Recreation? First draft? Something else?

[drewincanada]

It's a veritable hollandaise of intrigue.

 

[COMICLINK]

I am not interested in selling a recreation as an original but I am also not interested in representing an original as a recreation! That would not be fair to the consignor, or the artwork itself. I don't think that the details that you are mentioning, Andrew, evidence it being a recreation. There are originals out there that conform to those details. However, it disturbs me that the inker that sold the consignor the piece believes that it is a recreation and it is being marketed as an original.

 

I reached out to Palmer myself, through the same contact that you did, Andrew. All the detail was forwarded yesterday, but as of yet I haven't received a response. I'm hoping to hear back from him personally, not from a middleman, so we can have a back and forth discussion about the difference in the details remembered between Palmer and the consignor who allegedly bought it from Palmer. Palmer's signature is on it, and there is a matte with both Palmer and Colan's signatures on it.

 

I forwarded the name of the owner that purchased the piece from Palmer to Palmer hoping that he will remember the exact situation. On this end, we are hearing that it was sold to the consignor as the original at a comic book show in the 70s, and it was done prior to the comic being published. A recreation of this magnitude and exactness could not have been done at a comic book show -- it would have been a prearranged deal, if it could be done at all, and, I think, significantly memorable to Palmer because I don't think it was common to ask for either the original art, or a recreation of the art, prior to it being published in a comic book. Palmer is saying that he thinks it is a recreation, but he is not saying what he remembers about the specific commission -- does he specifically remember being asked to do it prior to the show (and prior to the book's publication), then does he remember making a copy of the original for his work on this specific piece? Does he remember an interaction with Colan about it? Or, is he drawing his conclusion based on the fact that he did recreations from time to time, and is that generality the reason why he believes this piece to be a recreation, without remembering it specifically? Also, I'd like him to confirm that he is able to make a recreation from a copy to such exactness to the published cover as is seen here and evidenced by Andrew's animated GIF. And, why would an artist go to such an extreme on a commissioned recreation. I have never seen a recreation like that. Has anyone else?

 

 

[lb jefferies]

Why on earth would he do a perfect recreation of the cover before the cover even saw print? Would love to hear his answer to that one.

[pinupcartoonguy]

Is the original editor on the book still around?

[drewincanada]

To be clear: I have no stake in this game, and I would like nothing better than it to be verified that this is the artwork that was submitted to Marvel for publication, and that it was inked directly over Gene's pencils.

 

I think I've been fair in my posts. The original post questioned the artwork because it was so different from the published cover, and because the format of the artwork - the lack of visible pencils, the lack of any marks in the margins other than the handwritten dimensions, the size of the artboard (larger than the typical board used for publication art), Tom's acknowledgement that he did light box many of Gene's covers - led me to wonder if this page was light boxed.

 

As I stated, I did NOT expect Tom to tell me that the cover was a recreation. I was as surprised as anyone. I pushed back a number of times with details that I hoped would get him to rethink and restate his position, but he has continued to insist it's a recreation.

 

I'm not taking sides. I'm just presenting the information as it was given to me. I think it's important to do so and let everyone make up their own minds.

[COMICLINK]

Andrew,

 

If you keep saying that Tom thinks it's a recreation, someone will believe that it is true (even though you are saying you don't think it is). If you are interested in bidding on or buying the piece, you do have a "stake in the game" and it would be in your financial interest (at least before you buy it) to keep the price down. I will go on the record saying that this is not a recreation, and here is definitive evidence:

 

As you can probably see from the scan we have up in the auction, there were thin lines of whiteout added at various spots around HTD to apparently remove the overlapping of the characters and background lines. Two such whiteout lines were added to each side of HTD’s right heel (where HTD’s heel overlapped a background line). The two white outlines caused slight indentations on the outside edge of the curved inked line on each side of HTD’s right heel. These same two indentations on his heel can be seen on the ultimate printed cover. So we now have an example where the effects of whiteout on “this” art are displayed on the final printed cover.

 

If this is not the original, then Palmer put whiteout in the exact same places the whiteout was on the original. Why would anyone do that on a recreation? And, is it even possible to line up the inks and the whiteout so exactly? It may not be possible, and even if it was, what would be the motivation? The only reason would be if he were going to get a fortune selling a recreation as the original when it is not. Of course, he wouldn't have gotten that much for the original back in '76 and even if he would have, the presumption for this to be a recreation would have to be that could replicate it so exactly and then have sufficient motivation to do it. I don't know Tom at all so can't comment on his ethics, but I can't imagine why an established inker would ever risk his career and reputation by doing anything like that even if it could be done.

 

So when you combine the fine art details that everyone seems to agree would be practically impossible to recreate so precisely, with the white out on the art affecting the final printed cover, there really is no explanation other than this being the original art used to create the cover for Marvel Treasury Edition #12. While it is obvious that Tom worked on the piece, the clear evidence here of it being the original used for the cover has to trump Tom's opinion that this is a recreation. As mentioned earlier, I have attempted to contact Tom multiple times to clarify what this is, and have a subsequent conversation, and have not heard a word from him.

 

Andrew you ponder that Gene’s pencils may not be under the original ink. It’s certainly possible that this was light boxed, but short of going back in time, there is no definitive way for us to confirm that. It is true that pencils are not visible on this art work, and the same can be said for many Palmer-inked Colan pieces that have sold through the years. A good example is the cover to Tomb of Dracula #59 which sold on Heritage for $10,000+. Heritage provides a very high resolution scan in their archives, and the cover looks every bit as clean as this Treasury cover.