Too Good to be True?

[Dave Aikins]

https://www.dropbox.com/s/nopcpeuzzdo1oi9/avengers162.jpg

 

 

Just a quick look at the side by side that Al Bigley posted shows how different the 2 are. I've done a quick once-over and circled some of the areas that are different. These aren't corrections, or additions, but different inks. not trying to be a jerk here or start a fight, but there are too many differences here to not cause concern about the CAF version.

[lb jefferies]

I think you guys need to chill out. It seems obvious to me that Daren has the original art (meaning the original pencils and inks). Due to editorial fixes the art was statted and then altered for publication. This happened to HUNDREDS of covers. It's no big deal. No one's arguing that there are no differences. That's what happens when you stat and chop up copies of the art and then shoot that stat for publication. Would you rather own an altered copy of the original with 5% original touch up inks or would you rather own the complete pencils and inks?

 

This is how they made covers back then. I could do a quick search on CAF and find a dozen examples like this.

 

 

[Drewsky]

I do'nt want to get myself in trouble here, but if you look what else this guy is selling in terms of comic art he must have got one nice collection in and the other art looks legit. So there may be a real marvel mystery here. If someone emails Perez maybe he can clear it up.

[lb jefferies]

Screw it, look at this cover (in my gallery):

 

 

And look at the published version

 

 

Somewhere out there there's a statted piece of production art with little or no original pencils/inks and with no Daredevil, with Thor's cape changed, with Iron Man moved, with less snow, etc, etc. This is what they did to ready a piece for publication.

 

Back onto the original piece - we're talking a lot of money here. Some people need to remember that before taking up the pitchforks, especially when the answer is pretty clear.

 

 

[BrianR]

I remember when the redrawn Iron Man part of that cover was for sale a couple years ago.

 

I have seen plenty of altered / stat covers over the year with subtle change to the cover. figures removed replaced deleted etc. what is odd about this cover as there are changes throughout the cover the more you look the more differences there are from size of pieces to line thicknesses. I am thinking it was a lightbox not a stat.

[Dave Aikins]

And that's my point. We aren't talking editorial changes here. It's that it appears to be a whole redone inked version. Not a retouched stat. Your example above isn't what we're talking about here.

 

THIS SPECIFIC CASE looks like it's at least worth looking into. Heck, contact Pablo Marcus? Did he ink the CAF version?

 

Also, email the ebay seller to ask for more pictures. You might email all the variations to Perez and Marcus and ask if they have any memories of this cover...

[MachoGrande]

Al Bigley's comparison doesn't begin to show the differences. The two pieces of art don't have a single inked line in common.

 

And you can rest assured that the eBay seller has received many questions—and offers—since pulling it.

[stinkininkin]

PM sent.

[Dave Aikins]

Actually just spoke with the ebay seller, who is going to try and do more research, as well as post more photos when it gets re-listed. Nice guy. From talking to him (as well as just looking at the art), it really seems like what he has is a re-inked version of the cover. The only stat on there is the logo & trade dress.

 

Why the two versions exist is beyond me, but it looks like they do.

 

crazy.

[thethedew]

... it really seems like what he has is a re-inked version of the cover. The only stat on there is the logo & trade dress.

 

Why the two versions exist is beyond me, but it looks like they do.

 

And suddenly all is quiet as everyone silently contemplates their strategy for the re-listing.

 

...and I suppose I'd be branding myself as being ridiculously naive if I suggest that it might be fun and desirable if the same person (i.e. Darin) were allowed to own both versions? Assuming he wants to...

[DocR]

I feel for everyone involved here. Both parties Daren and the ebay seller thought they were holding the original cover art to avengers 162. They both probably just lost money. When you have multiple copies of an image out there and it isn't disclosed, this is what happens. I wish they had recourse from where they each obtained their pieces but we all know how that will go. Would love to hear George Perez' take on this. Im guessing original pencils and inks on the image from caf and lightboxed pencils and a new set of original inks on the ebay version. I think the lack of disclosure about a second fully inked cover (if that's what this turns out to be) is the real cause of the issue. Personally, if i have to choose I want the page Perez actually worked on but it is really aggravating when this sort of thing happens (all too common in modern comic art but at least its disclosed,...most of the time).

[romitaman]

I just found about this discussion late last night and after a few emails.... I have all the answers for everyone today!

 

I got this cover from then Marvel editor Mike Higgins in 2008. This cover was personally given from Perez to Mike Higgins in 1977 as they were close friends.

 

after the sale.... it was noted to me that the cover was slightly different from the published cover...and Spencer Beck helped alot and he got the great George Perez to explain that he indeed gave this cover to Mike Higgins in 1977 when both worked for Marvel.

 

Everyone involved ..me included...assumed that Marvel made changes in production for the final version..as once again this process was very common at Marvel.

 

After this NEW cover surfaced last night I got hold of Mike Higgins who gave me more details this morning about this cover, which explain that the GEORGE PEREZ cover was lost at Marvel (this is the Perez/Marcos cover Daren Domina now owns) and when the cover got lost...a Xerox copy of the Perez/Marcos artwork was given back to Pablo Marcos and he light boxed the cover again and that was used for publishing purposes and that's why there are those email ink line differences..... the actual PEREZ penciled and Marcos inked cover was later found and that was the 1 and only PENCILED cover art by Perez that exists and that's what Mike Higgins got from George Perez in 1977 and that's the artwork that Daren Domina now owns. the piece on Ebay is all Marcos light boxing from a Xerox Of Daren Domina's artwork for the book to go to print. So tell me folks...which piece would you rather own?? if john Romita penciled and mike Esposito inked a vintage Bronze Age ASM cover..... and it got lost..and Esposito inked a Xerox of this EXACT cover, with some small changes for publication..and the Romita / Esposito cover surfaced.... I'd want the Romita drawn cover as its worth 50 times more to me...... the esp ink only ASM cover I'd like as a novelty...but the values of the 2 would not even be close to me. What is a blue line inked piece by an inker worth compared to a published penciled and inked piece by 2 different top of the line artists? like any art in our hobby...beauty is in the eye of he beholder and art is worth what you feel its worth to you based on the market of course.....but at least we now know the story here...

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

and here is the exact email I got from Marvel Editor Mike Higgins "this morning" when I asked about the full history of this avengers 162 cover:

 

"At least THIS time I recall what happened so I can tell you.

 

You will also recall that George Perez (when we went through this before) confirmed that the piece you had and sold was HIS original art for that cover. You even forwarded his email to me confirming that at that time.

 

Initially, with all of this being from so long ago, I didn't even realize that the cover you sold wasn't the version that was published. However, IT IS GEORGE PEREZ's (ONLY) ORIGINAL FOR THAT COVER. George never touched the copied version that was printed.

 

This is what happened. George did the pencils for the cover and it was inked by Pablo Marcos. That is the version that you had. The George Perez original.

 

During production, Morrie Kuramoto in Marvel's Bullpen misplaced the cover. They couldn't find it. So Pablo Marcos took a copy of THE ORIGINAL COVER, and inked it again on a separate art board, following the original as closely as he could. That is the second version that is apparently surfacing now. That is actually a "copy" of Perez's original-- a piece of art that George Perez himself never touched and had nothing to do with.

 

George Perez personally gave me the version of the cover that I had. It went through no other hands and it is the only version of the cover that was actually done by George Perez. While it closely resembles Perez's original, the other version is a Pablo Marcos original, NOT a George Perez original at all.

 

I don't have the emails you sent me back when this issue came up before, but somehow YOU were able to contact George Perez through a second party, and he confirmed to you guys that the version you sold was in fact his original and his only original for this cover. If you keep emails from the past, you will not only have what I am saying to back this up, but you will actually have that confirmation from George Perez himself.

 

The cover you had was the George Perez original and the version printed was a variation by another artist. There is no doubt about any of this."

 

 

 

[Dave Aikins]

Totally makes sense, and it's so cool that someone actually remembered this. The printed version was long part of a collection of someone that has passed away, and now his family is just trying to part with the collection.

Some collectors were trying to tell them that their cover was a worthless stat copy. I would think they would be happy to know that it was a hand-drawn cover, and the version used for print- even if it has no Perez pencils on it, only Marcus' light-boxed inks. I'll email your post to the ebay seller now...

[thethedew]

 

WELL DONE MIKE BURKEY!!!!

 

So tell me folks...which piece would you rather own??

 

Again, I'd rather see an effort made for the two of them to be a set together. But I'm fussy that way.

 

Andrew

[Ironmandrd]

Thank you Mike for clearing this up so quickly.

 

Last night and today I emailed and also spoke to the Ebay seller, told him the provenance of the Perez art I owned and told him I thought he should gather more information on his consignment before relisting and that after looking more closely at the pics he posted I no longer thought he had purely a production piece.

[romitaman]

It would certainly be very nice if both pieces were kept together in the same colelction. I hope Daren can work something out with the ebayer so these 2 pieces can stay together because of the unusual circumstances how they were created.

[tentpeg06]

To all concerned:

I deliberately stayed out of this thread, but it was an interesting read to determine provenance and ownership. I knew that Mike Burkey had sold the original to Daren Domina, but Mike's earlier post should lay all questions and perceived vitriol to rest. However, the eBay lister of the shadow-boxed Marcos cover now has it back up for sale with no reserve. If Daren wants it, then he will have to bid against the rest of the world unless he can entice the lister to take it down once more for a private sale.

Ciao!

PRC

[Ironmandrd]

Thanks Philip. As an FYI, it was clear to me from interacting with the Ebay consignment seller that his mandate was to put everything up for auction and not entertain private offers from anyone (whether I wished to make an offer or not).

[AvengersFan]

 

 

and here is the exact email I got from Marvel Editor Mike Higgins "this morning" when I asked about the full history of this avengers 162 cover:

 

"At least THIS time I recall what happened so I can tell you.

 

It would have been nice for both Mike Burkey AND Daren if Mike Higgins had "recalled what happened" in the first place and let Burkey know the whole story and that there were always two covers out there. I guess that might have eaten into his potential profits a little. Sorry to be so cynical.

 

Jay

[bocaratondefense]

 

and here is the exact email I got from Marvel Editor Mike Higgins "this morning" when I asked about the full history of this avengers 162 cover:

 

"At least THIS time I recall what happened so I can tell you.

 

It would have been nice for both Mike Burkey AND Daren if Mike Higgins had "recalled what happened" in the first place and let Burkey know the whole story and that there were always two covers out there. I guess that might have eaten into his potential profits a little. Sorry to be so cynical.

 

Jay

 

 

 

 

 

You are not the only one. Mike Higgins did not previously know there were two covers, but now he remembers the entire story? That is just too convenient for me.

 

 

 

Initially, with all of this being from so long ago, I didn't even realize that the cover you sold wasn't the version that was published. However, IT IS GEORGE PEREZ's (ONLY) ORIGINAL FOR THAT COVER. George never touched the copied version that was printed.