• 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.

Tales of Suspense 39 Jack Kirby All ???
0

83 posts in this topic

Well here's Comic Link's description of TOS 39 recreation currently for auction ending 6/2 2020. The description leaves out any mention of the possibility that "assistants" helped Jack complete some of his later recreations.

This is Jack Kirby's recreation of one of the most covers of the Silver Age, Tales of Suspense #39 (1963), featuring, of course, the first appearance of Iron Man. Kirby drew this recreation along with some other recreations of his early Marvel covers in 1993-1994. Iron Man is now one of the most famous fictional characters on the planet. The story in Tales of Suspense #39 was drawn by Don Heck, but it was Jack Kirby who drew the first cover and is credited with the character design. 

This same cover sold at auction on September 9, 2019 for $23,839 listed with ComicConnect.  The auction house listed a caveat of sorts concerning the recreation see below.

This piece is not free from controversy, as some bloggers and comic historians have speculated that Jack had assistants help him with his work later in life. If he had assistance with this piece is unknown. Regardless, this is an accurate recreation of one of the most significant images of the Silver Age of Marvel Comics. It comes with the original certificate of authenticity from Sotheby's, signed posthumously by Roz Kirby on Jack's behalf.

At this point any Jack Kirby Cover Recreations listed for auction should at the very least mention the elephant in the room. The bidders can make up their minds but they should have "all" the information at their disposal. 
RADBC749202057_15535.jpg

Edited by grapeape
Link to comment
Share on other sites

the vast majority of Kirby pencil art out there has inks by someone else over it and most of the original pencils were erased.   Many pieces simply had layouts.  So, even if all Jack did with this was to trace or lightbox or copy the basic shapes, he did as much as, if not more than, he had done on many other pieces that are considered Kirby works 

Edited by bluechip
Link to comment
Share on other sites

56 minutes ago, bluechip said:

the vast majority of Kirby pencil art out there has inks by someone else over it and most of the original pencils were erased.   Many pieces simply had layouts.  So, even if all Jack did with this was to trace or lightbox or copy the basic shapes, he did as much as, if not more than, he had done on many other pieces that are considered Kirby works 

Sure, if you're talking about inked pages, yes, the original pencils were mostly erased.   This cover was re-created as pure pencils . . . so not really fair to compare with penciled & inked pages.  One set of drawing for a production process (the end-result mass-produced comic-books) . . . this one to exist as a single drawing for an art collector to own.

Edited by The Voord
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, The Voord said:

Sure, if you're talking about inked pages, yes, the original pencils were mostly erased.   This cover was re-created as pure pencils . . . so not really fair to lump it in the category of penciled & inked pages.  One set of drawing for a production process (the end-result mass-produced comic-books) . . . this one to exist as a drawing for an art collector to own.

Understood and agreed.   I was making the point because people have not to my knowledge said Kirby did no work on this, just that he had assistance, which sounds to me more like somebody helped clean it up and make the pencils tighter, not that his hand never touched the page.  But then maybe some people feel that was what happened and just aren't saying it?   If so that's a bold and harsh position to take and I would expect that such an extraordinary claim should be required to have extraordinary backup.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, The Voord said:

Comic Link should be including the full background concerns regarding the possibility Jack used assistance.

Back up for auction so soon?  Kinda suggests to me that the last owner let all the niggling doubts get to him or her.

In all honesty, I find this piece painful to look at.  Once you get past the initial overall impression and look at the drawing in detail, you begin to notice the faults.  Most of the lettering looks awful and the hands in the three panels running down the left side are very clumsily drawn.  Nice signature though!

Back up for auction so soon maybe because of covid-related job/income loss (or dozens of other reasons), and not necessarily due to niggling doubts about the use of assistants?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, jjonahjameson11 said:

Back up for auction so soon maybe because of covid-related job/income loss (or dozens of other reasons), and not necessarily due to niggling doubts about the use of assistants?

Oh, sure, lots of possible options to choose from.

Seem to recall that someone here re-sold the JIM 83 cover recreation in recent years (don't think he'd held onto it for any lengthy period of time) . . . and that one was well before the pandemic kicked-off.

Regardless, there will likely always be niggling doubts over these recreations.

Edited by The Voord
Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, The Voord said:

It is pencils only  . . . isn't it? lol

I'm not joking, it looks like an inked piece to me, and the Comiclink description doesn't specify. Why do we think it is a pencil piece? Has someone seen it in real life?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, bluechip said:

the vast majority of Kirby pencil art out there has inks by someone else over it and most of the original pencils were erased.   Many pieces simply had layouts.  So, even if all Jack did with this was to trace or lightbox or copy the basic shapes, he did as much as, if not more than, he had done on many other pieces that are considered Kirby works 

That's completely wrong:) Jack pencilling or doing layouts was an act of original creation. He didn't even work with prelims as some artists do, so tracing had no role in his practice. If he traced a copy of the original for this, he did far, far less than he did on a page he laid out (which means also plotted). 

But also, your scenario sounds unlikely to me. The point of having assistants is not so the main artist can do the scut work. Any fool can trace the picture. Why would Jack trace it? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, drdroom said:

I'm not joking, it looks like an inked piece to me, and the Comiclink description doesn't specify. Why do we think it is a pencil piece? Has someone seen it in real life?

Maybe it's just me that thinks it's pencils.  Description lists Jack as the sole artist.  I do know he did a pencils-only version of AF # 15, while other recreations had Richard Ayers doing inks (joint-signature on the art).

Looking at the image, the areas of solid black look like pencil shading to me.  A larger scan would reveal more.

I think it's pencils only , but I could be wrong . . . (shrug)

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, The Voord said:

Maybe it's just me that thinks it's pencils.  Description lists Jack as the sole artist.  I do know he did a pencils-only version of AF # 15, while other recreations had Richard Ayers doing inks (joint-signature on the art).

Looking at the image, the areas of solid black look like pencil shading to me.  A larger scan would reveal more.

I think it's pencils only , but I could be wrong . . . (shrug)

 

I'm thinking the blacks are filled with marker.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

48 minutes ago, The Voord said:

Maybe it's just me that thinks it's pencils.  Description lists Jack as the sole artist.  I do know he did a pencils-only version of AF # 15, while other recreations had Richard Ayers doing inks (joint-signature on the art).

Looking at the image, the areas of solid black look like pencil shading to me.  A larger scan would reveal more.

I think it's pencils only , but I could be wrong . . . (shrug)

Nope, very clearly pencil only. No ink present. None.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, vodou said:

Nope, very clearly pencil only. No ink present. None.

Thanks, Michael, I was pretty sure I was looking at pencils only . . . then Aaron (Doc Doom) came along and got me questioning my own sanity . . . or lack of..

Did Kirby even ink any of his later stuff with a marker?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, The Voord said:

Thanks, Michael, I was pretty sure I was looking at pencils only . . . then Aaron (Doc Doom) came along and got me questioning my own sanity . . . or lack of..

Did Kirby even ink any of his later stuff with a marker?

 

I'm pretty sure Kirby rarely, if ever, inked his own stuff at all, because he felt it was "drawing the same thing twice" which didn't interest him.

Edited by christosgage
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
0