• 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.

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

There are great pages, there are grails.... and then there's this ->

Started by *paull*,

35 posts in this topic

TupennyConan

TupennyConan

Posted
Posted

Maybe I'm just stupid but I still don't understand: is the inscription on the actual art or is it an overlay, etc??

 

Also, it looked like a re-creation to me as well.

 

Also, if original, where IS the shading?

 

Last time I saw Steranko, he had two pages from SHIELD. Each page was so-so. Each page was priced at 50K!! No joke!!

 

And, my Steranko print was NOT inscribed to me. It is simply signed & numbered. David Spurlock was there and pimped it to me for about $300 ($400? Can't recall).

 

If it weren't for Steranko liking my wife (flirted with her like crazy and barely even talked to me; but, hey, who can blame him?) he never would have posed for this photo. It seems his vision is sensitive to flash photography and thus the shades indoors and the prohibition on pics (this prohibition also helps with the whole Steranko mystic thing he has got going).

 

img187.jpg

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mister Trent

Mister Trent

Posted
Posted
Maybe I'm just stupid but I still don't understand: is the inscription on the actual art or is it an overlay, etc??

 

Also, it looked like a re-creation to me as well.

 

Also, if original, where IS the shading?

 

Last time I saw Steranko, he had two pages from SHIELD. Each page was so-so. Each page was priced at 50K!! No joke!!

 

And, my Steranko print was NOT inscribed to me. It is simply signed & numbered. David Spurlock was there and pimped it to me for about $300 ($400? Can't recall).

 

If it weren't for Steranko liking my wife (flirted with her like crazy and barely even talked to me; but, hey, who can blame him?) he never would have posed for this photo. It seems his vision is sensitive to flash photography and thus the shades indoors and the prohibition on pics (this prohibition also helps with the whole Steranko mystic thing he has got going).

 

img187.jpg

 

Must admit, I also thought the art might have been a re-creation.

 

Very clean . . .no signs of the logo being a paste-up (as is usually noticeable with cover originals) . . . and also nothing to suggest the full moon (as seen on the printed cover).

 

Maybe Paris Fred can elaborate a bit more for us?

 

And as a side-note . . . is that Steranko's real hair, or does he wear a toupee??

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Paris_Fred

Paris_Fred

Posted
Posted

Hi Guys,

 

Sorry but I don't think I have to justify myself, if you don't trust me it's up to you.

 

Have a xerox of the art, ad the xerox of the signature on the top, do a xerox of the total and this makes what you can see on Philippe's Gallery (Xerox signature is on the top of the moon)

 

Now if you don't feel that Philippe owns this piece of art it's up to you but I know he does and I said why. The ones who knows me will trust me, simple and clear.

 

Now, why Philippe didn't upload the scan of the cover itself is another story.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mister Trent

Mister Trent

Posted
Posted
Hi Guys,

 

Sorry but I don't think I have to justify myself, if you don't trust me it's up to you.

 

Have a xerox of the art, ad the xerox of the signature on the top, do a xerox of the total and this makes what you can see on Philippe's Gallery (Xerox signature is on the top of the moon)

 

Now if you don't feel that Philippe owns this piece of art it's up to you but I know he does and I said why. The ones who knows me will trust me, simple and clear.

 

Now, why Philippe didn't upload the scan of the cover itself is another story.

 

Hi Fred

 

What was being questionned was the image displayed on Philippe's CAF Gallery.

 

Most of us were led to believe the image was supposed to be (directly) the original art.

 

From what you now say, the image is a composite Xerox (probably cleaned-up to eliminate possible paste-up stains, notations, etc).

 

If posters like me were initially questionning the possibility of the art being a recreation - that's because we tend to go by what we see/what we expect a vintage cover original to look like (based on our own experiences of collecting).

 

Had you stated from the beginning (when you first contributed to this thread) that the image was a (cleaned-up?) Xerox, that would have made perfect sense and eliminated any doubts or confusion. :foryou:

Link to comment
Share on other sites
groovyedwin

groovyedwin

Posted
Posted

Paull,

 

Fishy at best. I have never seen a copy from that time frame that looked as white/bleached out with inconsistent ink lines. Appears to me as a weakly traced copy. If it is the original then someone really botched the preservation/conservation/restoration.

 

Value of shown piece <$1. The original, if not botched, would be worth something more.

 

Edwin

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Go to topic listing