September HA Auction Looking interesting 1 1

[cheekyj2112]

I was intrigued to see this Jack Kirby Thing piece signed & dated 1998 - by an artist who died in 1994.

https://comics.ha.com/itm/original-comic-art/illustrations/jack-kirby-the-thing-san-diego-comic-con-panel-event-illustration-original-art-1998-/p/7246-155030.s

Joseph

[aokartman]

On 7/25/2021 at 5:29 AM, cheekyj2112 said:

I was intrigued to see this Jack Kirby Thing piece signed & dated 1998 - by an artist who died in 1994.

https://comics.ha.com/itm/original-comic-art/illustrations/jack-kirby-the-thing-san-diego-comic-con-panel-event-illustration-original-art-1998-/p/7246-155030.s

Joseph

I sent them a note.  It looks like it should be 1978, as on the art.  David

[vodou]

Whatever year, that Thing is truly awful. Who's the dummy gonna buy it for the sig nonetheless?

[Bronty]

Is it even real?    If I saw that on eBay I’d cry fake. 

[grapeape]

On 7/25/2021 at 2:29 AM, cheekyj2112 said:

I was intrigued to see this Jack Kirby Thing piece signed & dated 1998 - by an artist who died in 1994.

https://comics.ha.com/itm/original-comic-art/illustrations/jack-kirby-the-thing-san-diego-comic-con-panel-event-illustration-original-art-1998-/p/7246-155030.s

Joseph

The art is actually signed 78. However HA made an error listing it as 1998 which caused the confusion. 

[grapeape]

On 7/25/2021 at 7:24 AM, vodou said:

Whatever year, that Thing is truly awful. Who's the dummy gonna buy it for the sig nonetheless?

Grape ape forces his half raised hand down and slinks away in.... shame?

N E V E R 

[glendgold]

On 7/24/2021 at 6:36 PM, Will_K said:

Spidey's left arm and hand look Kirby-ish to me.

There's a reason for that.  Here's the original version.

 

 

[aokartman]

On 7/23/2021 at 11:56 AM, batman_fan said:

I like this one too.  Any thoughts on final Hammer?

Now this one is bugging me a little bit, with the image off-center from the published version, so the final shot cover must have been a mechanical with art added on the left.  Curious about the 1984 Marvel copyright stamp on the reverse, too.  Still great.  David

Edited July 26, 2021 by aokartman

[artdealer]

On 7/25/2021 at 9:38 PM, aokartman said:

Now this one is bugging me a little bit, with the image off-center from the published version, so the final shot cover must have been a mechanical with art added on the left.  Curious about the 1984 Marvel copyright stamp on the reverse, too.  Still great.  David

The 1984 copyright is when Marvel returned the art to Colan. 
I've saw the original at Colan’s house years ago. 

[Bronty]

On 7/25/2021 at 9:38 PM, aokartman said:

Now this one is bugging me a little bit, with the image off-center from the published version, so the final shot cover must have been a mechanical with art added on the left.  Curious about the 1984 Marvel copyright stamp on the reverse, too.  Still great.  David

Extra bricks added on right hand side too

[Rick2you2]

On 7/26/2021 at 3:34 AM, Bronty said:

Extra bricks added on right hand side too

And motion images around his hand and on the side.

Edited July 26, 2021 by Rick2you2

[Timely]

On 7/23/2021 at 10:56 AM, batman_fan said:

I like this one too.  Any thoughts on final Hammer?

I can’t say to what it will sell for, but it had a price tag in SD 2018 of $75,000.

[stinkininkin]

On 7/25/2021 at 11:54 AM, glendgold said:

There's a reason for that.  Here's the original version.

 

 

Such a weird, cool piece. 

[Will_K]

On 7/26/2021 at 5:41 AM, Rick2you2 said:

On 7/26/2021 at 3:34 AM, Bronty said:

Extra bricks added on right hand side too

And motion images around his hand and on the side.

In the printed version, Daredevil's figure actually covers "The Man Without Fear!" but not in the original art.

So... some work was performed in the production department to create the "published" version.

Edited July 28, 2021 by Will_K

[Bird]

On 7/28/2021 at 4:29 PM, stinkininkin said:

Such a weird, cool piece. 

I find it groovy as he'll! It has so much going for it and then that head. And so much oddness too, some purposeful and some not purposeful I would think (eg the legs/feet on the figure on the right). I tried to say more but hard to put it into words, but I do like it (cue King Crimson's Indiscipline).

 

[Unca Ben]

On 7/25/2021 at 6:38 PM, aokartman said:

Now this one is bugging me a little bit, with the image off-center from the published version, so the final shot cover must have been a mechanical with art added on the left.  Curious about the 1984 Marvel copyright stamp on the reverse, too.  Still great.  David

Looks to me like Colan penciled the page with the intent for the cover blurb to be on the vacant right hand side. When it became clear that "To Fight the Impossible Fight" needed to be at the bottom, Lee just had it corrected by moving stats around and adding art in production.  You can see where the cover blurb at the bottom of the original art goes below the bottom horizontal crop mark.  Without measuring, I can see that with the added lower blurb, the aspect ratio is too long.

It's a great cover from a memorable storyline.  It's still the original art that the production version was made from.
Given the work done to dress it up, does that give hint to provenance?

[Bronty]

Good eye 

[exitmusicblue]

The presence of stats on a page saved me from going bonkers over it.  Phew... I'm supposed to be selling this time around, not buying!

[jjonahjameson11]

Maybe a record price for a Sal B. cover?  What do the experts think?  

[jjonahjameson11]

X-Men 94 page...Not gonna be cheap...