• When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.

Article How Amazing Fantasy # 15 OA ended in the library of congress
3 3

101 posts in this topic

I very much doubt it was Stan. The story is the owner asked Ditko about it, I don't see Ditko having anything to do with Stan considering their history. Also don';t see Stan keeping all of the interiors including the non-side art for for long.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/14/2022 at 5:45 PM, Brian Peck said:

I very much doubt it was Stan. The story is the owner asked Ditko about it, I don't see Ditko having anything to do with Stan considering their history. Also don';t see Stan keeping all of the interiors including the non-side art for for long.

 

that makes sense.  It was a lot of money to not cash in on though.   And a lot of time to hold something like that without letting anyone know you have it.

The question becomes who could have been in a position to not sell it, and to have held it quietly for so long?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

most high end OA collectors have held great pieces for decades though right?  The key to me is the motivation to GIVE it away?  and anonymously, as if the giver did not want to be associated with it.  Is it plausible, from your OA collecting background, for anyone who lucked into it, to give it away?  Like lucking into Action 1.  You'd need a strong personal reason to give it away given ins importance and value. Like if it was stolen goods.

Edited by Aman619
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/14/2022 at 5:45 PM, Brian Peck said:

I very much doubt it was Stan. The story is the owner asked Ditko about it, I don't see Ditko having anything to do with Stan considering their history. Also don';t see Stan keeping all of the interiors including the non-side art for for long.

 

yeah its a stretch for Stan to literally call or reach out to Steve, and I added that guess in my post because if Stan was giving it away to appear magnanimous (not greedy) he might have considered that it was actually half Steve's by rights (had it made it onto Marvel's artwork giveback lists) and just checked if Ditko changed his mind?

Is there a Freedom of Information method to find out someday?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/14/2022 at 5:45 PM, Brian Peck said:

I very much doubt it was Stan. The story is the owner asked Ditko about it, I don't see Ditko having anything to do with Stan considering their history. Also don';t see Stan keeping all of the interiors including the non-side art for for long.

 

I imagine Ditko would have had an aneurysm if he opened his door and Stan was standing there asking for Steve's blessing to give that art away.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/14/2022 at 7:10 PM, Aman619 said:

You'd need a strong personal reason to give it away given ins importance and value. Like if it was stolen goods.

A strong personal reason is that you have no heirs.  Or that you did not think it would be appropriate for your heirs to have it (or end up fighting over it).  Or pestering you while you're still living.  Which are reasons why you would not tell anyone that you held the art.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/14/2022 at 7:10 PM, Aman619 said:

most high end OA collectors have held great pieces for decades though right?  The key to me is the motivation to GIVE it away?  and anonymously, as if the giver did not want to be associated with it.  Is it plausible, from your OA collecting background, for anyone who lucked into it, to give it away?  Like lucking into Action 1.  You'd need a strong personal reason to give it away given ins importance and value. Like if it was stolen goods.

yup

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/14/2022 at 1:20 PM, Aman619 said:

and if none of the top OA dealers ever got a whiff of where the art was all these years (no bragging collectors over the years) to me that means it was off the market early on by someone at Marvel.  Maybe as far back as the first time it was reprinted.

It's known that some of the early Marvel reprints used the original art.  FF #1 was first reprinted in FF Annual 1, and they literally took the original art and retouched it to make the human torch look more like the way Kirby was drawing him in 1963.   The origin part of the story was never returned to their archives as FF #1 but was instead kept with the other pages from FF Annual 1.

If they were that cavalier about the FF1 art they may well have dug out the actual art for AF 15 when it was first reprinted in 1964.  Stats may have been made at the time with the art itself going out the door.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/15/2022 at 12:17 AM, mtlevy1 said:

I don't remember where but the rumor I heard was a woman donated it

Someone suggested Marie Severin, but that was debunked pretty quickly. What I find interesting is that the entire AF #15 interior was donated and intact, not just the Spider-Man parts. That might help clue us in as to who owned it this entire time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/21/2022 at 1:44 PM, MAR1979 said:

Given that it was a donation coupled with the donor wishes to remain anonymous rules out every single Original Comic Art Dealer and OCA Collector I've ever personally met.   Whoever it was is a true philanthropist

 

To add to that, if the donor was looking for a tax deduction via the donation, wouldn't there have to be an independent appraisal of the art?  That would require that dealers would be involved, and I highly doubt any of them would have kept this secret.  So my point it, the donor was likely a true philanthropist who not only didn't sell the pages, but didn't seek a tax deduction for it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If we all chipped in the cost of one year of CAF premium membership we can pool our money together to hire a private investigator and uncover this donor’s identity. This ain’t the Zodiac we’re looking for, people!!!!

Nah, having said that, if the donor wants to remain anonymous I will respect those wishes. That is a small price to pay to be given the privilege to view the art at any time. That’s a tremendous gift to us all. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/18/2022 at 9:40 PM, BLUECHIPCOLLECTIBLES said:

It's known that some of the early Marvel reprints used the original art.  FF #1 was first reprinted in FF Annual 1, and they literally took the original art and retouched it to make the human torch look more like the way Kirby was drawing him in 1963.   The origin part of the story was never returned to their archives as FF #1 but was instead kept with the other pages from FF Annual 1.

If they were that cavalier about the FF1 art they may well have dug out the actual art for AF 15 when it was first reprinted in 1964.  Stats may have been made at the time with the art itself going out the door.   

I wouldn't call Marvel  "cavalier" with the FF 1 art - at least not at the time they weren't.  This was production art.  It was created for the sole purpose of producing a comic book.  The fact that they were able to use it in producing more than one comic book was an added bonus.  Keep in mind that this was 1963 that we're talking about...

Edited by pemart1966
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
3 3