The check that bought Superman

[tonytiger]

When all is said and done what is missing from this discussion is a reality check.

 

As a landmark in the history of popular culture this one-of-a-kind document should be in a national museum, but that doesn't mean it won't reach an astronomical sum and find it's way into a private collection.

 

A little perspective: The Beatles first recording contract sold at auction earlier this year for $114K. The Beatles first management contract with Brian Epstein sold for $426K in 2008,

 

But this is not a contract. It's just a check. Checks signed by the Beatles can be had for hundreds of dollars. And the Beatles market is much more robust than the comic market, especially when it comes to autographs. There is not that much of a market for comic creator autographs. So I don't think it will net an "astronomical sum," by which I mean over six figures.

 

But this is a significant check. If I owned an Action 1, especially the Court Copy, this would be a nice ancillary piece to have and hang on the wall. Which is why I would be surprised if does not net $5K+. A Beatles concert contract with a very historically interesting no segregation clause recently went for $23K. I could see this ending up in that range for its historical value if two collectors go crazy. So I agree that a range of $5K to $25K seems pretty reasonable.

 

 

 

 

 

I see the logic of your argument, but allow me to suggest a slightly different rationale for interest here. What makes the perceived value of this check unpredictable is that there is a "perfect storm" of quantifiable factors that may ratchet up bidding interest on the collector's market:

 

1) The Superman check is a one of a kind document (it is a singular check for the purchase of an iconic work).

 

2) It has historic significance (acquisition of the first phenomenally successful costumed comic character; one that has stood the test of time)

 

3) Even more historic significance (check was used as evidence in landmark court ruling defending the character copyright)

 

4) The symbolism of the check still has relevance today given the ongoing battles between the creator's estates and National (DC) over the character's true ownership.

 

5) The value of this check isn't so much about the autographs, but the unique history and symbolism. Granted, Beatle's checks are of significant interest to their memorabilia collectors, but there's probably more than just one Beatle's check on the market (ergo supply vs demand), and I'll wager that all four of them didn't sign those checks together as did Jerry Siegal and Joe Shuster.

 

Plus, nearly everybody drawing breath has heard all or part of the story of how these guys sold superman for 130 bucks. It's become a part of American lore.

 

If there were a check made out to all the Beatles that was their first ever paid gig and without which they would never have formed a band, resulting in a story that nearly everybody's heard about, then it would be more like this. Granted, Beatles stuff in general goes for more than comic stuff in general, but that gulf is not widening or holding steady, but narrowing.

 

BTW, I love the Manhattan Island story, but it annoys me every time I hear it because it didn't sell for 24 dollars; when the deal was made there was no such thing as an American dollar. The sale was actually for, as I recall, something like 60 guilders' worth of wampum, which was a fair price for it at the time.

 

 

 

Plus with the Beatles signing a check or signing a contract, there was no controversy. Comparing a Beatles item to this check is apples to oranges.

 

A signed Mookie Wilson ball is worth 30 bucks. THE signed "Mookie Ball" from 1986 is worth 100,000.

[sfcityduck]

 

 

Plus, nearly everybody drawing breath has heard all or part of the story of how these guys sold superman for 130 bucks. It's become a part of American lore.

 

 

 

A lot of folks don't know that story, including a lot of comic collectors. While I think the check is a really neat item, I'm not at all sure its pop culture significance rivals the Beatles contracts. The Superman contract is far more historically significant. So is, in my mind, the surviving silver print of the cover and the surviving pre-Action 1 Superman art. The check seems more like memoriabilia than anything of real historical significance (e.g., something that tells us something about the story of the creation of Superman of creative significance).

 

The legal significance of the check is also being overblown on this site. It was not of major significance as evidence in the Siegel lawsuit or the 2008 decision. The court focused on the contracts. In fact, the Court gave more significance to the coming attractions ads than the fact of the $130 payment. It mentioned the check only once as background context.

 

(Folks may be confusing this with the Kirby lawsuit where the checks have been a major focus because there was no written contract.)

 

Having said that, the check will go for a little more than whatever two people are willing to pay for it. Is anyone here planning on bidding $25K plus?

 

 

[markseifert]

Using the 10k number that's been mentioned as a further talking point, to me the comparison becomes are we really saying that this is only going to go for 1% of what a nice Action 1 goes for?

 

There's a school of thought that would say people who'd be in the market for this would find that sort of comparison more relevant than what similar artifacts from other historical areas have brought. I don't know... maybe I'm off base here, I don't know much about stuff like the Beatle's contracts and so on.

[sfcityduck]

Using the 10k number that's been mentioned as a further talking point, to me the comparison becomes are we really saying that this is only going to go for 1% of what a nice Action 1 goes for?

 

There's a school of thought that would say people who'd be in the market for this would find that sort of comparison more relevant than what similar artifacts from other historical areas have brought. I don't know... maybe I'm off base here, I don't know much about stuff like the Beatle's contracts and so on.

 

I don't know why the folks who bought the $1M+ Actions made the purchases. But, if they did so as an investment, than they may have no interest in the check whatsoever.

 

 

[Aman619]

I think these are significant collectible items. Im not interested, out of my realm, but, saying these are obscure since so few people out there knows the story of the sale of Superman, is like saying Action 1 or any comic will never be worth much money because only a small pool of people care. That USED to be true. not anymore.

 

in time (maybe in just a few years when DC losing Superman becomes a widely known and followed/business news story, just as the world-aware movies that have propelled comics values skyward), ... very soon people everywhere will be aware of how this check led to 70 years of court battles over an American cultural icon.

 

Its value MAY be significantly more than it sells for now. How many other similar items with such a historical, cultural, and sensational nature are there?

 

 

sorry to those of you hoping to steal it cheap! just making the case that it COULD be a big deal to more people than might think so today.

[bluechip]

I think these are significant collectible items. Im not interested, out of my realm, but, saying these are obscure since so few people out there knows the story of the sale of Superman, is like saying Action 1 or any comic will never be worth much money because only a small pool of people care. That USED to be true. not anymore.

 

in time (maybe in just a few years when DC losing Superman becomes a widely known and followed/business news story, just as the world-aware movies that have propelled comics values skyward), ... very soon people everywhere will be aware of how this check led to 70 years of court battles over an American cultural icon.

 

Its value MAY be significantly more than it sells for now. How many other similar items with such a historical, cultural, and sensational nature are there?

 

 

sorry to those of you hoping to steal it cheap! just making the case that it COULD be a big deal to more people than might think so today.

 

It also falls into the "deal of the century" category, and a lot of guys with big money have gotten that way by making similar deals themselves and are, therefore, drawn to memorabilia that's along similar lines.

 

[sfcityduck]

this check led to 70 years of court battles over an American cultural icon.

 

Superman is a cultural icon. He's certainly up there with, at least, Mickey Mouse, Disney generally, the Beatles, Star Wars, etc. And Action 1 is a highly sought after collectible as a result, as it should be.

 

BUT, this check did NOT lead to 70 years of court battles. Saying that is just plain wrong. What led to 70s years of legal battles were S&S's decision to sell their rights, their agreement to sign the contract and its wording, and subsequent changes in the copyright laws. The check is a footnote. This check is of less legal significance than the $94K check from 1948. This check didn't cause any litigation.

 

The check is really neat item. Even though it is one of a kind, I just don't see anyone willing to trade a copy of Action 1 for the check. The Court Copy of Action 1 is, in my mind, worth significantly more than this check. Because its Action 1 + some nice history. At best, this check is just some nice history. The silver print "failed color guide" seems more significant than this check, because it is pre-Action 1 Superman art. The pre-Action 1 surviving Superman art is clearly more interesting than this check. And some might even think that the Science Fiction fanzine is more significant.

 

Obviously, two men with a lot of money might disagree with me. And then this check will skyrocket. But, I don't see the upside for this check as anywhere near that of an Action 1; hence, I'm not sure an investor would view the check as a particularly safe place to put his money. Unlike with comics, I'm unaware of any established market amongst comic collectors for this type of memoriabilia. I really don't think Siegel's hair or shirt will sell for much or has any real value. I wouldn't say that about Elvis or the Beatles. The markets are different.

 

 

[Aman619]

as a collectible, Id rather have a check than a contract. visual appeal is night and day.

[Aman619]

you dont like "led to" fine

 

the check is the visual reference of the one sided deal. it says right on it how much Superman was sold for. Once you know the story, the check becomes the item of interest.

 

[sfcityduck]

as a collectible, Id rather have a check than a contract. visual appeal is night and day.

 

Generally, in other collectibles markets, contracts go for a lot more than checks, perhaps because they are a lot more significant historically.

[sfcityduck]

you dont like "led to" fine

 

the check is the visual reference of the one sided deal. it says right on it how much Superman was sold for. Once you know the story, the check becomes the item of interest.

 

I agree the check is a neat item with a good story behind it, I just think the contract is much more interesting (as it has the terms of the deal and not only S&S's signatures but the reps for D.C.). I think the check will sell for five figures, but I'd be surprised by an "astronomical" amount.

[comicdonna]

you dont like "led to" fine

 

the check is the visual reference of the one sided deal. it says right on it how much Superman was sold for. Once you know the story, the check becomes the item of interest.

 

+1

 

Furthermore, this is the legal document that purchased "Superman."

 

The contract was just a modification to the original deal and was structured the way it was because of the strength of the negotiating position that DC had because of this check.

 

The check brings home how easily, cheaply that Siegal/Shuster sold their rights and is much more historically interesting and important than the subsequent contract. I won't dispute the collector interest in contracts for musical groups but I don't think the two situations are analogous.

I agree will all of this.

[sfcityduck]

 

The contract was just a modification to the original deal and was structured the way it was because of the strength of the negotiating position that DC had because of this check.

 

 

Huh? You are misinformed. The check and the contract have the same date. As ComicConnect states: "The final clincher is that the check exactly matches the signed agreement between DC and Siegel and Shuster, which transfers to DC 'exclusive right to the use of Superman in consideration of $130.' The date of this agreement is March 1, 1938. The same date as the check."

 

The contract sets forth the terms of the deal, all the check does is convey the consideration. Which is why the legal decisions discuss the contract, but not the check.

 

I think you are confusing the original contract with the 1948 modification.

[adamstrange]

 

The contract was just a modification to the original deal and was structured the way it was because of the strength of the negotiating position that DC had because of this check.

 

 

Huh? You are misinformed. The check and the contract have the same date. As ComicConnect states: "The final clincher is that the check exactly matches the signed agreement between DC and Siegel and Shuster, which transfers to DC 'exclusive right to the use of Superman in consideration of $130.' The date of this agreement is March 1, 1938. The same date as the check."

 

The contract sets forth the terms of the deal, all the check does is convey the consideration. Which is why the legal decisions discuss the contract, but not the check.

 

I think you are confusing the original contract with the 1948 modification.

 

I stand corrected -- was going from memory based on prior reading of the history. I thought the check came first and the contract later where they were simultaneous.

[ComicConnoisseur]

 

 

Plus, nearly everybody drawing breath has heard all or part of the story of how these guys sold superman for 130 bucks. It's become a part of American lore.

 

 

 

A lot of folks don't know that story, including a lot of comic collectors. While I think the check is a really neat item, I'm not at all sure its pop culture significance rivals the Beatles contracts. The Superman contract is far more historically significant. So is, in my mind, the surviving silver print of the cover and the surviving pre-Action 1 Superman art. The check seems more like memoriabilia than anything of real historical significance (e.g., something that tells us something about the story of the creation of Superman of creative significance).

 

The legal significance of the check is also being overblown on this site. It was not of major significance as evidence in the Siegel lawsuit or the 2008 decision. The court focused on the contracts. In fact, the Court gave more significance to the coming attractions ads than the fact of the $130 payment. It mentioned the check only once as background context.

 

(Folks may be confusing this with the Kirby lawsuit where the checks have been a major focus because there was no written contract.)

 

Having said that, the check will go for a little more than whatever two people are willing to pay for it. Is anyone here planning on bidding $25K plus?

 

Superman will be far more relevant in 20 to 30 years than the Beatles. The Beatles will be thought of an important way like the Rolling Stones or the Sex Pistols are thought of as today. They will be remembered as a pretty damn good band by graybeards,but Superman will continue to add new legions of fans every year do to the movies and videogames. An example of this my 10 year old son and his friends know who Superman is,but have never heard of the Beatles. My son is growing up watching Superman cartoons/movies and playing Superman video games,while he has no knowledge at all about the Beatles music.Same can be said with Batman and Spider-man. That is why this Superman contract is far more significant than any signature by the Beatles. btw I am a huge Beatles fan,but they will go the way to John Wayne/Babe Ruth/Sinatra popularity status eventually while Superman,Spider-Man and Batman continue to become even bigger mythic legends.

[sfcityduck]

Superman will be far more relevant in 20 to 30 years than the Beatles. The Beatles will be thought of an important way like the Rolling Stones or the Sex Pistols are thought of as today. They will be remembered as pretty damn good band by graybeards,but Superman will continue to add new legions of fans every year do to the movies and videogames. An example of this my 10 year old son and his friends know who Superman is,but have never heard of the Beatles. My son is growing up watching Superman cartoons/movies and playing Superman video games,while he has no knowledge at all about the Beatles music.Same can be said with Batman and Spider-man. That is why this Superman contract is far more significant than any signature by the Beatles. btw I am a huge Beatles fan,but they will go the way to John Wayne/Babe Ruth/Sinatra popularity status eventually while Superman,Spider-Man and Batman continue to become even bigger mythic legends.

 

Only time will tell. But, my 9 year old and his friends all love the Beatles (why haven't you given you kid an education in the classics!?!). A Google search of "Beatles" gets you 206,000,000 hits whereas a search of Superman gets you only 151,000,000 hits. I think the Beatles are still bigger than Superman, mainly because the Superman franchise hasn't been hip in years and the comic audience is aging. Beatles get huge media still, like with the 2009 reissues and Beatles Rock Band, and the records are still big sellers. I don't think they go the way of Sinatra until someone changes rock and roll so much that their music is no longer relevant and a radio staple.

 

Sad reality is, though, that both music and comics have lost a lot of ground with younger folks to movies, t.v., and games. I really think that probably Superman and the Beatles are fading icons. Even Star Wars, the most seminal pop culture moment for my generation (mid-40s), will fade. It's a different world. iPad and Kindle may kill comics.

 

 

[metropoliscomics]

Superman will be far more relevant in 20 to 30 years than the Beatles. The Beatles will be thought of an important way like the Rolling Stones or the Sex Pistols are thought of as today. They will be remembered as pretty damn good band by graybeards,but Superman will continue to add new legions of fans every year do to the movies and videogames. An example of this my 10 year old son and his friends know who Superman is,but have never heard of the Beatles. My son is growing up watching Superman cartoons/movies and playing Superman video games,while he has no knowledge at all about the Beatles music.Same can be said with Batman and Spider-man. That is why this Superman contract is far more significant than any signature by the Beatles. btw I am a huge Beatles fan,but they will go the way to John Wayne/Babe Ruth/Sinatra popularity status eventually while Superman,Spider-Man and Batman continue to become even bigger mythic legends.

 

Only time will tell. But, my 9 year old and his friends all love the Beatles (why haven't you given you kid an education in the classics!?!). A Google search of "Beatles" gets you 206,000,000 hits whereas a search of Superman gets you only 151,000,000 hits. I think the Beatles are still bigger than Superman, mainly because the Superman franchise hasn't been hip in years and the comic audience is aging. Beatles get huge media still, like with the 2009 reissues and Beatles Rock Band, and the records are still big sellers. I don't think they go the way of Sinatra until someone changes rock and roll so much that their music is no longer relevant and a radio staple.

 

Sad reality is, though, that both music and comics have lost a lot of ground with younger folks to movies, t.v., and games. I really think that probably Superman and the Beatles are fading icons. Even Star Wars, the most seminal pop culture moment for my generation (mid-40s), will fade. It's a different world. iPad and Kindle may kill comics.

 

 

Here is the comparison:

 

Superman vs. Men Without Hats

[sfcityduck]

I think I'm going to chunder.

 

[bluechip]

Another comparison:

 

Superman check versus a piece of art drawn by Edgar Church.

 

 

[sfcityduck]

Seems like a bad comparison. I assume Fishler was trying to be witty. I hope you're not serious, b/c they are not in the same ballpark:

 

http://www.comicspriceguide.com/blog/post/2010/03/22/Edgar-Church-Original-Art-Sells-on-eBay.aspx