Action Comics #1 Cover color proof - ComicConnect 0

[SquareChaos]

26 minutes ago, BCarter27 said:

I wouldn't consider guys doing paste-ups in the bullpen as anything but interchangeable, but the inker, letterer, colorist, and logo designer are all making unique contributions that fall under my definition of "original".

Some of this tips into the various recent discussions about the changing nature of original comic art. For some, if it isn't twice-up with lettering and logos on the board, visible from across the room, they don't want it. Others are fine with stats, no lettering, paste-up word balloons, inks over blueline copies, and whatever else was necessary to get the thing out on time. I think this definition is and has always been more fluid than what is generally thought of.

I just find it strange that art collectors aren't more excited about this. It's one of one... even if you consider "one" to encompass all Action 1 production materials and not just one unique hand-colored mockup. What if there were 3-4 variations of these in the lot? Would that stir up more interest? Maybe it would.

Of course, I don't value this as much as the pen and ink art from the same book. I wouldn't even value it as much as the final color guide. But assuming the description is accurate, and with the general scarcity of any DC original art from that period, I am left scratching my head.

I agree with you, what is considered original art changes over time - right now, it seems like the large majority does not considered this print to be original art. And I don't know that they ever will. 

If you look at how the opinions have changed over time, they have changed because they had to. And each time the definition has changed, it landed on whatever was available that was the closest thing possible to the previous iteration in the creation process of the illustrator and inker. It isn't as if the switch to inks over printed out blue line was one of several options available to modern collectors, it was literally the only opinion available because nothing else existed that either the illustrator or inker had touched.

One might argue that this print is the only thing left - there are no other options for Action #1 original art - but again, it is still a one-of-many print, and it wasn't colored by any of the people associated with the creation of Superman. If this had been colored by Shuster and the color palette was aligned with that of the final cover... I think that takes it to another place. But I still don't think many would consider it original art since no matter who touched it, they can't magically change the origin from a print to something original.

[BCarter27]

33 minutes ago, artdealer said:

Are you talking about the Miller cover to DKR #1? 
 

This one that someone posted awhile back.

By some strict readings of the definitions above, this isn't OA either... which I don't agree with.

For example, those Lynn Varley colored pages you had at Comic Art Con are terrific and I think they go a long way to loosening up the status quo around here about the contribution of colorists.

Edited November 10, 2017 by BCarter27

[SquareChaos]

Just now, BCarter27 said:

This one that someone posted awhile back.

Be some strict readings of the definitions above, this isn't OA either... which I don't agree with.

For example, those Lynn Varley colored pages you had at Comic Art Con are terrific and I think they go a long way to loosening up the status quo around here about the contribution of colorists.

I'm not sure what you're trying to say here, so I avoided this bit about the DKR cover in your previous reply to me.

[BCarter27]

27 minutes ago, SquareChaos said:

print to something original.

It is a reproduction of the line art, but it is hand-colored.

 

28 minutes ago, SquareChaos said:

One might argue that this print is the only thing left

I think that's a pretty safe assumption. And I would think that it trumps all of the other hangups people have about colored art.

[artdealer]

2 minutes ago, BCarter27 said:

This one that someone posted awhile back.

Be some strict readings of the definitions above, this isn't OA either... which I don't agree with.

For example, those Lynn Varley colored pages you had at Comic Art Con are terrific and I think they go a long way to loosening up the status quo around here about the contribution of colorists.

What in hell are you talking about?

Of course it's original art! It's a painting! Gouache and ink and airbrush.

How do I know? I sold it.

Don't know what you heard about this cover. It's original.

The Varley pieces I have are NOT color guides. They are the actual painted blue lines that the book was printed from.

They consist of an acetate sheet of the b/w line art laid over a blue line of the b/w line art, which is then painted in gouache and watercolor. Only one of each page exists. 

And Jim Lee does not own the DKR cover.

Mitch Itkowitz
Graphic Collectibles

[artdealer]

3 minutes ago, BCarter27 said:

It is a reproduction of the line art, but it is hand-colored.

 

I think that's a pretty safe assumption. And I would think that it trumps all of the other hangups people have about colored art.

Wrongo .

[SquareChaos]

4 minutes ago, BCarter27 said:

It is a reproduction of the line art, but it is hand-colored.

 

I think that's a pretty safe assumption. And I would think that it trumps all of the other hangups people have about colored art.

Being last piece standing doesn't make it original art. It has nothing to do with the 'colored' aspect of it.

[BCarter27]

Just now, artdealer said:

What in hell are you talking about?

Of course it's original art! It's a painting! Gouache and ink and airbrush.

How do I know? I sold it.

Don't know what you heard about this cover. It's original.

The Varley pieces I have are NOT color guides. They are the actual painted blue lines that the book was printed from.

They consist of an acetate sheet of the b/w line art laid over a blue line of the b/w line art, which is then painted in gouache and watercolor. Only one of each page exists. 

And Jim Lee does not own the DKR cover.

Mitch Itkowitz
Graphic Collectibles

Yes, I understand all of that and I agree. I was just using this as an example of a broader point about how there is a spectrum of what is considered "original comic art". Varley's contribution to the book is indelible, especially when you see those colored, painted pages.

My understanding of that picture above is that someone was visiting Jim lee to show him the cover.

[artdealer]

1 minute ago, BCarter27 said:

Yes, I understand all of that and I agree. I was just using this as an example of a broader point about how there is a spectrum of what is considered "original comic art". Varley's contribution to the book is indelible, especially when you see those colored, painted pages.

My understanding of that picture above is that someone was visiting Jim lee to show him the cover.

Except, you're wrong again about there being any line art for DKR #1. All art by both Miller and Varley, were done on the board you see in the photo.

Where do you hear these stories?

MI

[fsumavila]

7 minutes ago, BCarter27 said:

Yes, I understand all of that and I agree. I was just using this as an example of a broader point about how there is a spectrum of what is considered "original comic art". Varley's contribution to the book is indelible, especially when you see those colored, painted pages.

My understanding of that picture above is that someone was visiting Jim lee to show him the cover.

and that is correct. the person who owns this cover visited Jim at DC and brought it to show him.

[BCarter27]

2 minutes ago, artdealer said:

Except, you're wrong again about there being any line art for DKR #1. All art by both Miller and Varley, were done on the board you see in the photo.

Where do you hear these stories?

MI

Then, my memory of the description of how the DKR 1 cover was made is incorrect. I mistakenly assumed it was done in the same manner as the interior pages you have on offer. Therefore the cover would be a bad example of the broader point I was trying to make. The interior pages would still be a suitable example, however.

[JadeGiant]

Anyone have predictions on price? I think it was Gene that said an Action 1 in 1.0 condition would be more valuable - what do those go for?

 

I don't care what you want to call it (OA or not), I find this piece to be very intriguing as an artifact form the creation of probably the most important comic ever produced. I am sure, as such, that it will fetch a very handsome price. 

 

If something similar for Hulk 1 popped up for auction I would be very interested in owning it regardless the the label you wanted to put on it. 

 

 

[jjonahjameson11]

8 minutes ago, JadeGiant said:

Anyone have predictions on price? I think it was Gene that said an Action 1 in 1.0 condition would be more valuable - what do those go for?

 

I don't care what you want to call it (OA or not), I find this piece to be very intriguing as an artifact form the creation of probably the most important comic ever produced. I am sure, as such, that it will fetch a very handsome price. 

 

If something similar for Hulk 1 popped up for auction I would be very interested in owning it regardless the the label you wanted to put on it. 

 

 

HIya, Dave:

Interesting topic for sure, and one that I would never consider to be so divisive, but the proof is contained within this thread.

Let me start by saying I appreciate historical significance as much as the next fella, and while I've never had a desire to own an Action #1, I can understand its appeal.  Having said that, this colour mock up has ZERO appeal to me as an OA collector, and probably less so as a comic collector.  I think there is a small subset of OA + comic collectors that find this interesting or historically significant, but as for me, I just took a look at the item being offered and read the description, and thought to myself "Meh.  Whatever." and went about my merry way.

Regarding your reference to something similar for Hulk #1, let me say that I'm fairly certain I like Hulk as much as you, but again, I would have ZERO interesting in owning the colour mock up for Hulk #1.

 

[bluechip]

On 11/10/2017 at 12:09 PM, SquareChaos said:

I agree with you, what is considered original art changes over time - right now, it seems like the large majority does not considered this print to be original art. And I don't know that they ever will. 

If you look at how the opinions have changed over time, they have changed because they had to. And each time the definition has changed, it landed on whatever was available that was the closest thing possible to the previous iteration in the creation process of the illustrator and inker. It isn't as if the switch to inks over printed out blue line was one of several options available to modern collectors, it was literally the only opinion available because nothing else existed that either the illustrator or inker had touched.

One might argue that this print is the only thing left - there are no other options for Action #1 original art - but again, it is still a one-of-many print, and it wasn't colored by any of the people associated with the creation of Superman. If this had been colored by Shuster and the color palette was aligned with that of the final cover... I think that takes it to another place. But I still don't think many would consider it original art since no matter who touched it, they can't magically change the origin from a print to something original.

If "original art" means only published art, then it's not.   But I've seen unpublished art called original art without people crying foul.  And there is no question that the meticulously applied coloring is art, done by a professional artist in connection with the original publication in 1938, regardless of whether it's "considered" art by any individual or small group of people. If any OA collector wants to say it's not valuable or desirable in his or her view, they can do that; but their lack of enthusiasm for it doesn't impart the power to change the definitions of words.

Edited November 11, 2017 by bluechip

[NelsonAI]

Everything is "collectible".  I think the difference in opinion is on the valuation.   

Generally speaking, the value of any hand colored guide is contingent on the "printed image".  The reason this item is more highly desirable is because the image is from Action 1,  (original era as opposed to modern reproduction), and not because of the name recognition of the colorist that hand colored the guide.  

Good luck to the seller and any potential bidders.

Cheers!

N.

 

[SquareChaos]

6 hours ago, bluechip said:

If "original art" means only published art, then it's not.   But I've seen unpublished art called original art without people crying foul.  And there is no question that the meticulously applied coloring is art, done by a professional artist in connection with the original publication in 1938, regardless of whether it's "considered" art by any individual or small group of people. If any OA collector wants to say it's not valuable or desirable in his or her view, they can do that; but their lack of enthusiasm for it doesn't impart the power to change the definitions of words.

To be honest, my idea of it centers around both the intention to publish as well as the term 'original.' But it certainly has turned out to be a more complex conceptual conversation than I thought it would.

[comix4fun]

2 hours ago, NelsonAI said:

Everything is "collectible".  I think the difference in opinion is on the valuation.   

Generally speaking, the value of any hand colored guide is contingent on the "printed image".  The reason this item is more highly desirable is because the image is from Action 1,  (original era as opposed to modern reproduction), and not because of the name recognition of the colorist that hand colored the guide.  

Good luck to the seller and any potential bidders.

Cheers!

N.

 

The fact that it's from Action 1 is, basically, ALL of the appeal of this piece. 

As the description mentions, this is one of several silver print mockups that would have helped the editor decide which colors to go with. Given the colors on this piece it wasn't the final, it was a rejected version.  

So in that sense, as a reject , it's not even the color guide for Action 1....it was one of several mocked-up options. And the color is relatively haphazardly applied if you look at it closely. 

I doubt anyone outside of a DC or an early comics historian recognizes the name of the colorist who did it, or at least his name bears a tiny fraction (if any) to the name recognition of the artist of the actual artwork on the cover. 

This is an item that may bear importance to an aspect of the collecting public for the era it comes from and the issue it was a part of the process for, but it's far enough removed from comic art collecting and comic book collecting that it's difficult to decide which area of collecting it belongs in more. Perhaps it belongs in comic book production process collecting (proofs, plates, color guides, editorial notes, etc) which would not please the seller as it is an area that's certainly smaller than either of the comic or comic art collecting area either in size of target collecting pool or top end price range of such pool.

It certainly has its place in history and it was there at the beginning of what was one of the most important moments in comics history, but it stands alone or at least apart from published comic art and comic books in a way that makes handicapping the sales price (absent guarantees, supports, or other external factors that could sway final sales price) a rather difficult proposition.

If two people convince themselves that this is the piece to have and they're willing to spend the money, there's no ceiling. We've all seen what happens when two bidders really want something beyond reason, logic, and reality.  

Edited November 12, 2017 by comix4fun

[ESeffinga]

And if the new owner frames it and proudly hangs it on a well lit wall, they can quickly watch the watercolors fade out entirely, and soon be left with just the copy of the line art to look at.

As such, it is actually a piece of conceptual and/or transformative art. 

Think of all the ways it's self degradation/destruction is representational of oh so many facets of overall life, not to mention art collecting in general. I can see the paragraphs of vinyl text applied to the gallery wall now, expounding its lessons on the loss of innocence, (and inherent value) etc and so on.

This may well be the closest a piece of comic book OA comes actual museum-worthy Fine Art, even as it self destructs!

But it'll clearly still not make it in the museum's permanent collection for obvious reasons.

 

 

 

 

 

Edited November 12, 2017 by ESeffinga

[comix4fun]

4 hours ago, ESeffinga said:

And if the new owner frames it and proudly hangs it on a well lit wall, they can quickly watch the watercolors fade out entirely, and soon be left with just the copy of the line art to look at.

As such, it is actually a piece of conceptual and/or transformative art. 

Think of all the ways it's self degradation/destruction is representational of oh so many facets of overall life, not to mention art collecting in general. I can see the paragraphs of vinyl text applied to the gallery wall now, expounding its lessons on the loss of innocence, (and inherent value) etc and so on.

This may well be the closest a piece of comic book OA comes actual museum-worthy Fine Art, even as it self destructs!

But it'll clearly still not make it in the museum's permanent collection for obvious reasons.

 

 

 

 

 

[comicwiz]

FWIW - I am not privy to the exact media/material used on this mock-up, however my understanding of the "silver print" process in photography is that it's capable of maintaining the exposed areas black during a chemical bath or measured light exposure. Its use in printing has been explained as a process very similar to making a photograph. The mockup process would be similar to hand colouring a b&w photo, to provide direction/guidance on which colours to use and compliment the line art. It's hard to compare the process/materials used in the 30's to those used 20 years ago, or prior to digital taking over, but I'd imagine unless you are hanging it outdoors in direct sunlight, it should be no different than the fading a family photo print or a watercolour painting would experience hanging on the wall of a persons home.

 

Edited November 12, 2017 by comicwiz