• 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.

Unpublished Journey into Mystery #83 cover question

Started by toro,

19 posts in this topic

clemso

clemso

Posted
Posted

lol! And that coincidently is one of my favourite drawings of Thor! Absolute all time classic pose.

 

 

Loki I have finally found you.. Oh.. What.. Loki has used his magic to bring these stone men to life.. I must escape and capture him before he finds Jane..

 

By all the Gods of Asgard, hear me Odin ....

 

stone_men_thor.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mister Trent

Mister Trent

Posted
Posted

Looks like Vinnie inadvertently erased Thor from the cover when doing the inks.

 

Correct.

 

Stan asked Vinnie to be Jack's inker on the first THOR story.

 

Vinnie decided, in the spirit of the Monster-era books, to concentrate on the Stone Men from Saturn, erasing all traces of the Thunder God.

 

When Jack saw Vinnie's handiwork, he went ballistic.

 

"I'll moider da bum!", Jack was heard to threaten!

 

Stan quickly took Vinnie out of the equation and brought in Joe Sinnott to ink Thor's first adventure.

 

It took Jack a while to forgive Vinnie. About a year or so afterwards, Jack used Vinne as the inspiration for a villain in Giant-Man's debut story ;

 

2e1shdw.jpg

 

Eventually, Jack allowed Colletta back to become the regular inker on Thor's adventures . . . on the understanding Vinnie wouldn't erase the main character from the strip.

 

Vinnie kept to his word and never again erased Thor from the pictures.

 

Instead, he erased backgrounds . . .

 

2a7buxy.jpg

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
KreeSkrull99

KreeSkrull99

Posted
Posted
Does anyone know if this exists? I heard Kirby originally had more Stone Men on the cover.

 

If it does exist, does anyone have a picture they could share?

 

Thanks!

 

An alternate jim 83 cover , hmmmm

 

As a fanboy, i would love to see it, if anybody has a pic that is

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Dick Pontoon

Dick Pontoon

Posted
Posted

The original cover was used inadvertently in Origins of Marvel Comics. Stan thought the original was too busy, so they got rid of a few Stone Men. I can't recall if they used a stat of the original art for Origins, or if they covered up the Stone Men in the stat for the JIM 83. Regardless, it looks like this:

 

JIM_83.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites
toro

toro

Posted
  • Author
Posted
The original cover was used inadvertently in Origins of Marvel Comics. Stan thought the original was too busy, so they got rid of a few Stone Men. I can't recall if they used a stat of the original art for Origins, or if they covered up the Stone Men in the stat for the JIM 83. Regardless, it looks like this:

 

JIM_83.jpg

 

Mr Pontoon! Thanks, I always wanted to see that cover! Super-Cool! :banana:

Link to comment
Share on other sites
clemso

clemso

Posted
Posted

Well i'll be, joking aside, I never knew about this. Thanks Toro! I count at least 5 Stone Men not in the published cover. It makes all the difference to the composition. Obviously if the original art to the cover was to exist, these extra Stone Men would be under a lot of white out.

 

Clem

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Sharkey

Sharkey

Posted
Posted
The original cover was used inadvertently in Origins of Marvel Comics. Stan thought the original was too busy, so they got rid of a few Stone Men. I can't recall if they used a stat of the original art for Origins, or if they covered up the Stone Men in the stat for the JIM 83. Regardless, it looks like this:

 

JIM_83.jpg

 

Thanks for posting this Mr. Pontoon (I can't type "" on the boards).

 

Here's the published version for comparison. I don't know about you, but I like the original UNpublished version WAY better!

 

0150b.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites
MedicAR

MedicAR

Posted
Posted
The original cover was used inadvertently in Origins of Marvel Comics. Stan thought the original was too busy, so they got rid of a few Stone Men. I can't recall if they used a stat of the original art for Origins, or if they covered up the Stone Men in the stat for the JIM 83. Regardless, it looks like this:

 

JIM_83.jpg

 

Thanks for posting this Mr. Pontoon (I can't type "" on the boards).

 

Here's the published version for comparison. I don't know about you, but I like the original UNpublished version WAY better!

 

0150b.gif

 

I'm not sure which version I like better, I'll have to Photoshop the right colors onto the version with the extra Stone Men...... hm

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
comicartcom

comicartcom

Posted
Posted

Folks, from experience, and from examination.. I'd say the masterpieces cover is in all likelihood inked by someone else (like the guy who did all of the Masterworks stuff) and that Marvel probably had a copy of Kirby's penciled piece in the files from which the inker could work

 

Vinnie did indeed remove lots of Kirby's pencils throughout his tenure on Thor and if he had inked the stone men on the original way back when, it is unlikely that Marvel staff would have whited out 6 stone men unless they felt that the cover would be more dynamic without them, and to say that it would have required mucho white out after inking would be an understatement

 

I would lay odds that if someone projected one of the over.. the inking is different

Link to comment
Share on other sites
clemso

clemso

Posted
Posted
Folks, from experience, and from examination.. I'd say the masterpieces cover is in all likelihood inked by someone else (like the guy who did all of the Masterworks stuff) and that Marvel probably had a copy of Kirby's penciled piece in the files from which the inker could work

 

Vinnie did indeed remove lots of Kirby's pencils throughout his tenure on Thor and if he had inked the stone men on the original way back when, it is unlikely that Marvel staff would have whited out 6 stone men unless they felt that the cover would be more dynamic without them, and to say that it would have required mucho white out after inking would be an understatement

 

I would lay odds that if someone projected one of the over.. the inking is different

 

I can't seem to understand what your saying on two counts? The unpublished cover is taken from the Origins of Marvel Comics, most likely a house/file copy stat shot from the original. There are numerous examples that differ. FF 2 cover for example. This was how Marvel operated back then and I doubt they would have bothered spending on extra staff to re-ink, redraw for a reprint in the 60s/70s like they do for the Masterwork books now. Besides the inking looks the same to me from just looking at the above jpeg comparisons.

 

Marvel have been known to use white out for large areas of the cover. Of the top of me head, the cover to FF 65 is a good example where a large amount of Kirby crackle revealed to be under white out in the original..

 

Also, Colletta did not ink the cover to JIM 83?

 

Clem...

Link to comment
Share on other sites
NelsonAI

NelsonAI

Posted
Posted

I think both versions are fantastic - it's still Kirby !!!

 

However, I can see why the largest figure directly behind Thor was removed since it made the Thor figure more muddled. If the intent was to introduce a new hero, it's best to show him in the best possible light. Having a green rocky blob behind him would have obscured Thor.

 

In my opinion, the all white background of the published version illuminates Thor.

 

Thanks for the detective work as most people would not have known about the changes.

 

Cheers!

N

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Go to topic listing