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

[Brian Peck]

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.

 

[Bronty]

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?

[Aman619]

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 March 14, 2022 by Aman619

[Aman619]

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?

[Bird]

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.

[Will_K]

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.

[mtlevy1]

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

[Aman619]

Stan dressed as a woman!!

[Will_K]

On 3/15/2022 at 1:17 AM, mtlevy1 said:

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

Your odds of being correct are about 50/50.

Edited March 15, 2022 by Will_K

[Rick2you2]

On 3/15/2022 at 11:27 AM, Will_K said:

Your odds of being correct are about 50/50.

Giving it away? Probably a DC fan.

[fishbone]

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

[BLUECHIPCOLLECTIBLES]

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.   

[Randall Dowling]

Not that this thread needs another theory, but my personal belief, given what is known, is that the person that donated the art (either in person or through an intermediary) was someone wealthy enough to not be overly bothered by not selling it.  Additionally, I think that said person had some information/rumors/suspicions that the provenance of the artwork was sketchy and could be challenged.  And recognizing that owning the art itself was possibly problematic for potential heirs, they found a viable (and I believe ideal) alternative by donating to the LoC anonymously.

Could it have been Stan? Sure.  Could it have been some other Marvel employee?  Absolutely.  Could it be some random friend of Martin Goodman's?  Or a seedy friend of Goodman's son, Chip?  Why not?  There are a thousand plausible scenarios.  It's fun to speculate but until someone comes forward with first-hand knowledge, it's just a fun thought experiment.  There's no way to know.  My guess is the answer is directly connected with all the other missing SA Marvel art and then whatever changing of hands took place after that.

[Timely]

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.

[1webslinger]

I thought I read something years ago that that the anonymous donor might  have more art to possibly donate and the library of congress wouldn’t reveal who the donor was for fear of not getting further donations 

[MAR1979]

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

 

Edited March 21, 2022 by MAR1979

[*paull*]

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.

[vodou]

On 4/7/2022 at 9:44 PM, *paull* said:

I highly doubt any of them would have kept this secret

It's called a NDA. Big deal.

[John E.]

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. 

[pemart1966]

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 April 18, 2022 by pemart1966