Where did all the Marvel Silver Age art go ?

[Funnyslover]

I don't get why "If you own a Ditko Spidey, they were originally stolen" when Spidey 18, 20, 22, 23, 29, 32 are missing from the list entirely (meaning they were never in the Marvel Warehouse) Thus 16% of all issues were never accounted for.

 

Then there is the issue of the page count. All of her total numbers are supposed to be "the number of originals Marvel had to each issue". Yet they are all missing 1 page. I am assuming that would be the cover. ASM 38 is missing 2. 21 pages(20 interior pages +1 cover) but official count is 19.

 

Ok it's a GREY area.

 

 

So . . . I stand corrected . . .

 

 

Rather than nickel and dime, I'll go with your interpretations that -

 

 

At a minimum, three quarters (76%) of the Ditko ASM artwork is stolen property;

and, after discounting AF15, ASM 5, 18, 20, 22, 23, 29, 32 & 38, this rises to 98% of what is out there being tainted aka stolen.

 

 

The inability to enforce or recover due to the statute of limitations does not erase the fact that it's stolen property.

 

 

"When you see corruption being rewarded and honesty becoming a self-sacrifice, you may know that your society is doomed" - Ayn Rand

 

 

G'nite

[glendgold]

Jim Steranko's big grey filling cabinets.

 

I don't know you but I like how you think.

[delekkerste]

The inability to enforce or recover due to the statute of limitations does not erase the fact that it's stolen property.

 

 

"When you see corruption being rewarded and honesty becoming a self-sacrifice, you may know that your society is doomed" - Ayn Rand

 

At this point, though, it's been too long and the art has passed through so many hands that there's nothing that can be done about it. I mean, does one boycott the hobby because of its unsavory origins? That doesn't benefit anyone who was harmed and only deprives oneself. Should one feel obligated to surrender art purchased through channels believed to be legitimate (aka the auction houses) at huge prices back to Marvel? What would happen to that art? Who would benefit from its return?

 

This isn't like Ragnar Dannesjkold going after looted assets for the benefit of the wronged in Atlas Shrugged - at this point, the looters are ancient history and the current owners are, in the main, those who bought the art in good faith. Maybe there was a parallel and a principled stance to be taken back in the early 80s, but not anymore - we're so far past the original sin that it's become irrelevant. Just as this country was built and expanded at the expense of others, often by force, in a decidedly un-Randian way, so was the OA hobby built on theft, but has since grown into something vibrant and wonderful that no one need to apologize for.

[jimjum12]

It seems to be a requirement that every six months someone gets into this. And guess what? IT'S A GRAY AREA. It was a gray area, it is a gray area, and in six months, it's still going to be a gray area. If you're uncomfortable with ambiguity now, here's a certainty: you're still going to be uncomfortable with it in six months. So hey, let's let Irene Vartanoff have -- as per one of your links -- say something smart to us all, because I like how she said it:

 

What if you bought a page of Kirby artwork with your entire life savings? Chances are that the company or person you bought the artwork from did not go to the Marvel Comics offices circa 1980 and steal that page. But maybe that page was stolen, and a few buyers later it has come to you. Legally, as of today, you are in the clear. Morally, what is your responsibility? I don’t know. We each have our own thoughts about who owns comic book original artwork that was produced as a collaborative effort at a time when no one, not the artists, nor the letterer, nor the writer, nor the publisher valued that piece of Bristol board once it had been used to create a printed comic book page.

 

 

 

..... So true.

The stuff wasn't worthless at the time, but it wasn't far from it. I remember a NYC show in the early 80's where a vendor had a thick pile of OA spread all over the top of the table, unprotected. There were Ditko ASM pages in abundance..... I specifically remember the page where Doc Ock unmasks Spidey and asking what something like that went for..... the fellow said "100 dollars each....". I thought they were neat but would never amount to anything but a niche market. I then went and spent my money on New Teen Titans books I was missing and Pizza. GOD BLESS....

 

-jimbo(a friend of jesus)

 

 

.... it wouldn't surprise me if someone in management OK'd the removal to free up space and later denied it when problems with ownership arose....

[Funnyslover]

It seems to be a requirement that every six months someone gets into this. And guess what? IT'S A GRAY AREA. It was a gray area, it is a gray area, and in six months, it's still going to be a gray area. If you're uncomfortable with ambiguity now, here's a certainty: you're still going to be uncomfortable with it in six months. So hey, let's let Irene Vartanoff have -- as per one of your links -- say something smart to us all, because I like how she said it:

 

What if you bought a page of Kirby artwork with your entire life savings? Chances are that the company or person you bought the artwork from did not go to the Marvel Comics offices circa 1980 and steal that page. But maybe that page was stolen, and a few buyers later it has come to you. Legally, as of today, you are in the clear. Morally, what is your responsibility? I don’t know. We each have our own thoughts about who owns comic book original artwork that was produced as a collaborative effort at a time when no one, not the artists, nor the letterer, nor the writer, nor the publisher valued that piece of Bristol board once it had been used to create a printed comic book page.

 

 

 

..... So true.

The stuff wasn't worthless at the time, but it wasn't far from it. I remember a NYC show in the early 80's where a vendor had a thick pile of OA spread all over the top of the table, unprotected. There were Ditko ASM pages in abundance..... I specifically remember the page where Doc Ock unmasks Spidey and asking what something like that went for..... the fellow said "100 dollars each....". I thought they were neat but would never amount to anything but a niche market. I then went and spent my money on New Teen Titans books I was missing and Pizza. GOD BLESS....

 

-jimbo(a friend of jesus)

 

 

.... it wouldn't surprise me if someone in management OK'd the removal to free up space and later denied it when problems with ownership arose....

 

.... it wouldn't surprise me if . . . that wasn't the stupidest apologia I have ever heard.

G'nite

[zhamlau]

Jim Steranko's big grey filling cabinets.

 

I don't know you but I like how you think.

 

 

That makes one of us.

[jaybuck43]

The inability to enforce or recover due to the statute of limitations does not erase the fact that it's stolen property.

 

 

"When you see corruption being rewarded and honesty becoming a self-sacrifice, you may know that your society is doomed" - Ayn Rand

 

At this point, though, it's been too long and the art has passed through so many hands that there's nothing that can be done about it. I mean, does one boycott the hobby because of its unsavory origins? That doesn't benefit anyone who was harmed and only deprives oneself. Should one feel obligated to surrender art purchased through channels believed to be legitimate (aka the auction houses) at huge prices back to Marvel? What would hapoen to that art? Who would benefit from its return?

 

This isn't like Ragnar Dannesjkold going after looted assets for the benefit of the wronged in Atlas Shrugged - at this point, the looters are ancient history and the current owners are, in the main, those who bought the art in good faith. Maybe there was a parallel and a principled stance to be taken back in the early 80s, but not anymore - we're so far past the original sin that it's become irrelevant. Just as this country was built and expanded at the expense of others, often by force, in a decidedly un-Randian way, so was the OA hobby built on theft, but has since grown into something vibrant and wonderful that no one need to apologize for.

 

And of course, this only applies IF you believe that art created at that time actually belonged to the artist and not Marvel/DC.

 

And of course the converse, is it fair/right for artists to make money off of Marvel/DC's Intellectual Property? Should Neal Adams pay DC every time he sells a convention sketch of Batman?

[delekkerste]

And of course, this only applies IF you believe that art created at that time actually belonged to the artist and not Marvel/DC.

 

Well, I think all the same arguments could apply as well if one was of the opinion that Marvel was the wronged party. It wasn't clear to me that the OP was making a distinction as to from whom the art was stolen, just that it was stolen. But, either way, at this point the ship has sailed and there's no good way to make restitution without harming a lot of innocent parties and making things even worse.

[Unca Ben]

The inability to enforce or recover due to the statute of limitations does not erase the fact that it's stolen property.

 

 

"When you see corruption being rewarded and honesty becoming a self-sacrifice, you may know that your society is doomed" - Ayn Rand

 

At this point, though, it's been too long and the art has passed through so many hands that there's nothing that can be done about it. I mean, does one boycott the hobby because of its unsavory origins? That doesn't benefit anyone who was harmed and only deprives oneself. Should one feel obligated to surrender art purchased through channels believed to be legitimate (aka the auction houses) at huge prices back to Marvel? What would happen to that art? Who would benefit from its return?

 

This isn't like Ragnar Dannesjkold going after looted assets for the benefit of the wronged in Atlas Shrugged - at this point, the looters are ancient history and the current owners are, in the main, those who bought the art in good faith. Maybe there was a parallel and a principled stance to be taken back in the early 80s, but not anymore - we're so far past the original sin that it's become irrelevant. Just as this country was built and expanded at the expense of others, often by force, in a decidedly un-Randian way, so was the OA hobby built on theft, but has since grown into something vibrant and wonderful that no one need to apologize for.

 

Yeah.

 

I started buying OA when I discovered eBay in '99.

I jumped in feet first with no thought of due diligence, I bought art with the same attitude I had towards buying comics. The idea that some of those pages (or comics) might have entered the market under illegitimate means didn't cross my mind.

There was no reason for me to even consider the idea. Why would it ?

 

My first inkling came when I won an Adams Deadman page on eBay and was contacted by Neal's son a few days later. A couple more emails from other collectors let me know that there was a reason Adam's art wasn't commonly listed on eBay at the time. This was back when you could easily contact other folks on the 'bay.

 

I discovered these boards around that time (what, around 2003?) and learned a lot more about the pitfalls of comics and art.

It was eye opening but by then the majority of my OA acquisitions had already taken place.

 

 

While it may be interesting to learn about the background of OA entering the secondary market, which is Funnyslover's point, I'm unclear as to the purpose of this endeavor.

Usually new information might compel me to adjust my behavior but I'm not certain about how to put this particular information to any good purpose.

I could send my Ditko pages back to Ditko and my Kirby pages back to the Kirby estate.

Or maybe send them back to Marvel.

Or send them back to whatever insurance company reimbursed Marvel for the theft, if that transaction occurred.

What about my Colan, Heck, Romita and Buscema pages. Can I be certain all of them aren't tarnished?

 

Trying to differentiate which pages these actions might apply would be difficult, but perhaps possible, within some degree of error.

I'd lose out on a lot of money that I originally put forth under good faith, which would suck. I wouldn't like that.

Perhaps I should send the whole kit and kaboodle to KrazyKat. He'd know what to do.

 

Once again.

To what good purpose does this serve? Anything positive, or just negative?

Maybe I should feel complicit. An addition to my Catholic guilt.

Or I could have a smug feeling of superiority over those who were originally involved in this.

Or I should feel like a bystander exposed to a long-standing vendetta fueled by long-standing resentments between folks I don't even know.

None of these are positive.

 

I think I need a nap.

 

 

 

 

 

[BCarter27]

Is there a form of insurance to guard against purchasing stolen goods (and being compelled/forced to return them)?

[malvin]

Is there a form of insurance to guard against purchasing stolen goods (and being compelled/forced to return them)?

 

I'm not a lawyer or an insurance agent, but you want insurance that if you accidentally buy stolen goods you won't be forced to return it and the insurance company will pay the original owner?

 

I really doubt it.

 

Malvin

 

 

[vodou]

We're talking title insurance, but as a formal contractual arrangement with price/product competition among insurers...err, probably not. Title largely passes with the exchange of a wad of cash (or PayPal click) and a handshake in this and most hobbies. There isn't much to insure there, since little/nothing is on paper, is documented (other than description and price). The (big win!) tradeoff being: no property tax

[BCarter27]

I guess this would be considered title fraud? Nobody offers protection against that? I wonder if the PayPal buyer's protection or other credit card protections cover something like this in the current day and age.

 

But back to stolen Marvel art in particular... Uncle Ben brings up a good point. If Marvel ever even filed a claim against the stolen art, and was paid for it, doesn't the insurance company own it, if it surfaces? How does that play out? They auction it and keep the insane profits accumulated from its age and significance?

 

To file a claim, I imagine the insurance company would have required Marvel to file a police report. Doesn't sound like that was ever the case. Which is foolish since that was the whole reason they had Irene Vartanoff catalog the art in the first place. I guess they were more concerned with wholesale loss via fire.

 

Since Marvel was not contractually required to return the art to the artists (but was offering an agreement to do so later) sounds like the art from any artists who didn't sign the agreement (including Kirby) was still Marvel property.

 

So the most relevant questions become --

 

1. Whose signed art return agreements does Marvel have on file? i.e., did Ditko sign?

 

2. Did Marvel ever file a claim (and/or police report) on any stolen art?

 

I suppose what I am getting at is Uncle Ben's point. If you were inclined to give the art back, it might not necessarily go to the artist's estate.

 

It's the age-old question... is theft from an insurance company a victimless crime? They take our fears, gamble against them, and occasionally they lose.

[Funnyslover]

Marvel did not file claims;

 

nor did ANY of the creators;

 

Nor have insurance companies ever been called upon to pay out.

 

The bad guy(s) won.

 

It's OA's early history.

 

G'nite and G'bye

 

References (some new) :

 

http://www.comicartfans.com/galleryroom.asp?gsub=38988

 

http://www.comicsbeat.com/marvel-sold-original-art-in-1973/

 

http://boards.collectors-society.com/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=700711

 

https://books.google.fr/books?id=TrZ7Jx2nqIQC&pg=PA222&lpg=PA222&dq=pete+koch+marvel+art&source=bl&ots=NC8-kzjRvG&sig=Qn4O4eFobqkE8Bvd3OrnZ0OSkPQ&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjakY7cy9zLAhUE7xQKHXCcBSUQ6AEIHTAB#v=onepage&q=pete%20koch%20marvel%20art&f=false

 

http://irenevartanoff.com/?p=505

 

https://books.google.fr/books?id=TrZ7Jx2nqIQC&pg=PA213&lpg=PA213&dq=marvel+silver+age+covers+journey+into+mystery+80+89&source=bl&ots=NC8-kzhRDI&sig=gy-GeYDbGEXzY-gPy8sIyKG61_U&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiZ45XJxNzLAhUDTCYKHdf-CWUQ6AEIITAD#v=onepage&q=marvel%20silver%20age%20covers%20journey%20into%20mystery%2080%2089&f=false

 

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

 

http://ohdannyboy.blogspot.co.uk/2013/01/original-art-stories-jack-

 

http://ohdannyboy.blogspot.fr/2011/04/marvel-worldwide-inc-et-al-v-kirby-et_17.html

 

Go to faq 30

http://unitedfanzineorganization.weebly.com/ditkofaq.html#005

 

Go to bottom of page 7

http://boards.collectors-society.com/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=700711&fpart=4

 

https://books.google.fr/books?id=TrZ7Jx2nqIQC&pg=PA213&lpg=PA213&dq=list+art+returned+to+kirby&source=bl&ots=NC8-kAiMBA&sig=xjW6De3BOjn2mo4QNSSV2H2qo-s&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi98PnK69zLAhVGzRQKHZ0RD_sQ6AEIMTAH#v=onepage&q=list%20art%20returned%20to%20kirby&f=false

 

http://unitedfanzineorganization.weebly.com/ditkofaq.html#030

 

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2008-09-02/features/0809010104_1_artwork-comic-book-steve-ditko

 

http://jimshooter.com/2011/03/mystery-of-missing-box-of-marve.html/

 

http://jimshooter.com/2011/12/surprising-sinnott-and-items-of.html/

 

http://www.dialbforblog.com/archives/695/original-art-essay-ditko.jpg

 

http://s45.photobucket.com/user/chromiumcomics/media/c7648c2251eb552da790bd4cfb59b0a8_zpsvrldsasx.jpg.html

 

http://www.pipelinecomics.com/the-mystery-of-60s-marvel-jack-kirby-original-artworK

 

[jaybuck43]

I guess this would be considered title fraud? Nobody offers protection against that? I wonder if the PayPal buyer's protection or other credit card protections cover something like this in the current day and age.

 

But back to stolen Marvel art in particular... Uncle Ben brings up a good point. If Marvel ever even filed a claim against the stolen art, and was paid for it, doesn't the insurance company own it, if it surfaces? How does that play out? They auction it and keep the insane profits accumulated from its age and significance?

 

To file a claim, I imagine the insurance company would have required Marvel to file a police report. Doesn't sound like that was ever the case. Which is foolish since that was the whole reason they had Irene Vartanoff catalog the art in the first place. I guess they were more concerned with wholesale loss via fire.

 

Since Marvel was not contractually required to return the art to the artists (but was offering an agreement to do so later) sounds like the art from any artists who didn't sign the agreement (including Kirby) was still Marvel property.

 

So the most relevant questions become --

 

1. Whose signed art return agreements does Marvel have on file? i.e., did Ditko sign?

 

2. Did Marvel ever file a claim (and/or police report) on any stolen art?

 

I suppose what I am getting at is Uncle Ben's point. If you were inclined to give the art back, it might not necessarily go to the artist's estate.

 

It's the age-old question... is theft from an insurance company a victimless crime? They take our fears, gamble against them, and occasionally they lose.

 

Argo Group offers Title insurance for art. It protects against chain of ownership issues including theft (both current and historical, such as when the Nazi's were stealing works of art.) as well as normal "claim of ownership" defects (i.e. that a bank somewhere has a collateral claim against the piece)

 

Good piece on this from about 6 years ago in the economist.

 

http://www.economist.com/node/17583113

[vodou]

Nice!

[BCarter27]

Thanks, Jay. Great read. I thought it had to be out there in some form considering all the shenanigans in the fine art world.

 

Bidders might want to consider this the next time a GL 76-type piece comes up for sale from an artist aggressively challenging title.

[Funnyslover]

Some new links :

 

Go to faq 30

http://unitedfanzineorganization.weebly.com/ditkofaq.html#005

 

Go to bottom of page 4

http://boards.collectors-society.com/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=700711&fpart=4

 

G'nite

[romitaman]

Here are 3 VERY interesting stories very few people on this board have heard.......

 

I acquired the COMPLETE ASM 20 Steve Ditko story from this collector.

 

When we finalized our deal....I asked him how he acquired it........... And he said he did alot of volunteer work for Marvel back in the late 60's and early 70's and was never paid for it in cash of course....

 

He was then told that he could go into the Marvel offices and take "1" story of his choice for the work he did...he told me in the early 70's that all 38 issues of Amazing Spiderman were there in the Marvel offices and he looked through all 38 original art issues........

 

He decided to take the ASM 20 interior book as his favorite story from the 38 ASM books there.

 

So my question is...... Is this book still considered "stolen" if this revelation is true?

 

In the overall scheme of things....there probably is no real concrete answer.....as this is nothing more than just an interesting read for those who want to know more of how things happened back in the day.

 

Also..... a very reliable source told me that in 1985-1986 or so...... the complete books to ASM 7, 9, and 13 were taken from the Marvel offices (supposedly by a renowned comic artist) and these books were being split up and sold at a MARVEL comic convention in new York city...

 

my source walked up to MARVEL president JIM SHOOTER a few tables down from this guy selling split up Ditko ASM books and asked him if it was ok for him to buy these art pages..and Jim Shooter said he could buy whatever he wanted as Marvel would not say anything adversely about it.

 

another friend of mine said that in the early 1970's.....He met Stan Lee who was signing at a comic book store in New York City, and Stan had a "HUGE" STACK of original art with him he was selling for 10-20 bucks per page..and no one was really buying them as they preferred to buy comics and have him sign them.

 

Mike

 

 

 

[vodou]

All three of those stories are good Mike. Even if 'hearsay' and lacking further documentation. They illustrate the same point three times: as long as Marvel legally owned the artwork (and they did for all three of those stories) and either disposed of it as they saw fit or chose not to pursue their loss of property (where did the proceeds of Stan's selling end up? Going home with Stan most likely ) - there's nothing further legally to be done. Statute of limitations expired a very long time ago. Even morally, it's a grey area that leans heavily toward not being anything to write home about. This all from the collector's/dealer's pov. People are free to act on their own conscience here.

 

From the artists pov - very different story. They could have (and maybe still can? I dunno!) make a pretty big stink on legal and moral grounds for anything less than 100% returns (amongst the various creators splits) when that policy was put in place for vintage (stored) art. That's the point where Marvel's role in relation to the art changed from property owner to property custodian (on behalf of the artists).

 

All my unprofessional "imo", of course.