Action Comics 1 - Cover Color Guide 2 2

[bluechip]

1 hour ago, sfcityduck said:

As far as I know, Shuster never, not once, colored a cover.  He was not a colorist.  So I'm not seeing your point here.

Nor do I understand the difference you percieve between a color guide done by an on-staff colorist as opposed to a color guide done under the earlier practice of outsourcing that task to the printer. 

These nitpicks may matter to you, but they make no sense to me.

 

 

 

1 hour ago, sfcityduck said:

As far as I know, Shuster never, not once, colored a cover.  He was not a colorist.  So I'm not seeing your point here.

Nor do I understand the difference you percieve between a color guide done by an on-staff colorist as opposed to a color guide done under the earlier practice of outsourcing that task to the printer. 

These nitpicks may matter to you, but they make no sense to me.

 

 

According to internal DC memos Shuster did not draw the cover art.  The memo says it was based on a panel but done by another artist who was not identified.   I dont think that matters in terms of its value.  Until proven otherwise this is the earliest known extant printing of superman

[Bronty]

Its difficult to imagine the serious buyer that cares who the colorist was or is.   Its a historical artifact, nothing more, nothing less.    Its incredible that it exists for Action 1.    A color guide wouldn't normally excite most but this is no ordinary color guide.   Even as a vintage pre-production print of the cover, its exciting.     It would be more valuable if the coloring matching the final version, but its still pretty great and will be very interesting to watch.      Value is hard to determine on this one.

[bluechip]

In the day these proofs weren't printed in China.   So far as I know they were done locally, perhaps even within the building,

 

 

Edited September 21, 2017 by bluechip

[Bronty]

deleted; temporary confusion.

Edited September 21, 2017 by Bronty

[bluechip]

14 hours ago, jgallo said:

Umm not sure what the heck you are talking about with your sandman 17 comments above.  I think you have me mixed up with someone else.

the fact is the piece is small in size smaller then a golden age comic and that is far less appealing to me.  Much like large art brings more i think this would be far more appealing if it was full size and done by the cover artist as opposed to an out sourced color seperator. 

I highly doubt my meager opinion is going to impact the sale price one way or the other but this whole board is made up of people expressing there opinions so not sure why your calling me out.....???

 

James G

Not trying to be unfair to you and perhaps I overstated it here.   I just remember seeing your ID in other threads and feeling that you were somewhat consistent in taking shots at things people were trying to sell, while hyping things you were selling.  "Sandman 8" is a modern book that somehow stuck in my mind as something you hyped, simultaneous with slamming other things that were older and more rare.   I don't mind people hyping their things and I acknowledge their right to slam other things, but have found that when I've seen people slam something that's old or rare or historic or a combo of all three, if I do a search on what they're selling or hyping it is often items that are newer, more numerous, or even manufactered as a collectible (dealer incentive variants, etc).   But my memory is not perfect so it's possible I confused you with somebody else and I can see looking at the post I may have jumped the gun a bit.   Just trying to be fair to the buyer of this, whom I heard about some years ago after wondering who'd gotten the piece I wish I'd bought.   If I had this today I would be extolling its virtues and I want to be consistent in doing so even when part of me would love to see it unfairly slammed so I could get it cheap.

[sfcityduck]

2 minutes ago, bluechip said:

Just trying to be fair to the buyer of this, whom I heard about some years ago after wondering who'd gotten the piece I wish I'd bought.   If I had this today I would be extolling its virtues and I want to be consistent in doing so even when part of me would love to see it unfairly slammed so I could get it cheap.

 

 

[Bronty]

Just now, sfcityduck said:

+1

[buttock]

7 hours ago, Pickie said:

 

So what's the point in this "Hidden Valley Collection", partly hiding again ...

 

Well it is the "hidden" valley collection.  It's part of the promotion to make the books hard to find.  

 

Oh, and ranch dressing.  

[sfcityduck]

32 minutes ago, bluechip said:

 

According to internal DC memos Shuster did not draw the cover art.  The memo says it was based on a panel but done by another artist who was not identified.   I dont think that matters in terms of its value.  Until proven otherwise this is the earliest known extant printing of superman

I forget, but that might have been disputed in the recent lawsuit.  Hover, there are obvious differences from the interior panel which do  suggest it was a different artist (design of car, faces, art style of the rocks, etc.):

 

[sfcityduck]

My theory is that if the cover of Action 1 was not drawn by Shuster, then it was drawn by O'Mealia.  You heard it here first! ... ?  Here's the argument:

• The quality of the art for the cover is higher than the quality of the art for the interior, however it follows the interior panel fairly closely suggesting this was a redrawing of a stat of the interior panel;
• We know O'Mealia was used to redraw at least one other interior Superman panel by Shuster, that for the cover of Superman 1.  The Superman 1 cover is from the opening Shuster panel in the Superman story in Action 10.  Per Gary Carter in Comic Book Marketplace, Leo O'Mealia's son Leo Jr. uncovered evidence of his father's work on this cover from his records.  Leo O'Mealia apparently did a photostat retracing and/or retouching of the figure and building backgrounds, and added the ornate detail seen on the Superman 1 cover.
• No DC artist has ever claimed to have drawn the cover to Action 1 (or, for that matter, Superman 1).  You would have expected someone to have made that claim if they had.  Unless they had a reason not to.  And O'Melia had several:  First, those covers were clearly a step down from his normal work.  Although they look better than Shuster's then style, they are a step down from O'Melia's own style.  Second, his comic book work was an early stage of his career as he went on to the much more respected newspaper arena.  Consequently, he is unlikely to have viewed his comic work as boast-worthy.  Third, Siegel, Shuster, and O'Mealia had a personal reason to keep any ghosting of Shuster by O'Mealia an undiscussed topic.  As relayed in Larry Tye's book on the history of Superman, At one point in the odyssey that was Superman's creation, Siegel decided to go a different direction for the artist than Shuster (who had already made one attempt at drawing a comic based on Siegel's early concepts), and reached out to other artists.  The first he reached out to was O'Mealia.  Siegel related:  "When I told Joe of this, he unhappily destroyed the drawn-up pages of 'THE SUPERMAN,' burning them in the furnace of his apartment building.  At my request, he gave me as a gift the torn cover."  Unlike how the story is sometimes told, the pages weren't burned because Shuster was upset at publisher rejections, but because Siegel was disloyal to Shuster.  (And Siegel was and continued to be, subsequently having Russell Keaton draw the story up as a daily strip.)  So maybe Siegel and/or Shuster told the story to O'Mealia and he kept quiet about his ghosting jobs out of respect to his DC colleagues.
• And, of course, O'Mealia was the regular cover artist for Action Comics at that time.   Perhaps getting the assignment after he did the first issue.

Edited September 21, 2017 by sfcityduck

[jgallo]

1 hour ago, bluechip said:

Not trying to be unfair to you and perhaps I overstated it here.   I just remember seeing your ID in other threads and feeling that you were somewhat consistent in taking shots at things people were trying to sell, while hyping things you were selling.  "Sandman 8" is a modern book that somehow stuck in my mind as something you hyped, simultaneous with slamming other things that were older and more rare.   I don't mind people hyping their things and I acknowledge their right to slam other things, but have found that when I've seen people slam something that's old or rare or historic or a combo of all three, if I do a search on what they're selling or hyping it is often items that are newer, more numerous, or even manufactered as a collectible (dealer incentive variants, etc).   But my memory is not perfect so it's possible I confused you with somebody else and I can see looking at the post I may have jumped the gun a bit.   Just trying to be fair to the buyer of this, whom I heard about some years ago after wondering who'd gotten the piece I wish I'd bought.   If I had this today I would be extolling its virtues and I want to be consistent in doing so even when part of me would love to see it unfairly slammed so I could get it cheap.

Considering i am a golden age collector and i don't think i have ever tried to sell a modern age book on the boards you most certainly have me confused with someone else.  I do not sell moderns and i hate retailer incentive .  I also dont talk down on things and i was just voicing my opinion about it,which I don't think was done in a disparaging way.

your trying to be far to the owner of this color guide but your disparaging me in the process.  I dont think that is right or fair.

feel free to check my ebay id which is jgallo and you will see plenty of golden age books.

[bluechip]

1 hour ago, jgallo said:

Considering i am a golden age collector and i don't think i have ever tried to sell a modern age book on the boards you most certainly have me confused with someone else.  I do not sell moderns and i hate retailer incentive .  I also dont talk down on things and i was just voicing my opinion about it,which I don't think was done in a disparaging way.

your trying to be far to the owner of this color guide but your disparaging me in the process.  I dont think that is right or fair.

feel free to check my ebay id which is jgallo and you will see plenty of golden age books.

 

Again, if I confused you with someone else, my apologies.  

I was looking to respond to disparaging posts, not generate one.  

 

Edited September 21, 2017 by bluechip

[Bronty]

4 hours ago, sfcityduck said:

My theory is that if the cover of Action 1 was not drawn by Shuster, then it was drawn by O'Mealia.  You heard it here first! ... ?  Here's the argument:

• The quality of the art for the cover is higher than the quality of the art for the interior, however it follows the interior panel fairly closely suggesting this was a redrawing of a stat of the interior panel;
• We know O'Mealia was used to redraw at least one other interior Superman panel by Shuster, that for the cover of Superman 1.  The Superman 1 cover is from the opening Shuster panel in the Superman story in Action 10.  Per Gary Carter in Comic Book Marketplace, Leo O'Mealia's son Leo Jr. uncovered evidence of his father's work on this cover from his records.  Leo O'Mealia apparently did a photostat retracing and/or retouching of the figure and building backgrounds, and added the ornate detail seen on the Superman 1 cover.
• No DC artist has ever claimed to have drawn the cover to Action 1 (or, for that matter, Superman 1).  You would have expected someone to have made that claim if they had.  Unless they had a reason not to.  And O'Melia had several:  First, those covers were clearly a step down from his normal work.  Although they look better than Shuster's then style, they are a step down from O'Melia's own style.  Second, his comic book work was an early stage of his career as he went on to the much more respected newspaper arena.  Consequently, he is unlikely to have viewed his comic work as boast-worthy.  Third, Siegel, Shuster, and O'Mealia had a personal reason to keep any ghosting of Shuster by O'Mealia an undiscussed topic.  As relayed in Larry Tye's book on the history of Superman, At one point in the odyssey that was Superman's creation, Siegel decided to go a different direction for the artist than Shuster (who had already made one attempt at drawing a comic based on Siegel's early concepts), and reached out to other artists.  The first he reached out to was O'Mealia.  Siegel related:  "When I told Joe of this, he unhappily destroyed the drawn-up pages of 'THE SUPERMAN,' burning them in the furnace of his apartment building.  At my request, he gave me as a gift the torn cover."  Unlike how the story is sometimes told, the pages weren't burned because Shuster was upset at publisher rejections, but because Siegel was disloyal to Shuster.  (And Siegel was and continued to be, subsequently having Russell Keaton draw the story up as a daily strip.)  So maybe Siegel and/or Shuster told the story to O'Mealia and he kept quiet about his ghosting jobs out of respect to his DC colleagues.
• And, of course, O'Mealia was the regular cover artist for Action Comics at that time.   Perhaps getting the assignment after he did the first issue.

I think we discussed this earlier at some point and yeah, the more you look at it the more you can see it isn't Shuster.   Amazing how we are still discovering things.   To me the last point is one of the most convincing.   Why wouldn't it be O'Mealia when he did the other issues.   He was the regular artist.

I think the attribution of Action 1 is wrong (listed as Shuster on the cgc label) but I think #7, #10, #13, I think they are all wrong.   I'm not an expert on early actions but my guess is Shuster did NONE of those early covers.

[Pickie]

"Hidden Valley Collection" ... so I found it's a collection that Jerry Weist initially brought to market via eBay in Dec. 2004, as stated by Michelle Nolan in Nov. 2004: https://www.cgccomics.com/news/enews/cgc_enews_0411nov.htm ... (not much of a "story" so far)

 

 

[Pickie]

Whoever it was, the cover artist dismissed the wreck's speed lines since the car had already crashed.

[sfcityduck]

8 hours ago, Pickie said:

"Hidden Valley Collection" ... so I found it's a collection that Jerry Weist initially brought to market via eBay in Dec. 2004, as stated by Michelle Nolan in Nov. 2004: https://www.cgccomics.com/news/enews/cgc_enews_0411nov.htm ... (not much of a "story" so far)

 

 

I'm not convinced its the same collection.  This color guide was originally brought to market in 1995 by Sotheby's.  So too, was the Action 1.  They were from two different sources, not part of any collection.  Unless the guy who bought the color guide in 1995 from Sotheby's, sold off all his Marvels in 2004 through Weist, and now, in 2017, is selling off the stuff he bought in 1995, this isn't the same "Hidden Valley Collection."

Maybe Comic Connect and Jerry Weiss just hit on the same salad dressing inspiration for their marketing puffery.

[sfcityduck]

I assume the Metro guys (metropolisent) are reading the thread because they updated the description of the color guide (which is now re-listed) to add the Donnenfeld connection which was previously absent.  If so, it would sure be nice to hear the story on the "Hidden Valley Collection."  Why not let us know at least some general info? 

[Bronty]

I hope CGC is also reading this thread because the label info on the #1 book in the hobby is wrong

[adamstrange]

34 minutes ago, Bronty said:

I hope CGC is also reading this thread because the label info on the #1 book in the hobby is wrong

They added an extra "s"

[Bronty]

hehe.      Still, cover artist of Action 1 is a big deal to get wrong!    And the more we look at 1, 7, etc, the less likely they seem to be Shuster!     O'Mealia trying to look like Shuster is really what we are looking at, it seems!   The linework is just a little too 'sensitive' to be Shuster.    He had a rougher way about his style and there was already good evidence to show O'Mealia was the cover artist on Superman 1.   Why not here as well. 

Did Shuster do any covers of any comics at all?    Was he interiors only perhaps for his whole career?     Its an interesting discussion

Edited September 22, 2017 by Bronty