• 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.

Great example of comics history, but isn't the seller a bit optimistic?!

Started by comicparadox,

13 posts in this topic

comicparadox

comicparadox

Posted
Posted

I'm not sure how to list the link, since the preview shows "outside affiliates not allowed", but if one goes to T i n y U R L (which has a .com suffix) and links to 93vu9e, there is a link to feeBay's offer of Jerry Siegel's copy of Action 7, which has an old CGSA notation of "fair" with a panel cut out. The seller's asking price is $75K. The seller has also listed Bob Kane's own copies of Batman 1 - 3.

Of course, being listed as Bob Kane's personal copies, one probably actually belongs to Jerry Robinson, another to Bill FInger, and the next to Shelly Moldoff...

 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
esquirecomics

esquirecomics

Posted
Posted

This issue has been discussed extensively in the GA section. Board member Bluechip owns it. At times it has been consigned to Neatstuff.

 

The issue itself was NOT used in the court case. Siegel cut out specific panels that were used as evidence in an effort to show that Superman was copied by other artists (including, according to Siegel, Bob Kane and the creation of Batman).

Link to comment
Share on other sites
s-man

s-man

Posted
Posted

I love comparing the "simplistic" looking artwork of those early issues to the all out detailed stuff the artists put out today. Wonder what the time comparison is between the two as far as sketching/drawing onto paper.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
esquirecomics

esquirecomics

Posted
Posted
Welllllllllllllllll...... Look at this Link

 

Look at the Action 2 with the filed stamps.....hmmmmm could it be that this dude on ebay is wrong (to say the least) (shrug)(tsk)

 

No, he is not wrong. He doesn't say the book was used as an exhibit in the litigation. He correctly notes that this was Siegel's copy that he used to help further his lawsuit against DC.

 

For one thing the Action #2 you reference, which is mine, was used in the 1939 lawsuit between DC and Fox. This Action #7 had panels that were cut out and used in the 1947 lawsuit between Siegel and DC. Different case. Different purpose.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Go to topic listing