FF 52 get your hands on it

[batman_fan]

The Grand Comic Database is just a wiki type website where contributors add information that they believe to be true. It's not 100% accurate.

 

It's ComicBase version 16, Vintage.

 

Really solid information. Not to mention the big name ADKINS on the top of that art page!!

 

 

So if it said "Stan Lee" on it then it might have been drawn by Stan Lee?

 

 

Go look at Adkins artwork (not his inks), there is no resemblance at all to his work.

[VintageComics]

The Grand Comic Database is just a wiki type website where contributors add information that they believe to be true. It's not 100% accurate.

 

It's ComicBase version 16, Vintage.

 

Really solid information. Not to mention the big name ADKINS on the top of that art page!!

 

 

So if it said "Stan Lee" on it then it might have been drawn by Stan Lee?

 

 

Go look at Adkins artwork (not his inks), there is no resemblance at all to his work.

 

Oh, I already did and I agree that it's Byrne.

 

I can see elements of Byrne, I trust you and your source and it doesn't look like Adkin's pencils to me.

 

I was just making the comment to 50 Cent because many types of creators sign original art - writers, letterers, inkers, pencillers...

 

In this case, GCD is wrong and I've known it to be wrong in several instances. It's a guide, and a very good one but it's not definitive.

 

 

[batman_fan]

The Grand Comic Database is just a wiki type website where contributors add information that they believe to be true. It's not 100% accurate.

 

It's ComicBase version 16, Vintage.

 

Really solid information. Not to mention the big name ADKINS on the top of that art page!!

 

 

So if it said "Stan Lee" on it then it might have been drawn by Stan Lee?

 

 

Go look at Adkins artwork (not his inks), there is no resemblance at all to his work.

 

Oh, I already did and I agree that it's Byrne.

 

I can see elements of Byrne, I trust you and your source and it doesn't look like Adkin's pencils to me.

 

I was just making the comment to 50 Cent because many types of creators sign original art - writers, letterers, inkers, pencillers...

 

In this case, GCD is wrong and I've known it to be wrong in several instances. It's a guide, and a very good one but it's not definitive.

 

 

Thanks Roy (thumbs u

[50 CENT LONG BOX]

Vintage- what about it being Adkins after Colan?

 

This issue is a reprint from DD #69 right...... in which Gene Colan did the artwork. look at that cover and the similarities of the body styles to this issue.......

[silverseeker]

The Grand Comic Database is just a wiki type website where contributors add information that they believe to be true. It's not 100% accurate.

 

It's ComicBase version 16, Vintage.

 

Really solid information. Not to mention the big name ADKINS on the top of that art page!!

 

 

So if it said "Stan Lee" on it then it might have been drawn by Stan Lee?

 

 

Go look at Adkins artwork (not his inks), there is no resemblance at all to his work.

 

Oh, I already did and I agree that it's Byrne.

 

I can see elements of Byrne, I trust you and your source and it doesn't look like Adkin's pencils to me.

 

I was just making the comment to 50 Cent because many types of creators sign original art - writers, letterers, inkers, pencillers...

 

In this case, GCD is wrong and I've known it to be wrong in several instances. It's a guide, and a very good one but it's not definitive.

 

I also totally agree that it's Byrne pencils...the style of this cover is very reminiscent of Byrne's work on Marvel Team-Up in the late 70s, when he had people other than Terry Austin inking him...

 

Just my

[VintageComics]

Vintage- what about it being Adkins after Colan?

 

It looks nothing like Colan to me.

 

 

If I'm not mistaken, there are many reprint issues in the 1970's where the cover artist was different than the interior. It was Stan's way of reselling the same story.

 

 

[batman_fan]

Vintage- what about it being Adkins after Colan?

 

It looks nothing like Colan to me.

 

 

If I'm not mistaken, there are many reprint issues in the 1970's where the cover artist was different than the interior. It was Stan's way of reselling the same story.

 

 

I agree with Roy, doesn't look like Colan at all. I was surprised someone thought it looked like Gil Kane as well.

[bluechip]

The Grand Comic Database is just a wiki type website where contributors add information that they believe to be true. It's not 100% accurate.

 

It's ComicBase version 16, Vintage.

 

Really solid information. Not to mention the big name ADKINS on the top of that art page!!

 

 

So if it said "Stan Lee" on it then it might have been drawn by Stan Lee?

 

 

Go look at Adkins artwork (not his inks), there is no resemblance at all to his work.

 

Oh, I already did and I agree that it's Byrne.

 

I can see elements of Byrne, I trust you and your source and it doesn't look like Adkin's pencils to me.

 

I was just making the comment to 50 Cent because many types of creators sign original art - writers, letterers, inkers, pencillers...

 

In this case, GCD is wrong and I've known it to be wrong in several instances. It's a guide, and a very good one but it's not definitive.

 

 

Not sure what to make of GCD. Great idea for a site and much appreciate what they try to do. But in a recent experience I had a page of art that was misidentified by a poster who was clearly just guessing in the "doesn't look like that artist to me" kind of way and the page was labelled as the work of a lesser artist. I got the artist to email confirmation he'd done the page and submitted the change, which they processed. Then, a few months later I got a notice that it had been changed again by someone who got GCD to add a notation that he simply disagreed and thought the artist must have "misremembered." I could show the email from the artist again, as well as plenty of examples of similar pages by the artist leaving no mistake, but I can't help feeling it would be a waste of time and that, even if got it corrected -- again, somebody would just email them and weigh in with yet another opinion and get it changed -- again.

 

Just as arguments rail here about whether something is worthless because of accidental glue drops, versus being blue gold if the glue drop was accidental, I sense a current in the OA market in which some people opine about whethere this piece or that has more or less of a top artist's work and that the opinions vary to some degree based on whether they own it or not. And since the big guns at Marvel often did layouts or rough pencils or fill-ins, touchups and corrections, and relied often on guys to do backgrounds, that could mean personal agendas (buying v selling) will play an increasing role in the identification of art.

 

 

[VintageComics]

I just purchased a Baker page from a long time Baker collector. The page is clearly the work of Matt Baker and yet the GCD page has "Matt Baker - inks???" notated.

 

It happens.

 

Still, an invaluable resource in many ways and realistically, no resource out there is perfect.

 

By the way, Bob, I was reading batman_fan's old thread about his OA page and you mentioned about 5 years ago that Marvel was overdue for a Black Panther movie.

 

Good call!

 

 

[bluechip]

I just purchased a Baker page from a long time Baker collector. The page is clearly the work of Matt Baker and yet the GCD page has "Matt Baker - inks???" notated.

 

It happens.

 

Still, an invaluable resource in many ways and realistically, no resource out there is perfect.

 

By the way, Bob, I was reading batman_fan's old thread about his OA page and you mentioned about 5 years ago that Marvel was overdue for a Black Panther movie.

 

Good call!

 

 

Thanks. I don't get the hesitation about it. Seems to me the setting is richer than the average Marvel film (which have so far mostly had NYC and LA; Thor had Asgard but without the ricness of the books and on top of that it had New Mexico at it's blandest). A techno rich nation in Africa, and you're not sure how it would be a fascinating locale? Plus a cool character who's interacted closely with most other Marvel heroes (meaning he doesn't have to be the only costumed guy in the film). All the elements you need for a great story and great visuals are there.

 

 

[MR SigS]

The Grand Comic Database is just a wiki type website where contributors add information that they believe to be true. It's not 100% accurate.

 

It's ComicBase version 16, Vintage.

 

Really solid information. Not to mention the big name ADKINS on the top of that art page!!

 

 

So if it said "Stan Lee" on it then it might have been drawn by Stan Lee?

 

 

Go look at Adkins artwork (not his inks), there is no resemblance at all to his work.

 

Oh, I already did and I agree that it's Byrne.

 

I can see elements of Byrne, I trust you and your source and it doesn't look like Adkin's pencils to me.

 

I was just making the comment to 50 Cent because many types of creators sign original art - writers, letterers, inkers, pencillers...

 

In this case, GCD is wrong and I've known it to be wrong in several instances. It's a guide, and a very good one but it's not definitive.

 

 

 

I've also found many errors at GCD, but in this case aren't they saying Byrne penciled it?

 

LINK

[InvstmntComcSuply]

50 cent LB said ComicBase (a commercial comic organization software package) twice, not GCD, it just was overlooked.