sfcityduck

I have been wrong before. No need to be coy. You can tell me. I think the problem with promise was more CCS than CGC though. I would love to see a chart of TATs for CGC and CCS for the past five years.

Well, counselor, anecdotal evidence is evidence. And from having lived through that time, it seemed that CGC, and CCS because many Promise books went through pressing, were getting a preference in the que, which makes perfect sense given the imperative to meet Heritage's auction schedule. We saw TATs for CGC and CCS lengthen, and we saw Heritage auctions dominated by Promise books. I also heard, again anecdotally, that the financial threshold to make it into a Signature Auction increased due to the Promise Collection - which again makes business sense. But the notion that Heritage has unlimited comic auctioning capacity does not make business sense to me. Every business want to increase its per unit profits because there is always a limit on units, and that is as true for Heritage as anyone else. Having said that, does anyone know whether Heritage was offered this collection? I'd be curious to know if they had an opportunity and, if so, whether they turned it down or were unwilling to meet the sellers demands.

Do tell. Even if you break them into lots, its a lot of lots.

I wish I did!

But, the seller does not appear to have wanted the collection to be cherry picked. It appears to me that the seller would rather be a big fish in a small pond than a side dish at Heritage. Frankly, I'm not convinced that low grade books do better at Heritage than other venues. Really big ticket high grade books? Generally, yes (with some exceptions). But this collection does not have big ticket high grade books. The best looking book I've seen is the ashcan. Ian was a completist not a finicky "rare high grade" guy. "If you build they will come." Everyone on this site now knows about PBA. If you are looking for low to mid-grade DCs you are going to find PBA. PCH and EC collectors I'm sure have PBA on their radar. The big winner here is PBA. I don't think the seller or Heritage are losers. I just don't think this collection is a good fit for Heritage.

The volumes almost broke CGC and Heritage. 5,000 books dominated both venues for a year. It was worth it to Heritage because they were high grade. Are 40,000 low to mid-grade DCs worth tying up your auction house for? Not for Heritage. They have bigger fish to fry. Plus, they have other priorities.

You guys are making a big assumption that Heritage wanted to auction off 40,000 mostly low grade DC comics. They barely were able to handle the Promise Collection. Why would they want to spend years taking up slots in their auctions with lots that are below their desired average price? I'm sure Heritage would auction select lots, but nowhere near 40,000 books. As for PBA's reputation they have been around for a long time auctioning books and some fine art. They are a fair auctioneer. Recently, they've gone into comics, with a strong emphasis on raw PCH, and their auctions have included some serious surprises (one example a complete set of the ASM 1-41 from Steve Ditko's personal collection) and rarely seen items (very rare ECs, Wertham items, and a missed opportunity for two items that will haunt me forever). I recently bought a nice raw Cosmic Aeroplane and their service was great. What their auctions show is that they are willing and adept at handling interesting stuff that's not in top condition. .. . .

I can think of a lot of reasons: • Heritage has many other priorities whereas PBA will likely make this a main focus; • Many books are lower grade and PBA has been doing a good job on lower grade book auctions so far; • They might like the people at PBA; • PBA may have a much better cost structure; • The advantages of selling through Heritage mainly apply to high priced and high grade books which most of this collection will not be; • Heritage might have wanted to cherry pick; etc. add your own.

Most of my buying is GA and as a general proposition I believe books 7.5 and above look “high grade” but I am ok drawing that look line between anywhere between 7.0 to 8.5 because grading is still and always be a bit inconsistent. For moderns, given the paper stock and immediate care given to the books , I have trouble viewing even a 9.0 as high grade.

Ditko consistently stated that Spider-Man was a Ditko & Lee creation not a Kirby & Lee creation. And, yes, Ditko consistently stated that Lee did a synopsis for the first story, moved to a plot meetings and with Ditko doing art and Stan did dialogue, and eventually they stopped talking directly about plot but Stan still did dialogue.

What's strange is that I've never seen Kirby make that claim. He claimed to have showed Stan old art. But Ditko has a specific recollection that he published in his blog some 21 years ago: This doesn't help the Kirby created Spider-Man view at all.

Where did Kirby claim he had pencilled a full Spiderman story for Marvel? Kirby's claim: The Kirby's Museum's (fan website really) "rejected story" was done for another publisher who rejected it back in 1954. That's the "Silver Spider" story.

Worth noting Shooter is not referring to story pages.

Shooter says: RE: Kirby Spider-Man pages: I saw, and held in my hand, exactly one such page. It was a page of design drawings. I remember that his version of Spider-Man had a “Web-Gun” and wore trunks, I think, like Captain America’s. He was far bigger and bulkier than Ditko’s version. There were no similarities to Ditko’s Spider-Man costume. I think he had boots with flaps. There were notes in he margin that described the character, again, nothing like the Ditko version. I think there was something about him being related to, or having some connection with a police official, which was how he’d find out about trouble going on. It was a long time ago, I can’t swear to that last item, but I can swear to the fact that it wasn’t similar to the Ditko version. I remember thinking, “This isn’t at all like Ditko’s.”

The choice of the name and costume is very relevant to Ditko’s contribution but not real relevant to Stan’s. Ditko’s argument is that he and Lee not Kirby and Lee created the Spider-Man that Marvel went with. And based on what we know of the “Silver Spider” and the Fly it appears that is likely the case. Ditko got Stan to change directions by pointing out the Kirby’s concept was likely plagiarism of Simon & Kirby’s earlier work. Ditko is rebutting that Kirby created his Spider-Man even while acknowledging Stan’s storytelling leaves much out.

Thanks for including Ditko’s comments which liken Kirby’s “adult Spider-Man idea” to the Fly (although it really is more Captain Marvel when you talk about a teenager magically turning into an adult hero). Ditko makes clear he had not seen a story penciled recently by Kirby for Marvel but work Kirby had shown Stan for an old idea for another publisher (eg “Silver Spider”) to be renamed Spider-Man or Spiderman

The “initial Spider Man” story you are referencing was what? Are you referring to “Silver Spider” or something else and if it was something else what is your evidence?

That is not what Ditko says.

How is that relevant to this discussion? He drew Steve before he became Captain America! So what? No one is claiming he can't draw a 98 pound weakling and, more relevant here, NO ONE IS CLAIMING HE PENCILED AF 15 (I hope!).

The more you read comics, the more you realize that it's not the plot or the character name or the costume that matters - it is the characterization. C.C. Beck and Bill Parker don't get "creator credit" for Marvel's Captain Marvel just because of the name. The issue is not whether Kirby gets credit for the name Spider-Man, the issue is whether he created Marvel's "Spider-Man."

Peter Parker did not buff himself out so he could get revenge on bullies. The 99 pound weakling did.

The source of info for the Foom article is uncertain. The description is of Silver Spider which was actually a Simon creation. Kirby may well have suggested "Spider-Man" as a name, but that's just another variation on the old Spider theme and it wasn't a name that was ever pitched to another publisher (again that was Silver Spider - Foom was making errors which is why its not really worthy of any weight). The costume had nothing to do with Spider-Man as we know him today.

Red Circle was a fringe publisher in superheroes (Archie was big in teen of course). And yes, Atlas/Marvel was a fringe publisher. Ditko had worked for S&K and fringe publishers. So you'd expect him to have kept an eye open for what S&K were doing as it might be a work opportunity. You are getting a little contentious. I do actual research. More apparently than the Kirby Museum article you republished in the two above posts. They focus on a memo Kirbly likely never saw because it was buried in Joe Simon's rejection file (kept by Simon not Kirby) for an idea that was fully published in a Fox comic with a hero named Spider Queen.

Simon worked in commercial art before the Fly in 1959. He worked in commercial art afterwards. He did not do Prez until around 1973. It was a bit of lark. Kirby had this to say in 1990 about Simon and wanting to get out of comics:

There was a lot of injustice in the comic industry when it came to credits. But, at DC they worked largely off of full scripts. The writers were writing full dialogue to give to the artists. In Lee & Kirby's case, he was dialoguing the art - art that only had margin notes not scripted dialogue.