mxs7

On 1/14/2023 at 9:51 PM, comiconxion said:

First, anyone in interested in early Turtles art should find a copy of Kevin Eastman's Artobiography that was published in 2002.  Kevin did a great job of preserving images of the early original Turtles art and printed them in that book.

1) Is the color on the Turtles #8 cover faded? - In the book, Kevin shows a pic of the original painting (see below).  It clearly shows that the brick walls were colored purple similar to the printed comic book.  That purple has faded as well as some of the other darker tones.  Still looks like a great painting, but different than than the printed book.

2) Are the first 4 covers "larger" than the later issues? - It's natural to assume this since they were printed larger, but in fact, the originals that I've seen for #1 & 3 (also drawn by Kevin) were the same size as the printed comic books.  The covers that followed including Raphael, #1 (4th Printing), and #5 were the same size as those (although #1 (4th) and #5 were printed modern comic book size vs. Golden Age size).  Based on the dimensions provided by Heritage, this #8 cover was only slightly larger with a 17" x 13" image.  That's the same size as the original art to Laird's Donatello cover which was published around the same time.  The largest published cover images from around this time that I know of (outside of some one-off pieces they did for conventions and specialty projects) were covers to the the First Comics reprints of the original series that were done in 1987 by Kevin.  Those four paintings measure 18" x 13", but are front cover images only vs. wraparound covers.  

It certainly went for more than the color version of the #5 which sold for #28k at Hake's in 2021.   But, I agree, in general, I think you won't see another "strong" early Turtles cover sell for less than 6 figures in years to come in another does come to market.

Chuck, thanks for this, even if it does make me more confused! The printed comic cover is much darker than the image you show of the original painting from Kevin's book, so the painting image is different from the printed cover (assuming the image is color correct in Kevin's book). The image from Kevin's book is darker than the image from Heritage, and the purple is largely absent from the Heritage image. The photo below is of the original art taken before it was sent to Heritage and appears to be somewhere between the image in Kevin's book and the Heritage image (although purple is largely absent in this photo as well). I know at least one color image of a different original for this Heritage auction had to be corrected after it was posted, so I suspect the Heritage image is too light. I hope at some point the buyer will weigh in, having the original art in hand to look at.

On another point, I think part of the reason for the price difference between the TMNT 5 color cover and the 8 is the 8 is all original art while the 5 is a hand painted photocopy. 

Again, Chuck, thanks for the info!

On 1/13/2023 at 2:39 PM, Bronty said:

Its true that colors sometimes were darkened at print, so yes, you're probably right.   But that being said, the painting also didn't look the way it does now 30 years ago either. 

The colors weren't just darkened when printed. As Gene mentions, in some areas they were also changed, so there were some drastic divergences from the original art. So the fading is speculation, the suggestion of which I hope did not impact the bidding. The original is certainly gorgeous and presents much better than the printed cover.

When I was researching Ditko Marvel art, rumors were the complete Spider-Man 5 either ended up with the guy who had issues 1-4 or it was returned to Ditko. So the chances of it being in buried in some thrift shop just waiting to be discovered are practically zero.

Update: A friend of mine is considering attending the Ditko exhibit. He emailed the creative director to ask specifically about original art on display versus copies, and here is the pertinent part of the response: "It is believed that issue 5 is a "lost" issue though, meaning that no one knows if any of the original pages are still around. Our prints are copies of the original inks."

So when it comes to Marvel original art mysteries, I guess it's still about a bajillion and one to go...Mike

I bet that's it!! The "paper" source looks like photo stock but the art doesn't look like a photograph to me--too sharp/vivid with some texture.

Thanks, Chuck! Much appreciated.

Mike

Here is part of a Kevin Eastman drawing from 1985. Anyone know the backstory on this? 

Thanks...Mike

6 hours ago, KCOComics said:

But most importantly, everything has been recovered at this point? 

I would love to hear an update as soon as it's appropriate. 

To my knowledge everything has been recovered, but the police still have a substantial amount of it, perhaps until the trial is over. 

Sorry, just saw this recently. The Lone Ranger art was misfiled and found. Believe it or not, the case has not quite yet come to trial. The wheels of justice do indeed grind slowly. 

9 minutes ago, glendgold said:

This might be middle-age brain, but wasn't that how the Marvel Method worked? I feel like I've seen Kirby pages in that state, too.

You are correct. Makes sense not having to whiteout inked art if someone decided to move word balloons/captions around, word balloons/captions became a different size, etc. 

Mike

13 hours ago, roach04 said:

Terry Austin - unless something has changed - still has ALL (or nearly all) his allocation of X-Men pages and covers.  I met him at a con...10 or 12 years ago...and a then-recent issue of Back Issue Magazine had scans of 3 or 4 covers - really small scans mind you - all listed "from the collection of Terry Austin" so I he and I talked at length about them.  His best line - was that sitting a con with Byrne in the early 1980s, John selling covers for $200, he said "Jesus John...do you really need that $200?"  Austin commented that his pages would comfortably cover retirement - and at today's prices, he's not wrong.

The other interesting thing - Austin has declined to submit any of his pages for IDW's Artist Editions - his view being that those high quality reproductions reduce the value of the originals.  (It's his art, so his right - though at this point I'd think there's actually a better chance that it might raise the prices even more!)

I personally knew a guy back in the 1980s Austin used to sell originals to on occasion, and I seriously doubt he was the only one. While it's true Austin hung onto a lot of the art he inked, he did sell some, including some of his best panel pages and at least one X-Men cover.

Mike

Annnnnd just now discovered it was auctioned at one time through Heritage. Here's the link to a quality image of the art.

https://comics.ha.com/itm/original-comic-art/bernie-wrightson-and-mike-kaluta-frankenstein-illustration-original-art-circa-1980s-2005-/a/827-43581.s?ic4=GalleryView-Thumbnail-071515

I think I'm finished padding my posting total for now 

Mike

Found this barely "better than nothing" image online of the Wrightson/Kaluta Frankenstein art.

Mike

I'm not Glen, but I believe Kaluta inked a Wrightson pencil version of the Monster going down a cliff with the doctor in the background. Note that the published version in the Frankenstein book of this image is all Wrightson.

Mike

58 minutes ago, aokartman said:

To me, at my laptop, it looks like moderate aging and toning, no mat line.

Never framed?

Curious.

David

it was framed when Henry Huie owned it.

Mike

1 hour ago, glendgold said:

Here's something you don't  generally see 30 minutes before an auction:

Frazetta The Gauntlet rough also withdrawn.

Mike

I can't go into detail at this time, but I am thrilled to report it appears all of the comic books have been recovered, although it will take some time to get a full accounting due to various circumstances. The Strange Tales 154 cover has been recovered as well. The Lone Ranger piece is still missing, but outside of that, the news is about as good as could be hoped for.

Mike

4 minutes ago, BCarter27 said:

I told you... he's gotta trip the $100K profit mark. Then we'll talk.

And I don't have a problem paying the cap gains tax per se. I'm just miffed that I can't pay it down the road due to a like kind reinvestment. And I have more of a problem that real estate is still allowed for some unknown reason. Why do those guys get a special pass? (Seriously... anyone know?)

Lobbyists for the real estate industry got a carve out. So as a wise man once said, to answer most questions, follow the money.

Mike

1 minute ago, batman_fan said:

I missed that, thanks!

Sure thing. It's easy to miss details in some of the Heritage descriptions. 

Personally, I'd be more interested to know if the logo was on an overlay or attached directly on top of some original artwork. if it's directly attached, which I'm guessing is the case, that's a shame, although it may have been done to avoid seeing or cleaning unsightly rubber cement stains. 

Mike

33 minutes ago, batman_fan said:

It is a really nice example.  Do you think the Hawkman stat is original?

From the item description: "The Hawkman logo is a modern day replacement."

Mike

Bought this years ago without knowing what, if anything, it was used for. Later discovered it was both a Marvelmania Catalog cover and a pin-up in a Marvel Treasury Edition. But the most insane fact about this piece, discovered with the indispensable assistance of Glen Gold, is this is Sal's try-out art that landed him the Avengers gig!

I apologize for the poor image...Mike

9 hours ago, PeterPark said:

Hopefully they will be found and returned before long...a bunch of big books there so they'd be hard to miss. Any identifying conditions on any books to trace provenance?

There are identifying conditions on many of the books, as well as scans for a good number of them. For example, there are scans of all of the Marvel first appearance comics. 

Mike