Original Marvel Sketch - evaluation
0

40 posts in this topic

16 posts

Recently I came into possession of a piece of art done way back in the day of the great comic book illustrators.

It appears to be a recreation of the Amazing Spider-man issue 21 inside cover/page 2 where Spiderman is fighting The Beetle.

In the original comic this piece was done by the legendary Steve Ditko and to my knowledge this piece looks identical to the image in the comic. And I am assured that it was created around the same time. To that effect it was signed by Stan Lee as he is certain of it's age but not able to clarify the artist (as he's, you know, getting on a bit).

Does anybody know if there is a way to authenticate the original artist? I know it can sometimes happen through a signature but other than what could possibly be behind some tip-ex there is no signature to analyse on this piece. 

I've attached the image for reference.

I'm just curious as to whether this can be done as I'm very proud of owning this piece and want piece of mind as to it's value, otherwise I won't be so proud :frown:

Thanks in advance.

Steve Ditko.PNG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
525 posts

I'm certainly no expert on these things, but to me it looks like an old fan drawing, and someone decided to white out the name of the fan at some point in it's history.
As an aside, Stan Lee would sign a sock if you put it in front of him during his signing sessions.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
964 posts
28 minutes ago, ESeffinga said:

I'm certainly no expert on these things, but to me it looks like an old fan drawing, and someone decided to white out the name of the fan at some point in it's history.
As an aside, Stan Lee would sign a sock if you put it in front of him during his signing sessions.

 

I saw Neal Adams sign a sneaker for $10.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 posts
1 hour ago, ESeffinga said:

I'm certainly no expert on these things, but to me it looks like an old fan drawing, and someone decided to white out the name of the fan at some point in it's history.
As an aside, Stan Lee would sign a sock if you put it in front of him during his signing sessions.

 

Oh yeah, I know Stan would write on anything, but being in the UK getting a signature from him is trickier. This piece was provided to me 'somewhat authenticated' through a reputable art gallery. So it should be fairly honest in it's origins. It came from a private collection, with the previous owner stating it was done by one of the original comic illustrators.

I was just hoping to find out if there was any way authenticate the originator as from looking online it appears to be problematic.

Thanks for responding though, I really appreciate it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
850 posts

Looks like a cr@ppy fanboy drawing to me, sorry . . .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,623 posts
3 hours ago, Zanga said:

Recently I came into possession of a piece of art done way back in the day of the great comic book illustrators.

It appears to be a recreation of the Amazing Spider-man issue 21 inside cover/page 2 where Spiderman is fighting The Beetle.

In the original comic this piece was done by the legendary Steve Ditko and to my knowledge this piece looks identical to the image in the comic. And I am assured that it was created around the same time. To that effect it was signed by Stan Lee as he is certain of it's age but not able to clarify the artist (as he's, you know, getting on a bit).

Does anybody know if there is a way to authenticate the original artist? I know it can sometimes happen through a signature but other than what could possibly be behind some tip-ex there is no signature to analyse on this piece. 

I've attached the image for reference.

I'm just curious as to whether this can be done as I'm very proud of owning this piece and want piece of mind as to it's value, otherwise I won't be so proud :frown:

Thanks in advance.

Steve Ditko.PNG

First thing that stands out is that Stan Lee signature is of a more recent vintage. There are old, silver age era signatures of Stan that are different, and are not that stylized one we see everywhere now. So, dating it by the Lee signature isn't much help. Also, that is definitely not a Ditko drawing, or even by a professional artist. It is a crude attempt at recreating that Splash. I agree that it is likely just a fan drawing that someone later had Stan sign to pump up its value. Probably within the last 5-10 years. The original signature is whited out, as someone else noticed. If it was by a name artist, there would be no need to do that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 posts
10 minutes ago, PhilipB2k17 said:

First thing that stands out is that Stan Lee signature is of a more recent vintage. There are old, silver age era signatures of Stan that are different, and are not that stylized one we see everywhere now. So, dating it by the Lee signature isn't much help. Also, that is definitely not a Ditko drawing, or even by a professional artist. It is a crude attempt at recreating that Splash. I agree that it is likely just a fan drawing that someone later had Stan sign to pump up its value. Probably within the last 5-10 years. The original signature is whited out, as someone else noticed. If it was by a name artist, there would be no need to do that.

Well that would be very annoying if that is the case. When I purchase it I was confused why it was whited out. But it was framed and had a letter of prominence to show it was over 30 years old. 

Thanks for your input however. 

As an aside the shop was upfront in saying that the Stan Lee signature was added prior to the sale of the collection. So I know it holds less value in and of itself.

It's not nice feeling duped, so if anyone can prop up my enthusiasm for this purchase for the future that would be great xD

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,697 posts

What does the “letter of prominence” actually say? If all it says is that the art is over 30 years it is not really providing any value to the artwork. It does look aged with the markers bleeding on the piece so it was likely a fan piece done possibly 30 years ago but that doesn’t make it worth anything more due to the age. I would also like to know how they know it is 30+ years old – they probably know who did the art and covered it with white out to try and create a question of who did it. I certainly hope you did not pay a lot of money for this and certainly not Ditko-level money.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
850 posts

Would suggest getting a refund, if possible.  The only way a professional artist worth his salt worked on that drawing is if he was practicing with one of his feet.  Lee signature aside, the only thing of value here is the frame.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,309 posts

Condolences to the owner!  This is terribly executed fan (or scam) drawing (100% certain it is NOT done by a professional) and you really should attempt to get your money back.  Very frustrating for sure, but an unfortunate reality in todays collecting world.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45,485 posts

100% fan art absolutely.  No Marvel artist drew this.  Not Ditko, not Don Heck not anyone.  Get a refund.

Aside from the poor execution, pros never draw off the edge of the paper.  Amateurs do.

Edited by kav

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,554 posts
3 hours ago, kav said:

...pros never draw off the edge of the paper.  Amateurs do.

You're of course nearly 100% correct but we've all seen examples of pros extending an image that got out of control by adding paper to one or more sides. Why there was that monster Dave Stevens that went for $45k or so just last Heritage...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5,127 posts

dude that's the splash to asm #21 iirc.

poor recreation- probably some kid did it innocently enough out of love for the book.

but that aint drawn by Ditko. or Lee for that matter.

 

edit: just saw you know its from asm 21. my bad.

Edited by Bill C

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45,485 posts
2 hours ago, vodou said:

You're of course nearly 100% correct but we've all seen examples of pros extending an image that got out of control by adding paper to one or more sides. Why there was that monster Dave Stevens that went for $45k or so just last Heritage...

True there's always an exception and in my book when a pro does that its POOR PLANNING!!!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45,485 posts
12 hours ago, Zanga said:

Oh yeah, I know Stan would write on anything, but being in the UK getting a signature from him is trickier. This piece was provided to me 'somewhat authenticated' through a reputable art gallery. So it should be fairly honest in it's origins. It came from a private collection, with the previous owner stating it was done by one of the original comic illustrators.

I was just hoping to find out if there was any way authenticate the originator as from looking online it appears to be problematic.

Thanks for responding though, I really appreciate it.

Ps in my opinion the previous owner is full of it.  If he said "it was done by one of the original comic illustrators" then he would know who that was, and would have found out before HE bought it.  He would also not have whited out the supposed signature.  The only reason to white out a signature is if it is some nobody, and you dont want anyone to see that.  What I am saying is this looks like a deliberate misrepresentation.  Any legitimate gallery would know all this, as well as be able to recognize amateur artwork, which also brings them under the spotlight.

Edited by kav

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42,259 posts
11 hours ago, The Voord said:

Looks like a cr@ppy fanboy drawing to me, sorry . . .

+1 

And that is a VERY recent Stan sig.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
525 posts

FWIW, the piece looks legitimately old. Which is to say, it would be incredibly difficult (and unexpected) to see someone fake the aging of the piece as convincingly as this is, with the level of marker color bleed, etc.

IMO it’d take more skill to fake this level of aging if, than to draw a less shaken line in the art itself.

To me, it says this may well be an old fan drawing, but the execution of it reeks of fan art.

Also, that whiteout could very well be a couple decades old. It wouldn’t surprise me if it had been done when the paper was still relatively white and been much more inconspicuous. It’s only been in the intervening years that the paper has yellowed around it.

If there is a signature under there in a marker similar to those used in the drawing, there’s a possibility in another 10 or 20 years the color of that could bleed into the whiteout.

If you look at the back, I’d expect it would bleed through some on that side as well. Or many the dog was done I pen or something? It’s just odd that the whiteout is there at all if not to hide another name.

Edited by ESeffinga

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 posts
6 hours ago, ESeffinga said:

FWIW, the piece looks legitimately old. Which is to say, it would be incredibly difficult (and unexpected) to see someone fake the aging of the piece as convincingly as this is, with the level of marker color bleed, etc.

IMO it’d take more skill to fake this level of aging if, than to draw a less shaken line in the art itself.

To me, it says this may well be an old fan drawing, but the execution of it reeks of fan art.

Also, that whiteout could very well be a couple decades old. It wouldn’t surprise me if it had been done when the paper was still relatively white and been much more inconspicuous. It’s only been in the intervening years that the paper has yellowed around it.

If there is a signature under there in a marker similar to those used in the drawing, there’s a possibility in another 10 or 20 years the color of that could bleed into the whiteout.

If you look at the back, I’d expect it would bleed through some on that side as well. Or many the dog was done I pen or something? It’s just odd that the whiteout is there at all if not to hide another name.

I found it very strange that the whiteout is there. Interestingly there is a bit of whiteout above the beetles head and in between Spider-Man’s legs too. It could just be to mask a smudge or even the beginning of a dedication. 

I appreciate your comment in playing devils advocate with regards to its authenticity age-wise. 

I’m unsure as to why people think this is a poor copy of the ams 21 as it looks almost identical imo. 

This piece has always bugged me that the previous owner couldn’t give me a 100% record of its origin as it was sold to me via an art gallery and perhaps foolishly I’ve assumed it to be of genuine worth. 

Id like to point out that I’ve not bought this to sell on, just to have a unique piece of marvel art from the guys from the time and if this isn’t it then it annoys me greatly. 

Thank you all for your input, it’s given me food for thought. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
0