhere.

Conversely, an author who passed quickly, having left few pages, effortlessly obtains what the other will never obtain. The market does not reward quality or loyalty: it rewards the difficulty in obtaining an object, and nothing else.

What to Record About the Creative Team

Documenting the attribution requires a few precise fields, and above all caution regarding sources.

The exact role, not just the name.Scenario, sketching, inking, cover: the same person may only have worked on one of them, and confusing the roles makes the information unusable.

The source of the attribution.Credits printed in the booklet, mention in the catalog, or statement from a seller: the three do not have the same solidity, and you have to know which one you have chosen.

The uncertain character when it is.Noting a doubtful attribution as such is better than omitting or asserting it. Authorship from this era continues to be revised.

The distinction between new work and republished plates.Without it, the chronology of a career reconstructed from an inventory is false.

The possible presence of a handwritten signature, separately.It is a characteristic of the copy, not the issue, and mixing it with attribution mixes two independent markets.