Terry Doyle

Cool painting, I remember the cover well.

Fabulous Carol Day story, Alex.

New in today, a 13" x 20" recreation of Ditko's cover to the Amazing Spider-Man Annual # 2:

Neat idea, well done Felix!

Is that Joe Weider? He needs a mullet . . .

Re-do of Kirby/Stone's classic cover to Avengers # 6 (Zemo and his Masters of Evil) on 13" x 20" artboard: http://www.comicartfans.com/gallerypiece.asp?piece=1277036

Nice, though not unlike one I got:

Thanks!

Received this one earlier in the week (approx. 13" x 20"). For a long time I'd been highly-dismissive of re-creations (which I'd always considered a pointless exercise), then I came upon this guy's work. I think it's highly unlikely that Kirby's FF # 6 cover art still exists (as I also believe is the case with a lot of early silver age Marvel covers . . . I don't subscribe to the theory of a hidden stash waiting to re-surface). No real substitute for the real thing, of course (and I'm not kidding myself on that score), but still impressive in its own right: Three more re-dos in my CAF Covers Gallery # 4, if anyone's interested in seeing what else I've opted for.

fantastic cover Joe!! Thank you, I feel like the collection is starting to be not too bad! What was his day job, Joe?

Haven't read the book, but I'm intrigued . . . what made him so happy?

Speak up about one cover or the other cover? It is a bit limiting. I don't like either one. Both have artistic merit but, as Lucky B says, speaking up about one cover over another, is a bit limiting (especially if they fall outside your sphere of interest). Great debate if you're passionate about either (or both) covers. I'm not.

Just in, page 12 of the Richard Sala short story, "The Thirteen Fingers": http://www.comicartfans.com/gallerypiece.asp?piece=1274291 Also have pages 6 and 8 in my CAF, should anyone care to look. My thanks to Steve Kriozere for making this page available (recently flagged-up as being for sale on eBay in the Marketplace Forum).

Ditto.

What else are you collecting (have we done that as a thread)?

Wheras Mike's having a joke with us, I imagine that Steve Donnelly (if he was offering the art) would claim it to be featuring, "a Devil Dinosaur protopye", and he'd mean it . . .

I think my favourite write-up, for a piece of art, was Mike Burkey's "first appearance of Devil Dinosaur, lol" for the cover art to the unpublished X-Men # 10 by Kirby and Stone.

I understand were you're coming from, Dan. The bulk of my small MTG collection (with the exception of a single painting by Steve Belledin) are the works of Kev Walker and Volkan Baga. Kev has produced a lot of comic-book work over the years (some of it painted, which is comparable to his MTG stuff). Volkan is a trained/educated painter whose roots and influences lie in the classic works you see hanging in art galleries. Neither guys are one-trick-ponies. MTG has certainly helped promote their work, and provided a regular paying gig, but their respective talents were not shaped by the company. Right, fair enough (thumbs u But that volkan baga gargoyle... I don't even have to look at the card to know that she's likely a creature card, and likely has some kind of special ability (hence her tallying her victims on the stone wall). The piece says "I'm a MTG original" on its own It's a gorgon, not a gargoyle! The piece speaks to me in a different way. She's saying, "I need to add Bronty to my tally!"

I understand were you're coming from, Dan. The bulk of my small MTG collection (with the exception of a single painting by Steve Belledin) are the works of Kev Walker and Volkan Baga. Kev has produced a lot of comic-book work over the years (some of it painted, which is comparable to his MTG stuff). Volkan is a trained/educated painter whose roots and influences lie in the classic works you see hanging in art galleries. Neither guys are one-trick-ponies. MTG has certainly helped promote their work, and provided a regular paying gig, but their respective talents were not shaped by the company.

For myself (as you know) I have zero interest in the game, so couldn't care less about all those factors you mention. Important to those collectors who have time in the game and also collect the art . . . yes, without doubt. If a great painting . . . i.e. one that spurs my imagination and speaks to me on an emotional level (but fronting a weak card in the game), I'm delighted not to be having to pay a premium. As I say, my interests are totally divorced from the game. Works for me, even if you might struggle to understand why? Different strokes. My collection is fairly ecclectic and the MTG stuff I have is only a small smattering of examples bought for the great artworks (not their standing in the game). I do collect other stuff.

The Bat-shark-repellent!

. . . or the Bat-pants (but best not to go there).

Not to mention the Bat-bats he's wielding!

Neat idea. So when Bats is stomping some deserving villain's head, he leaves the Bat-imprint.