Detective #27 Proof Pages

[bluechip]

What bothers me is that page 1 is missing.

 

I totally did not have the time to do this today but your question got me thinking so I did it anyway. Here is a shot of the 1st page of the reprinted Texc 27 story published in Batman 200.

 

 

This doesn't mean it's from that issue. And I am one guy who is really hoping these are legit as possibly the earliest available Batman memorabilia. But it would be nice to see a little more research into the age of this piece. If they are proven legit from 1939 (or even late 1938), then they are soooo cool.

 

 

[sfcityduck]

What bothers me is that page 1 is missing.

 

I totally did not have the time to do this today but your question got me thinking so I did it anyway. Here is a shot of the 1st page of the reprinted Texc 27 story published in Batman 200.

 

 

This doesn't mean it's from that issue. And I am one guy who is really hoping these are legit as possibly the earliest available Batman memorabilia. But it would be nice to see a little more research into the age of this piece. If they are proven legit from 1939 (or even late 1938), then they are soooo cool.

 

 

Is it a coincidence that D200 reprinted only p.1, and this group of b&w "proofs" is missing p.1? Again, who knows.

[Bat-Man]

Great questions and convo going here gents!

 

 

The one thing that makes me question the legitimacy of these is if they are real then why has HA not done really any job of hyping them up?

 

It just feels a tad off on the whole thing.

[sfcityduck]

What I'd really like to see is a comparison of scans of the original D27 pages with these "proofs" so we could compare the print quality and ascertain if there are any differences in the images.

 

I've seen some comparisons of these "proofs" to Theakstonized "reconstructions," but that doesn't help at all. See here:

 

http://www.bleedingcool.com/2011/02/02/detective-comics-27-production-proofs-offer-stunning-look-at-first-batman-art/

[sfcityduck]

Great questions and convo going here gents!

 

 

The one thing that makes me question the legitimacy of these is if they are real then why has HA not done really any job of hyping them up?

 

It just feels a tad off on the whole thing.

 

It's possible HA's qualms aren't over the legitimacy of the items (and I have to assume HA believes the item is what they advertise it as being), but over the way they were acquired and the fact the seller apparently didn't contact Bob Kane about them for the 23 years he had them while BK was alive.

[markseifert]

What I'd really like to see is a comparison of scans of the original D27 pages with these "proofs" so we could compare the print quality and ascertain if there are any differences in the images.

 

I've seen some comparisons of these "proofs" to Theakstonized "reconstructions," but that doesn't help at all. See here:

 

http://www.bleedingcool.com/2011/02/02/detective-comics-27-production-proofs-offer-stunning-look-at-first-batman-art/

 

Yeah, fwiw we did a second set of comparisons here:

 

http://www.bleedingcool.com/2011/02/03/detective-comics-27-printed-and-production-art-side-by-side/

 

Though I don't know where Rich got the reprint images from. They are different (and more accurate, it seems) from the DC Archives version and some have suggested to me it's from a more recent remastering.

 

I've got the original on fiche, guess I might drag the reader out of storage this weekend and see if anything noteworthy pops up.

 

[markseifert]

Btw, sfcityduck -- are there any scans of the various Action proofs around? I think I saw Mark Z post the cover color guide once but can't find it now.

[bluechip]

What bothers me is that page 1 is missing.

 

I totally did not have the time to do this today but your question got me thinking so I did it anyway. Here is a shot of the 1st page of the reprinted Texc 27 story published in Batman 200.

 

 

This doesn't mean it's from that issue. And I am one guy who is really hoping these are legit as possibly the earliest available Batman memorabilia. But it would be nice to see a little more research into the age of this piece. If they are proven legit from 1939 (or even late 1938), then they are soooo cool.

 

 

Is it a coincidence that D200 reprinted only p.1, and this group of b&w "proofs" is missing p.1? Again, who knows.

 

An issue of Detective comics reprinted the whole Tec 27 story for the 30th anniversary.

 

And, it's possible that it's neither a coincidence nor an indication that this is not from 1939. It's possible that they dug out the proofs they had on file and used page 1 to create this page for Bat 2000. That could explain why pages 2-6 remain. (though it would be even more of an indication if the bat figure was cut out from page 3)

 

[bluechip]

FYI, here's scans of the pages from an original. (now that this discussion has completely destroyed my schedule)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[sfcityduck]

What I'd really like to see is a comparison of scans of the original D27 pages with these "proofs" so we could compare the print quality and ascertain if there are any differences in the images.

 

I've seen some comparisons of these "proofs" to Theakstonized "reconstructions," but that doesn't help at all. See here:

 

http://www.bleedingcool.com/2011/02/02/detective-comics-27-production-proofs-offer-stunning-look-at-first-batman-art/

 

Yeah, fwiw we did a second set of comparisons here:

 

http://www.bleedingcool.com/2011/02/03/detective-comics-27-printed-and-production-art-side-by-side/

 

Though I don't know where Rich got the reprint images from. They are different (and more accurate, it seems) from the DC Archives version and some have suggested to me it's from a more recent remastering.

 

I've got the original on fiche, guess I might drag the reader out of storage this weekend and see if anything noteworthy pops up.

 

Your second set of comparisons is also with reconstructions (e.g. partially redrawn art).

[adamstrange]

Why run off b&w proofs of a color comic?

I purchased a small set of proof material from the late 1940s and it included b&w proofs, full color proofs, silver tint prints colored by the colorist, "negative" proofs, b&w proofs of each individual color plate and individual color plate proofs. I agree that the seller has little in the way corroborating evidence but neither do I see anything that disproves the assertion of the seller.

[adamstrange]

Btw, sfcityduck -- are there any scans of the various Action proofs around? I think I saw Mark Z post the cover color guide once but can't find it now.

Those were my scans of the Sothebys catalog.

 

[markseifert]

Your second set of comparisons is also with reconstructions (e.g. partially redrawn art).

 

Yes, I understand that.

[markseifert]

Awesome, thank you! (thumbs u

 

Btw, sfcityduck -- are there any scans of the various Action proofs around? I think I saw Mark Z post the cover color guide once but can't find it now.

Those were my scans of the Sothebys catalog.

 

[markseifert]

Great questions and convo going here gents!

 

 

The one thing that makes me question the legitimacy of these is if they are real then why has HA not done really any job of hyping them up?

 

It just feels a tad off on the whole thing.

 

Fwiw, they did do some pr. It's on a couple of the major comic news sites. It may just be a little inside baseball for the mainstream to pick it up, or perhaps it's just too soon.

[markseifert]

Ok, let's take a look at this: Of interest, there is a smudge in the upper right corner of page 3 (page 3, panel 2, right side of the caption box) that appears in both printed Tec 27 and this proof.

 

It's something that could have been cleaned up for later versions.

 

If the smudge does not appear in the 1967-75 era reprints, then that goes some ways towards developing a case for the authenticity of the 1939 claim. Not conclusive, but it'd be something.

[Point Five]

Ok, let's take a look at this: Of interest, there is a smudge in the upper right corner of page 3 (page 3, panel 2, right side of the caption box) that appears in both printed Tec 27 and this proof.

 

It's something that could have been cleaned up for later versions.

 

If the smudge does not appear in the 1967-75 era reprints, then that goes some ways towards developing a case for the authenticity of the 1939 claim. Not conclusive, but it'd be something.

Good eye, Mark!

Actually, I see a number of printing glitches and hickeys on that same 'proof' page 3 which are indeed echoed in the original page 3 that bluechip posted. There's a blotch of ink just to the right of Batman in the second panel... and a smaller blotch of ink in the blue of his cape in the fourth panel. As you say, not conclusive, but interesting and possibly the beginnings of a case for authenticity.

 

 

[sfcityduck]

Ok, let's take a look at this: Of interest, there is a smudge in the upper right corner of page 3 (page 3, panel 2, right side of the caption box) that appears in both printed Tec 27 and this proof.

 

It's something that could have been cleaned up for later versions.

 

If the smudge does not appear in the 1967-75 era reprints, then that goes some ways towards developing a case for the authenticity of the 1939 claim. Not conclusive, but it'd be something.

Good eye, Mark!

Actually, I see a number of printing glitches and hickeys on that same 'proof' page 3 which are indeed echoed in the original page 3 that bluechip posted. There's a blotch of ink just to the right of Batman in the second panel... and a smaller blotch of ink in the blue of his cape in the fourth panel. As you say, not conclusive, but interesting and possibly the beginnings of a case for authenticity.

 

 

Perhaps. Or perhaps not. The problem is that we know that there was a DC reprint of the just the missing p. 1 in 1968, right after Kane retired from D.C., and which he conceivable would have been involved in (especially if they had him doing some clean up or light boxing), but no reprints of pages 2- in that Batman 200. But without p. 1, we can't compare a "proof" page to that reprint. Which means we can't rule out that these "proof" pages were associated with the 1968 reprint project, perhaps before a decision was made to print only the p. 1.

 

I suppose it would be worthwhile to compare them to the 30s to the 70s book and the Famous First to rule out those as a source.

 

I think the most interesting comment, which I'd like to see fleshed out, was in Bluechip's first post. He opined it was clear these were made from a stat. As he put it, they are second generation. I assume he reached this conclusion because it appears that the black border is a separate background from the stat, whose borders are visible in the foreground edges.

 

But if this "proof" is taken from a stat, which would commonly be kept in the publishers files for us in reprinting, doesn't that strongly suggests these weren't proof pages for the first print of D27?

[sacentaur]

Wasn't Heritage recently exposed for selling fake Hollywood memorabilia?

 

Not that one thing has anything to do with another, but in cases like this pardon me if confidence isn't exactly inspired.

[markseifert]

[

But if this "proof" is taken from a stat, which would commonly be kept in the publishers files for us in reprinting, doesn't that strongly suggests these weren't proof pages for the first print of D27?

 

Newsprint greatly reduces the likelihood that these are actual photostats, no?

 

Newsprint, plus the large borders on the outer and bottom edge (and note the later color Batman "proof pages" are similar in this regard) would seem to imply something done at the printing plant (they have a bit of the look of untrimmed pages). A hasty "proof" made from the work-in-progress black printing plate, perhaps.

 

Which again, doesn't necessarily prove anything regarding time-frame by itself.