Marvel Stamps Mystery 0

[Terry Doyle]

These stamps were sold by Verpoorten's family, from out of a stack of his artwork. I can't imagine where all these crazy attributions came from.

 

From sellers wanting them to appear something better/more important than they actually are . . . or would-be buyers suckered into that idea.

 

 

I remember when they are on Ebay, all on a single piece of vellum. They looked really amateurish and sloppy in a group. Then they got chopped into individual "stamps" and put into ornate frames with engraved plaques as if that would distract from the overall fecal quality they all shared.

 

 

it makes a lot of sense to me that John Verpoorten drew these stamps

 

If they came from Verpoorten's estate (which I wasn't aware of until I read Chris's post), it makes sense that he may well have drew the stamps.

 

Going back several years, when I started this topic, I had two major concerns:

 

1. The integrity of the dealer trying to sell them.

 

2. The sanity of any would-be-buyer ready and willing to accept the BS of the former.

 

 

[Juswuh]

Don't suppose you know Pete Higham?

 

Afraid not.

 

Several of the stamp images seem to me to be obviously copied from books published/dated 1965 - Marvel Girl, Loki with winged headband, Stan with hat, Shazana. And why do a stamp for a one-off Dr Strange villain and not Baron Mordo, who was by far his most-featured bad guy of the time? It suggests someone picking characters without really knowing anything about them, perhaps not even their names since several stamps are unlettered.

[Terry Doyle]

Don't suppose you know Pete Higham?

 

Afraid not.

 

 

No worries.

 

What do you collect, original art wise?

 

Just curious. Don't often come across someone from my neck of the woods . . .

[Juswuh]

Got to own up I don't possess any OA myself! But it's a fascinating subject.

[bluechip]

These stamps were sold by Verpoorten's family, from out of a stack of his artwork. I can't imagine where all these crazy attributions came from.

 

From sellers wanting them to appear something better/more important than they actually are . . . or would-be buyers suckered into that idea.

 

 

I remember when they are on Ebay, all on a single piece of vellum. They looked really amateurish and sloppy in a group. Then they got chopped into individual "stamps" and put into ornate frames with engraved plaques as if that would distract from the overall fecal quality they all shared.

 

 

it makes a lot of sense to me that John Verpoorten drew these stamps

 

If they came from Verpoorten's estate (which I wasn't aware of until I read Chris's post), it makes sense that he may well have drew the stamps.

 

Going back several years, when I started this topic, I had two major concerns:

 

1. The integrity of the dealer trying to sell them.

 

2. The sanity of any would-be-buyer ready and willing to accept the BS of the former.

 

 

I thought Verpoorten didn't start with Marvel until the late 60s.

 

So these were sold via ebay from Verpoorten's estate and the next owner cut them up and made assertions or conclusions that tured out to be inaccurate (i.e. "first pen to paper" image of Daredevil, which can't be true because of the costume). Yet he never mentioned the fact they came from the estate of marvel staffer? Why make statements easily disproved about who drew what and when, while at the same time, not mentioning they came from a staffer, which would prove, at least, that they came from Marvel?

 

And if the artist(s) copied images from published drawings of the characters, where did he find a spider-man picture with eyes like that?

 

 

 

 

[comix4fun]

These stamps were sold by Verpoorten's family, from out of a stack of his artwork. I can't imagine where all these crazy attributions came from.

 

From sellers wanting them to appear something better/more important than they actually are . . . or would-be buyers suckered into that idea.

 

 

I remember when they are on Ebay, all on a single piece of vellum. They looked really amateurish and sloppy in a group. Then they got chopped into individual "stamps" and put into ornate frames with engraved plaques as if that would distract from the overall fecal quality they all shared.

 

 

it makes a lot of sense to me that John Verpoorten drew these stamps

 

If they came from Verpoorten's estate (which I wasn't aware of until I read Chris's post), it makes sense that he may well have drew the stamps.

 

Going back several years, when I started this topic, I had two major concerns:

 

1. The integrity of the dealer trying to sell them.

 

2. The sanity of any would-be-buyer ready and willing to accept the BS of the former.

 

 

I thought Verpoorten didn't start with Marvel until the late 60s.

 

So these were sold via ebay from Verpoorten's estate and the next owner cut them up and made assertions or conclusions that tured out to be inaccurate (i.e. "first pen to paper" image of Daredevil, which can't be true because of the costume). Yet he never mentioned the fact they came from the estate of marvel staffer? Why make statements easily disproved about who drew what and when, while at the same time, not mentioning they came from a staffer, which would prove, at least, that they came from Marvel?

 

And if the artist(s) copied images from published drawings of the characters, where did he find a spider-man picture with eyes like that?

 

 

 

 

 

It wasn't the guy who bought them off of Ebay that did that...it was the subsequent owner.

[comicartcom]

I thought Verpoorten didn't start with Marvel until the late 60s.

 

So these were sold via ebay from Verpoorten's estate and the next owner cut them up and made assertions or conclusions that tured out to be inaccurate (i.e. "first pen to paper" image of Daredevil, which can't be true because of the costume). Yet he never mentioned the fact they came from the estate of marvel staffer? Why make statements easily disproved about who drew what and when, while at the same time, not mentioning they came from a staffer, which would prove, at least, that they came from Marvel?

 

And if the artist(s) copied images from published drawings of the characters, where did he find a spider-man picture with eyes like that?

 

Bluechip.. easily disproved is incorrect. Seeing as this thread has been alive for 3 1/2 months and this is the first mention, I'm not going to call it "easily" disproven as opposed to proven at some point

 

who knows if the former ebay seller knew any of this information or if they were also deceived. If they were the original buyer from the estate auction and knew, they're a con. If he/she found them at a later date and started to extrapolate information based on his/her own beliefs or lack of information (something that happens all too often in this hobby) then clearly it was a mistake on every level

 

all of these scenarios are possible

 

Edited December 27, 2010 by comicartcom

[Terry Doyle]

These stamps were sold by Verpoorten's family, from out of a stack of his artwork. I can't imagine where all these crazy attributions came from.

 

From sellers wanting them to appear something better/more important than they actually are . . . or would-be buyers suckered into that idea.

 

 

I remember when they are on Ebay, all on a single piece of vellum. They looked really amateurish and sloppy in a group. Then they got chopped into individual "stamps" and put into ornate frames with engraved plaques as if that would distract from the overall fecal quality they all shared.

 

 

it makes a lot of sense to me that John Verpoorten drew these stamps

 

If they came from Verpoorten's estate (which I wasn't aware of until I read Chris's post), it makes sense that he may well have drew the stamps.

 

Going back several years, when I started this topic, I had two major concerns:

 

1. The integrity of the dealer trying to sell them.

 

2. The sanity of any would-be-buyer ready and willing to accept the BS of the former.

 

 

I thought Verpoorten didn't start with Marvel until the late 60s.

 

And if the artist(s) copied images from published drawings of the characters, where did he find a spider-man picture with eyes like that?

 

 

Far as I'm aware, Verpoorten joined Marvel in 1967.

 

And if he's the artist responsible, then the stamps date later than any pencil notation would have you believe . . . if you're that gulliable?

 

As for the Spider-man picture . . . not the easiest of costume masks to illustrate.

[bluechip]

These stamps were sold by Verpoorten's family, from out of a stack of his artwork. I can't imagine where all these crazy attributions came from.

 

From sellers wanting them to appear something better/more important than they actually are . . . or would-be buyers suckered into that idea.

 

 

I remember when they are on Ebay, all on a single piece of vellum. They looked really amateurish and sloppy in a group. Then they got chopped into individual "stamps" and put into ornate frames with engraved plaques as if that would distract from the overall fecal quality they all shared.

 

 

it makes a lot of sense to me that John Verpoorten drew these stamps

 

If they came from Verpoorten's estate (which I wasn't aware of until I read Chris's post), it makes sense that he may well have drew the stamps.

 

Going back several years, when I started this topic, I had two major concerns:

 

1. The integrity of the dealer trying to sell them.

 

2. The sanity of any would-be-buyer ready and willing to accept the BS of the former.

 

 

I thought Verpoorten didn't start with Marvel until the late 60s.

 

And if the artist(s) copied images from published drawings of the characters, where did he find a spider-man picture with eyes like that?

 

 

Far as I'm aware, Verpoorten joined Marvel in 1967.

 

And if he's the artist responsible, then the stamps date later than any pencil notation would have you believe . . . if you're that gulliable?

 

As for the Spider-man picture . . . not the easiest of costume masks to illustrate.

 

I'm not gullible enough to believe a daredevil picture is the firist time he was ever drawn even though the picture is of a costume he didn't have until issue #7. And I find it strange that anyone would make that assertion for very long; even if they were honestly wrong, you'd think someone would point it out in a fairly short time.

 

If Verpoorten arrived in 1967 and he was the one he drew these, then he used references that were not the most recent.

 

Aside from all that, the biggest clue about the time period may be Stan's hat (so we know it's pre-toupe)

 

 

 

 

Just curiou.

[Terry Doyle]

These stamps were sold by Verpoorten's family, from out of a stack of his artwork. I can't imagine where all these crazy attributions came from.

 

From sellers wanting them to appear something better/more important than they actually are . . . or would-be buyers suckered into that idea.

 

 

I remember when they are on Ebay, all on a single piece of vellum. They looked really amateurish and sloppy in a group. Then they got chopped into individual "stamps" and put into ornate frames with engraved plaques as if that would distract from the overall fecal quality they all shared.

 

 

it makes a lot of sense to me that John Verpoorten drew these stamps

 

If they came from Verpoorten's estate (which I wasn't aware of until I read Chris's post), it makes sense that he may well have drew the stamps.

 

Going back several years, when I started this topic, I had two major concerns:

 

1. The integrity of the dealer trying to sell them.

 

2. The sanity of any would-be-buyer ready and willing to accept the BS of the former.

 

 

I thought Verpoorten didn't start with Marvel until the late 60s.

 

And if the artist(s) copied images from published drawings of the characters, where did he find a spider-man picture with eyes like that?

 

 

Far as I'm aware, Verpoorten joined Marvel in 1967.

 

And if he's the artist responsible, then the stamps date later than any pencil notation would have you believe . . . if you're that gulliable?

 

As for the Spider-man picture . . . not the easiest of costume masks to illustrate.

 

I'm not gullible enough to believe a daredevil picture is the firist time he was ever drawn even though the picture is of a costume he didn't have until issue #7. And I find it strange that anyone would make that assertion for very long; even if they were honestly wrong, you'd think someone would point it out in a fairly short time.

 

If Verpoorten arrived in 1967 and he was the one he drew these, then he used references that were not the most recent.

 

Aside from all that, the biggest clue about the time period may be Stan's hat (so we know it's pre-toupe)

 

Just curiou.

 

I think it has more to do with references that are appropriate for the project.

 

Good head shots.

 

If Verpoorten was the 'artist' for this project, he would no doubt have had access to old copies of the various Marvel mags to choose from (and in 1967 the superhero output of Marvel would not have taken up too much file space, would it?).

 

Although I've already mentioned that I don't have the time or inclination to research each and every image, I can tell you this:

 

The Ka-Zar stamp is copied from the splash page of X-MEN # 10, March 1965 (and if you're wanting to look for a good head shot of Ka Zar in 1967, his debut appearance is as good as any place to start looking, considering he didn't feature too heavily in the various titles).

 

The Sgt Fury characters are copied from the cover of SGT. FURY # 18, May 1965.

 

I'm sure that I could go on to provide the original sources for most of these stamps.

 

When I first started this thread, several years ago, I made a point of highlighting all of these discrepancies to the dealer attempting to dress up and sell these stamps (re-read my original posts).

 

Did he change his lofty claims?

 

No . . . with the exception of changing his original assertion that the DAREDEVIL stamp was by Bill Everrett to being the work of Wally Wood.

 

And without re-reading all the previous posts I noticed someone was suggesting the Invisible Girl looked life a Woody female . . .

 

I guess it's true . . . you can fool some of the people some of the time . . .

 

 

[comix4fun]

These stamps were sold by Verpoorten's family, from out of a stack of his artwork. I can't imagine where all these crazy attributions came from.

 

From sellers wanting them to appear something better/more important than they actually are . . . or would-be buyers suckered into that idea.

 

 

I remember when they are on Ebay, all on a single piece of vellum. They looked really amateurish and sloppy in a group. Then they got chopped into individual "stamps" and put into ornate frames with engraved plaques as if that would distract from the overall fecal quality they all shared.

 

 

it makes a lot of sense to me that John Verpoorten drew these stamps

 

If they came from Verpoorten's estate (which I wasn't aware of until I read Chris's post), it makes sense that he may well have drew the stamps.

 

Going back several years, when I started this topic, I had two major concerns:

 

1. The integrity of the dealer trying to sell them.

 

2. The sanity of any would-be-buyer ready and willing to accept the BS of the former.

 

 

I thought Verpoorten didn't start with Marvel until the late 60s.

 

And if the artist(s) copied images from published drawings of the characters, where did he find a spider-man picture with eyes like that?

 

 

Far as I'm aware, Verpoorten joined Marvel in 1967.

 

And if he's the artist responsible, then the stamps date later than any pencil notation would have you believe . . . if you're that gulliable?

 

As for the Spider-man picture . . . not the easiest of costume masks to illustrate.

 

I'm not gullible enough to believe a daredevil picture is the firist time he was ever drawn even though the picture is of a costume he didn't have until issue #7. And I find it strange that anyone would make that assertion for very long; even if they were honestly wrong, you'd think someone would point it out in a fairly short time.

 

If Verpoorten arrived in 1967 and he was the one he drew these, then he used references that were not the most recent.

 

Aside from all that, the biggest clue about the time period may be Stan's hat (so we know it's pre-toupe)

 

Just curiou.

 

I think it has more to do with references that are appropriate for the project.

 

Good head shots.

 

If Verpoorten was the 'artist' for this project, he would no doubt have had access to old copies of the various Marvel mags to choose from (and in 1967 the superhero output of Marvel would not have taken up too much file space, would it?).

 

Although I've already mentioned that I don't have the time or inclination to research each and every image, I can tell you this:

 

The Ka-Zar stamp is copied from the splash page of X-MEN # 10, March 1965 (and if you're wanting to look for a good head shot of Ka Zar in 1967, his debut appearance is as good as any place to start looking, considering he didn't feature too heavily in the various titles).

 

The Sgt Fury characters are copied from the cover of SGT. FURY # 18, May 1965.

 

I'm sure that I could go on to provide the original sources for most of these stamps.

 

When I first started this thread, several years ago, I made a point of highlighting all of these discrepancies to the dealer attempting to dress up and sell these stamps (re-read my original posts).

 

Did he change his lofty claims?

 

No . . . with the exception of changing his original assertion that the DAREDEVIL stamp was by Bill Everrett to being the work of Wally Wood.

 

And without re-reading all the previous posts I noticed someone was suggesting the Invisible Girl looked life a Woody female . . .

 

I guess it's true . . . you can fool some of the people some of the time . . .

 

 

 

 

Given the Verpoorten connection and the general time frame it always seemed these were done for fun or a goof or for practice BEFORE he worked for Marvel.

 

I remember when they got posted as "Kirby, Wood, Everett, Severin"

 

Maybe if they all lost a bet and had to draw them with their feet instead of their hands.

[Terry Doyle]

These stamps were sold by Verpoorten's family, from out of a stack of his artwork. I can't imagine where all these crazy attributions came from.

 

From sellers wanting them to appear something better/more important than they actually are . . . or would-be buyers suckered into that idea.

 

 

I remember when they are on Ebay, all on a single piece of vellum. They looked really amateurish and sloppy in a group. Then they got chopped into individual "stamps" and put into ornate frames with engraved plaques as if that would distract from the overall fecal quality they all shared.

 

 

it makes a lot of sense to me that John Verpoorten drew these stamps

 

If they came from Verpoorten's estate (which I wasn't aware of until I read Chris's post), it makes sense that he may well have drew the stamps.

 

Going back several years, when I started this topic, I had two major concerns:

 

1. The integrity of the dealer trying to sell them.

 

2. The sanity of any would-be-buyer ready and willing to accept the BS of the former.

 

 

I thought Verpoorten didn't start with Marvel until the late 60s.

 

And if the artist(s) copied images from published drawings of the characters, where did he find a spider-man picture with eyes like that?

 

 

Far as I'm aware, Verpoorten joined Marvel in 1967.

 

And if he's the artist responsible, then the stamps date later than any pencil notation would have you believe . . . if you're that gulliable?

 

As for the Spider-man picture . . . not the easiest of costume masks to illustrate.

 

I'm not gullible enough to believe a daredevil picture is the firist time he was ever drawn even though the picture is of a costume he didn't have until issue #7. And I find it strange that anyone would make that assertion for very long; even if they were honestly wrong, you'd think someone would point it out in a fairly short time.

 

If Verpoorten arrived in 1967 and he was the one he drew these, then he used references that were not the most recent.

 

Aside from all that, the biggest clue about the time period may be Stan's hat (so we know it's pre-toupe)

 

Just curiou.

 

I think it has more to do with references that are appropriate for the project.

 

Good head shots.

 

If Verpoorten was the 'artist' for this project, he would no doubt have had access to old copies of the various Marvel mags to choose from (and in 1967 the superhero output of Marvel would not have taken up too much file space, would it?).

 

Although I've already mentioned that I don't have the time or inclination to research each and every image, I can tell you this:

 

The Ka-Zar stamp is copied from the splash page of X-MEN # 10, March 1965 (and if you're wanting to look for a good head shot of Ka Zar in 1967, his debut appearance is as good as any place to start looking, considering he didn't feature too heavily in the various titles).

 

The Sgt Fury characters are copied from the cover of SGT. FURY # 18, May 1965.

 

I'm sure that I could go on to provide the original sources for most of these stamps.

 

When I first started this thread, several years ago, I made a point of highlighting all of these discrepancies to the dealer attempting to dress up and sell these stamps (re-read my original posts).

 

Did he change his lofty claims?

 

No . . . with the exception of changing his original assertion that the DAREDEVIL stamp was by Bill Everrett to being the work of Wally Wood.

 

And without re-reading all the previous posts I noticed someone was suggesting the Invisible Girl looked life a Woody female . . .

 

I guess it's true . . . you can fool some of the people some of the time . . .

 

 

 

 

Given the Verpoorten connection and the general time frame it always seemed these were done for fun or a goof or for practice BEFORE he worked for Marvel.

 

I remember when they got posted as "Kirby, Wood, Everett, Severin"

 

Maybe if they all lost a bet and had to draw them with their feet instead of their hands.

 

Hey, Chris

 

The original link to the dealer's site (and stamps) still works:

 

http://www.virtualcomicartcon.com/trade.htm

 

Dated 1/9/64, it's uncanny that the SGT FURY and KA ZAR images (I mentioned previously) appeared exactly as they would do in the comic-book pages the following year . . .

 

Maybe DR WHO was the artist?

 

 

[bluechip]

These stamps were sold by Verpoorten's family, from out of a stack of his artwork. I can't imagine where all these crazy attributions came from.

 

From sellers wanting them to appear something better/more important than they actually are . . . or would-be buyers suckered into that idea.

 

 

I remember when they are on Ebay, all on a single piece of vellum. They looked really amateurish and sloppy in a group. Then they got chopped into individual "stamps" and put into ornate frames with engraved plaques as if that would distract from the overall fecal quality they all shared.

 

 

it makes a lot of sense to me that John Verpoorten drew these stamps

 

If they came from Verpoorten's estate (which I wasn't aware of until I read Chris's post), it makes sense that he may well have drew the stamps.

 

Going back several years, when I started this topic, I had two major concerns:

 

1. The integrity of the dealer trying to sell them.

 

2. The sanity of any would-be-buyer ready and willing to accept the BS of the former.

 

 

I thought Verpoorten didn't start with Marvel until the late 60s.

 

And if the artist(s) copied images from published drawings of the characters, where did he find a spider-man picture with eyes like that?

 

 

Far as I'm aware, Verpoorten joined Marvel in 1967.

 

And if he's the artist responsible, then the stamps date later than any pencil notation would have you believe . . . if you're that gulliable?

 

As for the Spider-man picture . . . not the easiest of costume masks to illustrate.

 

I'm not gullible enough to believe a daredevil picture is the firist time he was ever drawn even though the picture is of a costume he didn't have until issue #7. And I find it strange that anyone would make that assertion for very long; even if they were honestly wrong, you'd think someone would point it out in a fairly short time.

 

If Verpoorten arrived in 1967 and he was the one he drew these, then he used references that were not the most recent.

 

Aside from all that, the biggest clue about the time period may be Stan's hat (so we know it's pre-toupe)

 

Just curiou.

 

I think it has more to do with references that are appropriate for the project.

 

Good head shots.

 

If Verpoorten was the 'artist' for this project, he would no doubt have had access to old copies of the various Marvel mags to choose from (and in 1967 the superhero output of Marvel would not have taken up too much file space, would it?).

 

Although I've already mentioned that I don't have the time or inclination to research each and every image, I can tell you this:

 

The Ka-Zar stamp is copied from the splash page of X-MEN # 10, March 1965 (and if you're wanting to look for a good head shot of Ka Zar in 1967, his debut appearance is as good as any place to start looking, considering he didn't feature too heavily in the various titles).

 

The Sgt Fury characters are copied from the cover of SGT. FURY # 18, May 1965.

 

I'm sure that I could go on to provide the original sources for most of these stamps.

 

When I first started this thread, several years ago, I made a point of highlighting all of these discrepancies to the dealer attempting to dress up and sell these stamps (re-read my original posts).

 

Did he change his lofty claims?

 

No . . . with the exception of changing his original assertion that the DAREDEVIL stamp was by Bill Everrett to being the work of Wally Wood.

 

And without re-reading all the previous posts I noticed someone was suggesting the Invisible Girl looked life a Woody female . . .

 

I guess it's true . . . you can fool some of the people some of the time . . .

 

 

I saw that years ago and wasn't fooled. But apparently, nobody else was, either, 'cause the prices they got were probably less than they would've gotten if correctly labelled as an unused marvel project from Verpoorten's collection. Not to mention less than the asking price at the time. I don't recall the exact prices at the time but if memory serves they were about close to a grand a head for lesser characters and as much as a couple grand per head for the stars.

[comix4fun]

Hey, Chris

 

The original link to the dealer's site (and stamps) still works:

 

http://www.virtualcomicartcon.com/trade.htm

 

Dated 1/9/64, it's uncanny that the SGT FURY and KA ZAR images (I mentioned previously) appeared exactly as they would do in the comic-book pages the following year . . .

 

Maybe DR WHO was the artist?

 

 

 

Oh yeah I remember where they were listed. I don't remember this "dated" area being shown to anyone, and there NO WAY it was a Marvel Publication Stamp. Also since they were sliced and diced into little squares that "dated" has gone the way the way of the dodo.

 

Stamped, handwritten, pen, ink, pencil, crayon? I wonder if a handwriting expert was called in to see if it was Stan's.

 

But really I can draw something today and mark 1/9/64 and it could be my birthday, my high school locker combination, the numbers from my Little Orphan Annie secret decoder ring, or any of a thousand other things that are just as likely as that number being any sort of iron clad proof of when I drew the piece.

 

The proof, for me, is always the image. You could tell me those are Monet's and I still have no interest.

[comicartcom]

those stamps are drawn by Monet prior to his water lilies period

[comix4fun]

those stamps are drawn by Monet prior to his water lilies period

 

I liked Monet's work best when he was inked by Klein on Legion.

[Terry Doyle]

Mystery solved:

 

[comicartcom]

Mystery solved:

 

 

Stevie's not a bad artist, all things considered

 

(thumbs u

Edited December 27, 2010 by comicartcom

[TheWatcher]

And if the artist(s) copied images from published drawings of the characters, where did he find a spider-man picture with eyes like that?

 

Kirby, possibly from ST Annual 2. He never could draw Spider-man's mask properly.

[comicartcom]

And if the artist(s) copied images from published drawings of the characters, where did he find a spider-man picture with eyes like that?

 

Kirby, possibly from ST Annual 2. He never could draw Spider-man's mask properly.

 

Bluechip.. why do they need to be exact copies? Rarely does an artist make perfect copies of anything, even when trying to. These are just John Verpoorton's interpretation