Terrific Kirby/ Heath splash, but...

[drdroom]

So there is this Atlas monster splash, BEAUTIFULLY inked by Russ Heath, which is something I've never seen before, on Ebay:

http://www.ebay.com/itm/291004173538?ssPageName=STRK:MEWAX:IT&_trksid=p3984.m1438.l2649

 

Unfortunately, there is a glaring condition issue which the seller seems reluctant to acknowledge. I've communicated with him through Comicart-L (and oddly no one else on that list seems to care, 48 hrs later), but my concerns are unanswered as of this writing so I bring it to you, Collectors Society. I've mislaid my original query, which pointed out that the artwork has significant differences from the published page (also reproduced in the listing), and also criticized some vagueness as to provenance. I am here pasting in his response on Comicart-L and my response to that, which I think will cover all the relevant detail. The main takeaway is that, IMHO, there is a section of this page that was redrawn by someone far less skilled than Kirby or Heath, and with an unknowable degree of accuracy. Comments?

 

JohnCoyne4 wrote:

Drdroom, I am the owner of Rainbow Bridge Comics. The Kirby splash is in excellent condition . I cannot explain the difference between the original art and the published page. I do not own an original Tales of Suspense #28. I did a Google imaged search and found the one included in the eBay listing. I also know this story has been reprinted in Uncanny Tales #12 and the original run of Fantasy Masterpieces #7. There is no white out in the area in question, nor is there any “smudge”. You can clearly see this using the zoom feature on the eBay listing.

The art came from a private collection and we believe has not been in circulation for many years, possibly since the early to mid ‘70s. Yes, the one sentence in the eBay listing is a bit out of place, since it was a left over from a past listing and was not caught in time during the editing process. I do not like to edit descriptions once a bid is made, so it was decided just to let it be.

Rest assured, Rainbow Bridge Comics is very reputable. Our feedback as a seller and buyer on eBay speaks for itself. I hope I have answered any questions about this magnificent piece of Jack Kirby art.

John Coyne

Rainbow Bridge Comics

 

drdroom wrote:

Hi John, my bad! For some reason I just imagined you were posting the link because it is a terrific page. Of course you're the seller, and I don't doubt your reputation at all, as I've seen you on the list for ages.

 

As to the smudginess I must disagree however. It was thanks to the Ebay close-up feature that I could see the smudginess! Look at the collapsing woodwork of the water tower: the lines are rough and hazy, as though inked over roughed up paper, compared to the crisp lines on the figures to the left and the monster's arm to the right. Look at the building fragments immediately under the monster's flipper: see how they are full of indistinct grey tones not found in the sections of the page that made it to print? Notice what looks like a falling train car or building chunk just left of the girl at center bottom: see how the linework is coarse and wobbly, totally unlike the ultra-clean Heath inks on the rest of the page?

 

There is a mystery here. I don't have a copy of TOS 28 either, maybe someone else on the list would like to look this up? In any case whether the artwork was altered for the original printing or a subsequent reprinting, the fact is that there has been an alteration. My guess, in the absence of further information, is that: 1. Kirby/Heath completed the page roughly as it looks now. 2. Stan or someone decided it was too cluttered or too violent for the code, and had the passage whited out and redrawn with simpler undamaged buildings. 3. A previous owner of the page realized there must be something interesting under the white-out, and carried out an amateur restoration of the hidden section.

 

I'm honestly not trying to hurt your business, and I'm sorry to be the bearer of possibly somewhat bad news, but I would think that your integrity as a seller (or just your sense of self-preservation) would absolutely require you to disclose any significant issues with a piece of art as valuable as this. 

 

best,

Aaron Noble

[Bronty]

Good eye. Seems to me like you are right.

 

It has to be said that the rest of the image is magnificent though.

[Ferran Delgado]

I think that the published image was heavily retouched, just take a look at the awkward shape of the right arm. This is not strange according the great record of redrawing at this age on covers and interior art.

 

Sometimes Marvel stored the unretouched image in their files, and used it in reprints or sent it overseas for publishing, but this is not the case since the couple of reprints ran the same image.

 

The original art also looks retouched. Maybe the owner could provide another pic of the zone, but this time focused, so we can see if it's a paste-up or redrawn over corrective white paint.

 

[Ferran Delgado]

In this darkened image, it seems that the area in the arm was drawn over white paint, but the rest might be a large pasted up.

 

Maybe the buyer could get a restorer reconstruct the original image of the page.

 

ADDED: The story was also reprinted in the Monster Masterworks TPB, but it's the same image than Uncanny Tales #12.

 

[drdroom]

Nice work with the images, Ferran!

[drdroom]

Good eye. Seems to me like you are right.

 

It has to be said that the rest of the image is magnificent though.

 

Indeed it is. Imagine if Heath had stayed at Marvel to ink Kirby into the superhero age. He had his own fine career to pursue though, I suppose. *sigh* [imagines Heath inks on Thor ]

[Unca Ben]

Indeed it is. Imagine if Heath had stayed at Marvel to ink Kirby into the superhero age. He had his own fine career to pursue though, I suppose. *sigh* [imagines Heath inks on Thor ]

Now that would have been awesome!

[Dr. Balls]

Here's Ferran's image of the smudges:

 

If you overlay the image of the smashed building, showing where it was redrawn.

 

I still can't guess what happened here - I find it odd that Jack Kirby drew the monsters arm with no shadowing underneath it on top of the buildings in the original version that was published - but stranger things have happened, I suppose.

 

The lack of a steady line (and different type of stroke) in the crushed building and windows that were added makes me question who drew/redrew - and when, for what purpose?

 

So many production/deadline related story possibilities here... Did it make it all the way to stripping/plating before someone thought it needed to be fixed/improved? Did the house artist who fixed it not make the press deadline or did Stan not like the improvements and decided the original film had to be run as-is?

 

Interesting piece.

[drdroom]

Here's Ferran's image of the smudges:

 

If you overlay the image of the smashed building, showing where it was redrawn.

 

I still can't guess what happened here - I find it odd that Jack Kirby drew the monsters arm with no shadowing underneath it on top of the buildings in the original version that was published - but stranger things have happened, I suppose.

 

The lack of a steady line (and different type of stroke) in the crushed building and windows that were added makes me question who drew/redrew - and when, for what purpose?

 

So many production/deadline related story possibilities here... Did it make it all the way to stripping/plating before someone thought it needed to be fixed/improved? Did the house artist who fixed it not make the press deadline or did Stan not like the improvements and decided the original film had to be run as-is?

 

Interesting piece.

 

No, I'm sure Kirby didn't draw the version as published. The published section that correlates to this more detailed version is noticeably too crude in composition to be Kirby and too crudely inked to be Heath. Someone like Sol Brodsky I would think, and more likely over white-out than with a paste on-- note the intricacy of the change, with cracks removed from the building on left while the building stays. That seems like a white-out correction. It only makes sense that the original included this detail of carnage. The problem is that what we see on the original today is obviously not inked by Heath, and not even by a professional. Someone tried to recreate the Kirby/Heath detail, but we don't know how much of the original linework that person actually had access to. Is what we're seeing a sloppy but basically accurate recreation, or did the amateur artist have to invent some of it?

 

 

[Dr. Balls]

So, what is the suggested timeline of artistic renditions for this piece?

 

1. Jack Kirby partially drew the page

 

2. Someone besides Kirby/Heath added the buildings

 

3. Page was published

 

4. Someone besides Kirby/Heath decided smashed buildings would look better and added them

 

Is that right (as much as right as we can be)?

 

 

[drdroom]

So, what is the suggested timeline of artistic renditions for this piece?

 

1. Jack Kirby partially drew the page

 

2. Someone besides Kirby/Heath added the buildings

 

3. Page was published

 

4. Someone besides Kirby/Heath decided smashed buildings would look better and added them

 

Is that right (as much as right as we can be)?

 

 

No, not in my theory. I think:

1. Kirby drew the page, including smashed buildings. It makes visual sense with the location of the monster's flipper, more than the published version (Kirby's work virtually always makes perfect compositional sense at the pencil stage, especially in terms of the physical relations of objects).

 

2. Heath inked the entire page including smashed buildings, with an exquisite control that Kirby would not receive again until Sinnott got rolling on FF. Heath's original inks on the "corrected"/unprinted section are now lost.

 

3. Page was changed in production, possibly at Comics Code request (page has no code stamp on back), and rendered significantly less violent. My guess is the change was done over white-out rather than paste over, as there is no glue stain. I don't think the new intact buildings were drawn by Kirby or inked by Heath. In any case they are long gone from this original.

 

4. Joe ComicFan buys the page (probably not regarding it as stolen) for $50 bucks or so, and removes the white-out (or peels off the paste-over). In the process of doing this, because he is not a professional, he damages the paper surface, tearing off or scraping off parts of the original top layer and the artwork that is on them. If he tried to remove white out with solvent he could have also made some of the ink run into the thinning white out, creating some of the smeary effects. This could have soaked completely into the board, consistent with the sellers assertion that no white-out is present.

 

5. Some of the art is left, enough to see what Kirby intended, but the page doesn't look presentable anymore. So he restores it, or gets his brother who took half of the Famous Artists course one time, to restore it. It's a fine page marred by amateur restoration.

[comicartman]

To me the smudginess seems to be that from an inferior scan at low resolution. I'm amazed you were able to find all those details from the blurry scan provided. Anyway, still a great piece in my opinion.

[Dr. Balls]

So, what is the suggested timeline of artistic renditions for this piece?

 

1. Jack Kirby partially drew the page

 

2. Someone besides Kirby/Heath added the buildings

 

3. Page was published

 

4. Someone besides Kirby/Heath decided smashed buildings would look better and added them

 

Is that right (as much as right as we can be)?

 

 

No, not in my theory. I think:

1. Kirby drew the page, including smashed buildings. It makes visual sense with the location of the monster's flipper, more than the published version (Kirby's work virtually always makes perfect compositional sense at the pencil stage, especially in terms of the physical relations of objects).

 

2. Heath inked the entire page including smashed buildings, with an exquisite control that Kirby would not receive again until Sinnott got rolling on FF. Heath's original inks on the "corrected"/unprinted section are now lost.

 

3. Page was changed in production, possibly at Comics Code request (page has no code stamp on back), and rendered significantly less violent. My guess is the change was done over white-out rather than paste over, as there is no glue stain. I don't think the new intact buildings were drawn by Kirby or inked by Heath. In any case they are long gone from this original.

 

4. Joe ComicFan buys the page (probably not regarding it as stolen) for $50 bucks or so, and removes the white-out (or peels off the paste-over). In the process of doing this, because he is not a professional, he damages the paper surface, tearing off or scraping off parts of the original top layer and the artwork that is on them. If he tried to remove white out with solvent he could have also made some of the ink run into the thinning white out, creating some of the smeary effects. This could have soaked completely into the board, consistent with the sellers assertion that no white-out is present.

 

5. Some of the art is left, enough to see what Kirby intended, but the page doesn't look presentable anymore. So he restores it, or gets his brother who took half of the Famous Artists course one time, to restore it. It's a fine page marred by amateur restoration.

 

Ok, now I'm getting it. That seems like a sound theory, especially the smearing effect - that had me really wondering.

[drdroom]

To me the smudginess seems to be that from an inferior scan at low resolution. I'm amazed you were able to find all those details from the blurry scan provided. Anyway, still a great piece in my opinion.

 

The close-up is passable, & anyway the smudginess just happens to be isolated in the one area that never got printed. A bad scan would be smudgy all over.

[batman_fan]

Final hammer was $7056, reserve not met. Pretty low price for a Kirby splash, but I suspect the questions on the condition may have spoked some folks off.