Action 1 price makes art look cheap?

[Bronty]

Thx. I think Ive seen that before. It's a good document and it certainly rings true except if you believe the person Glen Gold spoke to, the covers were mailed back in the same envelope. So why aren't the covers with the rest of the holdings when Irene inventories the warehouse? Why is the FF12 cover sighted by a credible source? More questions than answers

[pemart1966]

Would some one be so kind as to check the Irene Vartanoff article in the Comics Journal to see if she mentions the covers being sent to a different printer or them being in envelopes separate from the art for the book? Thanks!

 

I've checked here high and low and of course can't find my copy

[bluechip]

Here's one of them. I think there might have been more?

 

http://twomorrows.com/kirby/articles/19stolen.html

 

Outstanding read! I feel like I read this a while ago. I actually tend to think there is a pile in someone's basement and though it might not be 4 feet tall some of these covers exist. Especially if you believe the printer who said the covers were returned. There is just no rational reason why Marvel for instance would destroy the Avengers #4 cover. The splash to that issue, for instance specifically says this issue is destined to become a collectors item. Its not like they had no insight into what they were creating.

 

Marvel probably said that Millie the Model's (then) latest issue was destined to become a collectors' item.

 

Mostly hype.

 

I know, hyperbole. Maybe I can't understand why someone would destroy them because I'm a collector but it still seems to be such a bizarre decision.

 

You have to think like a person who chose not to keep the art in the first place. A person who gives 1) art away, or 2) puts it in a place where it might easily be destroyed, or disappear, is a person who puts no value on it, which makes them the same sort of person who 3) might throw it away. And since we know that 1 and 2 occurred, we have to accept the possibility of #3.

 

 

[Terry Doyle]

At the time Irene catalogued Marvel's OA holdings (mid-1970s), she states very little by way of cover art still existed in the warehouse (pity she didn't do an inventory of cover art). Marvel itself attached no value or importance to any of the art and nothing (it seems) was willingly given away to fans (unlike DC).

 

OA collecting (outside of the newspaper strip stuff) was in its infancy. Many artists (it would seem) had little or no interest in what happened to their drawings once delivered to the publishers. Neal Adams would later change that stance (and as Neal worked in advertising and had his own newspaper strip, he was probably used to the idea of having his originals returned).

 

As the hobby grew and prices escalated, covers would become, perhaps, the most desired part of comic-book OA. Which makes all the unaccounted-for covers highly desireable . . . if they still exist?

 

Personally, I'd love to see more of these artworks surface but, realistically, I think they were likely discarded, lost or destroyed.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[pemart1966]

Here's one of them. I think there might have been more?

 

http://twomorrows.com/kirby/articles/19stolen.html

 

Outstanding read! I feel like I read this a while ago. I actually tend to think there is a pile in someone's basement and though it might not be 4 feet tall some of these covers exist. Especially if you believe the printer who said the covers were returned. There is just no rational reason why Marvel for instance would destroy the Avengers #4 cover. The splash to that issue, for instance specifically says this issue is destined to become a collectors item. Its not like they had no insight into what they were creating.

 

Marvel probably said that Millie the Model's (then) latest issue was destined to become a collectors' item.

 

Mostly hype.

 

I know, hyperbole. Maybe I can't understand why someone would destroy them because I'm a collector but it still seems to be such a bizarre decision.

 

You have to think like a person who chose not to keep the art in the first place. A person who gives 1) art away, or 2) puts it in a place where it might easily be destroyed, or disappear, is a person who puts no value on it, which makes them the same sort of person who 3) might throw it away. And since we know that 1 and 2 occurred, we have to accept the possibility of #3.

 

 

Why would someone destroy the cover art and not the book art? Doesn't make sense to me.

 

The fact that most of the cover art was not present at the time of the art inventory lends credence to the theory that there was, over a period of time, a removal of the cover art from storage rather than someone singling them for destruction.

[suspense39]

Remember they actually cut up art for comic books in the golden age, which is why there is hardly any left......they really were more interested in the final product and the originals weren't that important. I'm sure an important silver age cover or two is out there but not many. We come to this hobby with a different mindset than existed then, so it's hard to understand.

[pinupcartoonguy]

Original or not, it was all considered production art. On top of that, most of the artists didn't really want to be drawing comic books.

 

[Terry Doyle]

Here's one of them. I think there might have been more?

 

http://twomorrows.com/kirby/articles/19stolen.html

 

Outstanding read! I feel like I read this a while ago. I actually tend to think there is a pile in someone's basement and though it might not be 4 feet tall some of these covers exist. Especially if you believe the printer who said the covers were returned. There is just no rational reason why Marvel for instance would destroy the Avengers #4 cover. The splash to that issue, for instance specifically says this issue is destined to become a collectors item. Its not like they had no insight into what they were creating.

 

Marvel probably said that Millie the Model's (then) latest issue was destined to become a collectors' item.

 

Mostly hype.

 

I know, hyperbole. Maybe I can't understand why someone would destroy them because I'm a collector but it still seems to be such a bizarre decision.

 

You have to think like a person who chose not to keep the art in the first place. A person who gives 1) art away, or 2) puts it in a place where it might easily be destroyed, or disappear, is a person who puts no value on it, which makes them the same sort of person who 3) might throw it away. And since we know that 1 and 2 occurred, we have to accept the possibility of #3.

 

 

Why would someone destroy the cover art and not the book art? Doesn't make sense to me.

 

The fact that most of the cover art was not present at the time of the art inventory lends credence to the theory that there was, over a period of time, a removal of the cover art from storage rather than someone singling them for destruction.

 

Covers were for a specific time period and possibly considered (by the publisher) more of a throway part of packaging the comic-book.

 

When books were reprinted, publishers would lean towards having a new cover image created (though there are lots of reprint editions that re-worked the original cover images).

 

 

 

 

 

[bluechip]

Here's one of them. I think there might have been more?

 

http://twomorrows.com/kirby/articles/19stolen.html

 

Outstanding read! I feel like I read this a while ago. I actually tend to think there is a pile in someone's basement and though it might not be 4 feet tall some of these covers exist. Especially if you believe the printer who said the covers were returned. There is just no rational reason why Marvel for instance would destroy the Avengers #4 cover. The splash to that issue, for instance specifically says this issue is destined to become a collectors item. Its not like they had no insight into what they were creating.

 

Marvel probably said that Millie the Model's (then) latest issue was destined to become a collectors' item.

 

Mostly hype.

 

 

 

I know, hyperbole. Maybe I can't understand why someone would destroy them because I'm a collector but it still seems to be such a bizarre decision.

 

You have to think like a person who chose not to keep the art in the first place. A person who gives 1) art away, or 2) puts it in a place where it might easily be destroyed, or disappear, is a person who puts no value on it, which makes them the same sort of person who 3) might throw it away. And since we know that 1 and 2 occurred, we have to accept the possibility of #3.

 

 

Why would someone destroy the cover art and not the book art? Doesn't make sense to me.

 

The fact that most of the cover art was not present at the time of the art inventory lends credence to the theory that there was, over a period of time, a removal of the cover art from storage rather than someone singling them for destruction.

 

 

I heard that covers and interiors were sometimes sent to different printers before assembly. So the corresponding art would have been sent in different directions and treated differently.

 

Which I suppose raises the possibility of a stash (or stashes) that consists entirely of covers.

[Terry Doyle]

Here's one of them. I think there might have been more?

 

http://twomorrows.com/kirby/articles/19stolen.html

 

Outstanding read! I feel like I read this a while ago. I actually tend to think there is a pile in someone's basement and though it might not be 4 feet tall some of these covers exist. Especially if you believe the printer who said the covers were returned. There is just no rational reason why Marvel for instance would destroy the Avengers #4 cover. The splash to that issue, for instance specifically says this issue is destined to become a collectors item. Its not like they had no insight into what they were creating.

 

Marvel probably said that Millie the Model's (then) latest issue was destined to become a collectors' item.

 

Mostly hype.

 

 

 

I know, hyperbole. Maybe I can't understand why someone would destroy them because I'm a collector but it still seems to be such a bizarre decision.

 

You have to think like a person who chose not to keep the art in the first place. A person who gives 1) art away, or 2) puts it in a place where it might easily be destroyed, or disappear, is a person who puts no value on it, which makes them the same sort of person who 3) might throw it away. And since we know that 1 and 2 occurred, we have to accept the possibility of #3.

 

 

Why would someone destroy the cover art and not the book art? Doesn't make sense to me.

 

The fact that most of the cover art was not present at the time of the art inventory lends credence to the theory that there was, over a period of time, a removal of the cover art from storage rather than someone singling them for destruction.

 

 

I heard that covers and interiors were sometimes sent to different printers before assembly. So the corresponding art would have been sent in different directions and treated differently.

 

Which I suppose raises the possibility of a stash (or stashes) that consists entirely of covers.

 

Well if a 'stash' of covers went walkies, it must have happened sometime befoore the early 1970s . . . at a time when there were few collectors chasing such things . . . when the publisher had little or no regard for the OA . . . when many artists themselves weren't overly-fussed about re-claiming their artworks.

 

Key-cover-art aside, why is that very little early-60s Marvel cover art has surfaced if a stash (or more than one stash) exists? Lots on non-key early 60s Marvel cover art would surely have surfaced by now - such as the Westerns, girlie books, or pre-hero Monster stuff? There's mega-bucks to be made on the release of a small portion of such a mythical 'stash'. Anyone who could possibly have made it away with such a haul (sometime before the mid-1970s) would now be at an age where the proceeds of any sales would help secure a very comfortable retirement.

 

I'm not ruling out the idea altogether, and I do think it's quite possible that a few more early covers may yet surface, but I do think the bulk of such art no longer exists.

 

Just my opinion . . . nothing more.