grapeape Posted December 5, 2019 Share Posted December 5, 2019 (edited) 2 hours ago, glendgold said: I think it's Brodsky. Are you sure it’s not Vince Colletta? That might explain why the Hulk started with 5 digits and wound up with 3...... Edited December 5, 2019 by grapeape Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zhamlau Posted December 6, 2019 Share Posted December 6, 2019 10 hours ago, tth2 said: That goes without saying. Seriously, no one should say it. Ba-dum-bum! Thank you folks, I'll be here all night! Don't forget to tip your waiters! Your loyalty to the party is noted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grapeape Posted December 6, 2019 Share Posted December 6, 2019 5 minutes ago, zhamlau said: Your loyalty to the party is noted. Hate hate hate hate hate hate hate hate hate zhamlau 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zhamlau Posted December 6, 2019 Share Posted December 6, 2019 7 hours ago, jjonahjameson11 said: Needs more Keown! Hmm the committee hasn’t decided if Keown is average enough to be considered. Hold off on that for now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tth2 Posted December 6, 2019 Share Posted December 6, 2019 9 minutes ago, zhamlau said: 7 hours ago, jjonahjameson11 said: Needs more Keown! Hmm the committee hasn’t decided if Keown is average enough to be considered. Hold off on that for now. zhamlau 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
romitaman Posted December 6, 2019 Share Posted December 6, 2019 17 hours ago, comix4fun said: Right, maybe I wasn't clear. I was saying this wasn't a "mistake" by Jack. That Jack designed Hulk originally with 3 fingers. And the piece in question does not look, in any way, like Jack was asleep when drawing it that he'd make that mistake. So if the choices are "Jack made a mistake" or "This is an older piece used in the annual" to explain the three fingers that I go with the latter. But only if those are our choices. The third choice "Jack drew this exactly how he wanted to for the annual, and it wasn't a mistake" makes the most sense when you see that the pinup references Fantastic Four #12 and those three fingers show up on the cover to FF #12 as well. Too nice to be a mistake. Too much history of Jack and the three fingered Hulk for it not to be intentional. The FF12 cover reference points me towards why he looks the way he does in that pinup. Hulk has only 4 toes in the small scene where he battles Reed in the pinup! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pemart1966 Posted December 6, 2019 Share Posted December 6, 2019 (edited) On 12/5/2019 at 2:38 PM, glendgold said: I think it's Brodsky. GCD has the inker listed as either Brodsky or Kirby - both with " ? " behind their names. The inset looks Chic Stoneish or George Bellish or Roussousish to me... Edited December 7, 2019 by pemart1966 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
romitaman Posted December 7, 2019 Share Posted December 7, 2019 18 hours ago, pemart1966 said: GCD has the inker listed as either Brodsky or Kirby - both with " ? " behind their names. The inset looks Chic Stoneish or George Bellish or Roussousish to me... The HULK TTA 62 pinup in last Heritage was inked by Sol Brodsky and Heritage misidentified that one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
romitaman Posted December 7, 2019 Share Posted December 7, 2019 18 hours ago, pemart1966 said: GCD has the inker listed as either Brodsky or Kirby - both with " ? " behind their names. The inset looks Chic Stoneish or George Bellish or Roussousish to me... i would think george bellish over roussousish...it looks way WAY too different to be roussous.... ......(LOL) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stinkininkin Posted December 7, 2019 Share Posted December 7, 2019 Absolutely NOT a Geroge Bell fan (or Roussous for that matter), but this Hulk piece is so cool. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unca Ben Posted December 8, 2019 Share Posted December 8, 2019 (edited) Didn't Jack consider a three-fingered and/or three-toed Hulk but Stan thought it was too similar to the Thing? I always figured Jack, on occasion, just made a mistake and confused the Hulk's finger-toe count with the Thing's while he was churning out all those covers & pages day after day. Part of the same over-worked House of Ideas that gave us a Torch with two left hands, missing Spidey costume emblems, incongruities with Johnny Storm's secret identity, Peter Palmer, Slim Summers, Bob Banner - to name a few examples. It seemed Marvel Comics was flying by the seat of their pants from '61 till sometime in '64. -Anyways, fun stuff to talk about! Edited December 8, 2019 by Unca Ben comix4fun, zhamlau and grapeape 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
comix4fun Posted December 8, 2019 Share Posted December 8, 2019 (edited) 23 hours ago, stinkininkin said: Absolutely NOT a Geroge Bell fan (or Roussous for that matter), but this Hulk piece is so cool. Looking at that main Hulk image I'd be shocked if George Bell got within 10 yards of that main image....if he got that close it would be to ink the tiny inset piece, but if I was editor I would have been scared to let him get to close to the big Hulk image with a brush in his hands. Edited December 8, 2019 by comix4fun Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JadeGiant Posted December 9, 2019 Share Posted December 9, 2019 On 12/4/2019 at 10:54 AM, batman_fan said: They posted the Hulk splash. Looks pretty spectacular IMHO Perfection! grapeape and Unca Ben 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GotSuperPowers? Posted December 10, 2019 Share Posted December 10, 2019 The Hulk piece is featured in this Felix show and tell video (1:33 in) and has a mention of the inker too. Unca Ben and Stefanomjr 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
glendgold Posted December 13, 2019 Author Share Posted December 13, 2019 1. There's already a BIN on this. https://comics.ha.com/itm/original-comic-art/jack-kirby-and-joe-sinnott-fantastic-four-83-story-page-8-inhumans-original-art-marvel-1969-/a/7212-94119.s?ic4=ListView-ShortDescription-071515 2. That BIN has changed at least 3 times since I spotted this a week or two ago. I saw $40K, then $36K, and now $39K. Mercurial. Twanj 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RBerman Posted October 19, 2020 Share Posted October 19, 2020 On 11/21/2019 at 12:34 PM, BCarter27 said: Spec Spidey 101 cov at $90K! Copper age is strong with this one. Now I have a question about this piece. Here is the published cover: Here is the piece that sold at auction: Here is the description of the piece that sold: "John Byrne Spectacular Spider-Man #101 Cover Original Art (Marvel, 1985). One of the most iconic covers of Peter Parker in his non-Venom black costume. Byrne's incredible perspective on this piece is almost dizzying! Crafted in stark black ink over graphite on Bristol board. The corner box and logo are a stat on an acetate overlay. The piece is signed by Byrne next to the UPC box, and as a surprise bonus, is also signed by Marvel's Editor-in-Chief Jim Shooter in the lower right margin where he would have approved the cover for publication. Created in ink over graphite on Marvel Bristol board with an image area of 9.75" x 15". The logo and corner box are stats on an acetate overlay. There is registration tape residue in the margins. Lightly toned and in Excellent condition. Comes with a copy of the printed comic." (https://comics.ha.com/itm/original-comic-art/john-byrne-spectacular-spider-man-101-cover-original-art-marvel-1985-/a/7212-91009.s?ic4=GalleryView-Thumbnail-071515) If the logo and corner box are on an acetate overlay, why can the buildings not be seen behind them, as seen in the published version? Twanj 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
delekkerste Posted October 19, 2020 Share Posted October 19, 2020 1 hour ago, RBerman said: Now I have a question about this piece. Here is the published cover: Here is the piece that sold at auction: Here is the description of the piece that sold: "John Byrne Spectacular Spider-Man #101 Cover Original Art (Marvel, 1985). One of the most iconic covers of Peter Parker in his non-Venom black costume. Byrne's incredible perspective on this piece is almost dizzying! Crafted in stark black ink over graphite on Bristol board. The corner box and logo are a stat on an acetate overlay. The piece is signed by Byrne next to the UPC box, and as a surprise bonus, is also signed by Marvel's Editor-in-Chief Jim Shooter in the lower right margin where he would have approved the cover for publication. Created in ink over graphite on Marvel Bristol board with an image area of 9.75" x 15". The logo and corner box are stats on an acetate overlay. There is registration tape residue in the margins. Lightly toned and in Excellent condition. Comes with a copy of the printed comic." (https://comics.ha.com/itm/original-comic-art/john-byrne-spectacular-spider-man-101-cover-original-art-marvel-1985-/a/7212-91009.s?ic4=GalleryView-Thumbnail-071515) If the logo and corner box are on an acetate overlay, why can the buildings not be seen behind them, as seen in the published version? This acetate overlay could be a replacement. Twanj 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vodou Posted October 19, 2020 Share Posted October 19, 2020 1 hour ago, RBerman said: If the logo and corner box are on an acetate overlay, why can the buildings not be seen behind them, as seen in the published version? My very strong -educated- guess is: the overlay is not vintage Marvel Production Department, it's something ginned up by a dealer or fan to "help move product". So many 1980s and 1990s covers were like this - no logos or other trade dress on them; they look sort of 'empty' to the uninitiated. So 'people' help bring them to what newb expectations are. Twanj and BuraddoRun 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RBerman Posted October 19, 2020 Share Posted October 19, 2020 14 minutes ago, vodou said: My very strong -educated- guess is: the overlay is not vintage Marvel Production Department, it's something ginned up by a dealer or fan to "help move product". So many 1980s and 1990s covers were like this - no logos or other trade dress on them; they look sort of 'empty' to the uninitiated. So 'people' help bring them to what newb expectations are. That was my thought as well. It doesn't seem to be a transparent acetate at all, but rather a paper mast head which has been affixed to the cover in lieu of the lost acetate. Perhaps the HA text describing an acetate (twice) was carried over from a previous sale, and the piece changed in the interim. I'm personally indifferent on the pros (looking like the published cover) and cons (no longer looking like the art that left the inker's desk) of making new mast heads in general. But I did think it was odd that the HA description of a high-value piece didn't seem to match the art as shown, and I didn't see any previous discussion of this example here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Twanj Posted October 19, 2020 Share Posted October 19, 2020 49 minutes ago, delekkerste said: This acetate overlay could be a replacement. 33 minutes ago, vodou said: My very strong -educated- guess is: the overlay is not vintage Marvel Production Department, it's something ginned up by a dealer or fan to "help move product". So many 1980s and 1990s covers were like this - no logos or other trade dress on them; they look sort of 'empty' to the uninitiated. So 'people' help bring them to what newb expectations are. Possibly dumb question, but how was this originally produced? With an acetate where the logo etc was exacto-ed/cut out so there was no blank paper between the art underneath? And then reused for subsequent issues with the issue and date replaced? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...