• When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.

November HA auction
2 2

Started by glendgold,

1,042 posts in this topic

grapeape

grapeape

Posted
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, glendgold said:

I think it's Brodsky.

Are you sure it’s not Vince Colletta? That might explain why the Hulk started with 5 digits and wound up with 3......

3929FE74-673C-421E-8EAE-97FC72A0D638.thumb.jpeg.cfa6ae3274f816fe38982070aa6513ef.jpeg

Edited by grapeape
Link to comment
Share on other sites
zhamlau

zhamlau

Posted
Posted
10 hours ago, tth2 said:

That goes without saying.

 

 

Seriously, no one should say it.

 

Ba-dum-bum!  Thank you folks, I'll be here all night!  Don't forget to tip your waiters!

Your loyalty to the party is noted.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
romitaman

romitaman

Posted
Posted
17 hours ago, comix4fun said:

Right, maybe I wasn't clear. I was saying this wasn't a "mistake" by Jack. That Jack designed Hulk originally with 3 fingers. And the piece in question does not look, in any way, like Jack was asleep when drawing it that he'd make that mistake. So if the choices are "Jack made a mistake" or "This is an older piece used in the annual" to explain the three fingers that I go with the latter. But only if those are our choices. The third choice "Jack drew this exactly how he wanted to for the annual, and it wasn't a mistake" makes the most sense when you see that the pinup references Fantastic Four #12 and those three fingers show up on the cover to FF #12 as well. 

Too nice to be a mistake. Too much history of Jack and the three fingered Hulk for it not to be intentional. The FF12 cover reference points me towards why he looks the way he does in that pinup. 

Hulk has only 4 toes in the small scene where he battles Reed in the pinup! :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
pemart1966

pemart1966

Posted
Posted (edited)
On 12/5/2019 at 2:38 PM, glendgold said:

I think it's Brodsky.

GCD has the inker listed as either Brodsky or Kirby - both with " ? " behind their names.  The inset looks Chic Stoneish or George Bellish or Roussousish to me...

Edited by pemart1966
Link to comment
Share on other sites
romitaman

romitaman

Posted
Posted
18 hours ago, pemart1966 said:

GCD has the inker listed as either Brodsky or Kirby - both with " ? " behind their names.  The inset looks Chic Stoneish or George Bellish or Roussousish to me...

The HULK TTA 62 pinup in last Heritage was inked by Sol Brodsky and Heritage misidentified that one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
romitaman

romitaman

Posted
Posted
18 hours ago, pemart1966 said:

GCD has the inker listed as either Brodsky or Kirby - both with " ? " behind their names.  The inset looks Chic Stoneish or George Bellish or Roussousish to me...

i would think george bellish over roussousish...it looks way WAY too different to be roussous.... ......(LOL)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Unca Ben

Unca Ben

Posted
Posted (edited)

Didn't Jack consider a three-fingered and/or three-toed Hulk but Stan thought it was too similar to the Thing? 
I always figured Jack, on occasion, just made a mistake and confused the Hulk's finger-toe count with the Thing's while he was churning out all those covers & pages day after day.  Part of the same over-worked House of Ideas that gave us a Torch with two left hands, missing Spidey costume emblems, incongruities with Johnny Storm's secret identity, Peter Palmer, Slim Summers, Bob Banner - to name a few examples.

It seemed Marvel Comics was flying by the seat of their pants from '61 till sometime in '64.

 

-Anyways, fun stuff to talk about!

Edited by Unca Ben
Link to comment
Share on other sites
comix4fun

comix4fun

Posted
Posted (edited)
23 hours ago, stinkininkin said:

Absolutely NOT a Geroge Bell fan (or Roussous for that matter), but this Hulk piece is so cool.

Looking at that main Hulk image I'd be shocked if George Bell got within 10 yards of that main image....if he got that close it would be to ink the tiny inset piece, but if I was editor I would have been scared to let him get to close to the big Hulk image with a brush in his hands. 

Edited by comix4fun
Link to comment
Share on other sites
glendgold

glendgold

Posted
  • Author
Posted

1. There's already a BIN on this.

https://comics.ha.com/itm/original-comic-art/jack-kirby-and-joe-sinnott-fantastic-four-83-story-page-8-inhumans-original-art-marvel-1969-/a/7212-94119.s?ic4=ListView-ShortDescription-071515

2. That BIN has changed at least 3 times since I spotted this a week or two ago.  I saw $40K, then $36K, and now $39K.  Mercurial.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
RBerman

RBerman

Posted
Posted
On 11/21/2019 at 12:34 PM, BCarter27 said:

Spec Spidey 101 cov at $90K! Copper age is strong with this one.

 

Now I have a question about this piece. Here is the published cover:

121612659_3758178537534345_9053732000705764632_o.thumb.jpg.a23f3c0780a95d8dcd13047210271e8f.jpg

Here is the piece that sold at auction:

121777417_10157655313575418_1062480372249474961_n.jpg.47ae0802fb0fd2de6530caa3f6605142.jpg

Here is the description of the piece that sold: "John Byrne Spectacular Spider-Man #101 Cover Original Art (Marvel, 1985). One of the most iconic covers of Peter Parker in his non-Venom black costume. Byrne's incredible perspective on this piece is almost dizzying! Crafted in stark black ink over graphite on Bristol board. The corner box and logo are a stat on an acetate overlay. The piece is signed by Byrne next to the UPC box, and as a surprise bonus, is also signed by Marvel's Editor-in-Chief Jim Shooter in the lower right margin where he would have approved the cover for publication. Created in ink over graphite on Marvel Bristol board with an image area of 9.75" x 15". The logo and corner box are stats on an acetate overlay. There is registration tape residue in the margins. Lightly toned and in Excellent condition. Comes with a copy of the printed comic." (https://comics.ha.com/itm/original-comic-art/john-byrne-spectacular-spider-man-101-cover-original-art-marvel-1985-/a/7212-91009.s?ic4=GalleryView-Thumbnail-071515)

If the logo and corner box are on an acetate overlay, why can the buildings not be seen behind them, as seen in the published version?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
delekkerste

delekkerste

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, RBerman said:

Now I have a question about this piece. Here is the published cover:

121612659_3758178537534345_9053732000705764632_o.thumb.jpg.a23f3c0780a95d8dcd13047210271e8f.jpg

Here is the piece that sold at auction:

121777417_10157655313575418_1062480372249474961_n.jpg.47ae0802fb0fd2de6530caa3f6605142.jpg

Here is the description of the piece that sold: "John Byrne Spectacular Spider-Man #101 Cover Original Art (Marvel, 1985). One of the most iconic covers of Peter Parker in his non-Venom black costume. Byrne's incredible perspective on this piece is almost dizzying! Crafted in stark black ink over graphite on Bristol board. The corner box and logo are a stat on an acetate overlay. The piece is signed by Byrne next to the UPC box, and as a surprise bonus, is also signed by Marvel's Editor-in-Chief Jim Shooter in the lower right margin where he would have approved the cover for publication. Created in ink over graphite on Marvel Bristol board with an image area of 9.75" x 15". The logo and corner box are stats on an acetate overlay. There is registration tape residue in the margins. Lightly toned and in Excellent condition. Comes with a copy of the printed comic." (https://comics.ha.com/itm/original-comic-art/john-byrne-spectacular-spider-man-101-cover-original-art-marvel-1985-/a/7212-91009.s?ic4=GalleryView-Thumbnail-071515)

If the logo and corner box are on an acetate overlay, why can the buildings not be seen behind them, as seen in the published version?

This acetate overlay could be a replacement. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
vodou

vodou

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, RBerman said:

If the logo and corner box are on an acetate overlay, why can the buildings not be seen behind them, as seen in the published version?

My very strong -educated- guess is: the overlay is not vintage Marvel Production Department, it's something ginned up by a dealer or fan to "help move product". So many 1980s and 1990s covers were like this - no logos or other trade dress on them; they look sort of 'empty' to the uninitiated. So 'people' help bring them to what newb expectations are.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
RBerman

RBerman

Posted
Posted
14 minutes ago, vodou said:

My very strong -educated- guess is: the overlay is not vintage Marvel Production Department, it's something ginned up by a dealer or fan to "help move product". So many 1980s and 1990s covers were like this - no logos or other trade dress on them; they look sort of 'empty' to the uninitiated. So 'people' help bring them to what newb expectations are.

That was my thought as well. It doesn't seem to be a transparent acetate at all, but rather a paper mast head which has been affixed to the cover in lieu of the lost acetate. Perhaps the HA text describing an acetate (twice) was carried over from a previous sale, and the piece changed in the interim.  I'm personally indifferent on the pros (looking like the published cover) and cons (no longer looking like the art that left the inker's desk) of making new mast heads in general. But I did think it was odd that the HA description of a high-value piece didn't seem to match the art as shown, and I didn't see any previous discussion of this example here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Twanj

Twanj

Posted
Posted
49 minutes ago, delekkerste said:

This acetate overlay could be a replacement. 

 

33 minutes ago, vodou said:

My very strong -educated- guess is: the overlay is not vintage Marvel Production Department, it's something ginned up by a dealer or fan to "help move product". So many 1980s and 1990s covers were like this - no logos or other trade dress on them; they look sort of 'empty' to the uninitiated. So 'people' help bring them to what newb expectations are.

Possibly dumb question, but how was this originally produced?

With an acetate where the logo etc was exacto-ed/cut out so there was no blank paper between the art underneath?

And then reused for subsequent issues with the issue and date replaced?

Link to comment
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
2 2
Go to topic listing