OA to AF#15,HULK#1,FF#1 WHERE ARE THEY?

[heartened]

Most outsiders to the original art hobby feel that one of the major limitations of the hobby is the "old boys' network", that they view to be in place. There really is no such thing, but certainly the collectors who have been doing this a long time have more information than others. And, for some reason, certain aspects of this information are taboo or spoken in hushed voices.

 

I'd suggest you (or someone who knows the details) just state what the consensus is on these historic early covers/art. No one really cares about who is or was involved in "acquiring" them at this point.

 

Hari

 

the general concensus is that a lot of the early Marvel (key) stories were stolen to order via a corrupt Marvel employee. I've heard one or two names mentioned, as recipents for this art - as I'm sure you're fully aware yourself - but without concrete-proof, naming names of prime suspects in a public forum could be seen as libellous (hence the hushed tones).

 

Nothing secretive or 'old boys network' from my stance. Clem asked the question regarding stories, rumours, etc - which was probably intended to prompt a few words from one of our other members who may well have first-hand information. I simply responded to the effect that the stories of what happened to the early Marvel books are fairly well known.

 

Doc Vassallo made some interesting discussions on the Marvel art thefts earlier this year on the Kirby list (Doc had some first-hand info himself, from what I recall). I don't have the time or inclination to trawl through those archives right now, but there's nothing to stop others from doing so.

 

Best

 

Terry Doyle

 

Hi Terry,

 

I hope you didn't think I was trying to put you on the spot. I was just making a general comment. Yes, I've heard most of the rumours over the years.

[Mister Trent]

Terry, I agree that the whole stolen art situation is a big part of the anonymity, but I doubt that the owners of said art have anything to fear. First off, it would be hard to prove which art was stolen, because to my knowledge no formal, complete, and concrete inventory of the stolen art has been created, so how can anyone prove what are was stolen vs what art was floating around the marketplace? Second, many of the people who would or could have corroborated or even made claim of ownership of the art are now dead. Third, there's no way to know how much of the stolen art has been passed around and sold to other people who have no idea that the art my have a dubious provenance.

 

So although this belief that there may be repercussions is pervasive, I doubt it's any type of real threat to the owners.

 

Perhaps some of the attorneys on the boards can correct me if I'm way off base here.

 

Actually, there exists - on CAF - an Inventory of all the original artwork held at Marvel's Art Vault (circa February 1980). Although at the time of cataloguing the art some of the key early (complete) stories had gone walkies, there still existed the original art to things like complete books of Ditko's AMAZING SPIDER-MAN #s 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, etc.

 

At CAF, click onto the "News" icon then, on the opening page click onto the heading, WHERE DID ALL THE ART GO?

 

What you see reproduced are a series of articles that appeared in Gary Groth's COMIC JOURNAL magazine.

 

You wanna inventory of prime Marvel art that existed before being dispersed around the globe? Read on . . .

[Mister Trent]

Doc Vassallo made some interesting discussions on the Marvel art thefts earlier this year on the Kirby list (Doc had some first-hand info himself, from what I recall). I don't have the time or inclination to trawl through those archives right now, but there's nothing to stop others from doing so.

 

And where are these Kirby list archives?

 

Why, on KIRBY-L (Yahoo Groups), of course!

 

You have to join the group to access the archives.

[Mister Trent]

I've had a look through the Kirby-list archives and have come across the following post made by Doc Vassallo, with regard to the Marvel Art thefts. I hope the good Doc doesn't mind me quoting him, here.

 

The 'Fred Gwynne' character is an alias for a very tall ex-Marvel staffer.

 

Doc V said:

 

"Ok, before this gets out of hand, let me explain more. Yes, Fred Gwynn has

been rumored but that rumor is a completely different theft than the one

I'm talking about. I've brought this up many times on this list going back

over the years. The "big" theft occured by alleged drug addicts/low lifes,

who broke into the art warehouse and grabbed envelopes with some of the

earliest and most important Marvel art. The art was then sold off the

street in lower Manhattan to a select group of individuals. Were they there

by luck? I don't know. I heard the story from someone who bought art off

the street and "was" there by luck and still person_without_enough_empathyed about not having enough

money on hand to buy more. He bought one complete book and kept it for

about 15 years. He then traded it for almost the entirety of FF #3, minus

one or two pages. Since David says Jack only got back 2/3 of the book, the

person who bought the book from Jack must have acquired additional inker

pages to almost complete the book. Anyway, said person traded it and a lot

of cash also exchanged hands, to the fellow I know for the complete book he

had. The complete book subsequently exchanged hands again and resides with

an auction house (not Heritage) and the last I heard they offered it in a

catalogue a few years ago and it didn't sell for whatever exhorbitant price

they were looking for. This complete book was X-MEN #1.

 

Other books alleged to have been in that theft were HULK #1, a handful of

"very" early Ditko SPIDER-MAN''s (possibly #1), and possibly FF #1. Possibly

others also. No covers were involved. The Fred Gwynn rumor pertains to a

different rumored story wherby art was allegedly left out on a desk near an

elevator. That one has been flying around for years and I have no idea what

it entailed, what the art was, or if it has any validity."

 

-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-

 

Hope this is of interest.

 

Terry Doyle

[osborn_fr]

...it didn't sell for whatever exhorbitant price

they were looking for. This complete book was X-MEN #1.

 

I'm sure i saw a web site asking $1.000.000 for the X-Men #1 complete story.

It was in 1999. Too bad i did not have save the web pages at this time...

[Mister Trent]

...it didn't sell for whatever exhorbitant price

they were looking for. This complete book was X-MEN #1.

 

I'm sure i saw a web site asking $1.000.000 for the X-Men #1 complete story.

It was in 1999. Too bad i did not have save the web pages at this time...

 

Greg Manning Auctions, inc. had the X-MEN # 1 art advertised in Jerry Weist's COMIC ART PRICE GUIDE (2nd edition).

[westform]

...it didn't sell for whatever exhorbitant price

they were looking for. This complete book was X-MEN #1.

 

I'm sure i saw a web site asking $1.000.000 for the X-Men #1 complete story.

It was in 1999. Too bad i did not have save the web pages at this time...

 

Greg Manning Auctions, inc. had the X-MEN # 1 art advertised in Jerry Weist's COMIC ART PRICE GUIDE (2nd edition).

 

Jay Parrino also had it I believe at the price of 1miiilllliiooooooon dollars! Bill Hughes is the connection between Manning and Parrino.

[dem1138]

...and from what I understand - as is spoken among some OA circles - is that the person who originally bought the OA to X-Men #1 and traded it for FF #3 and cash was Brad Savage...and FF #3 pages have come on the market in the past year...

[Crowzilla]

There are some laws on the books that stay the statute of limitations from running on paintings and such until the item is discovered or something like that.

 

The law is stayed in cases like these only when an active campaign of recovery was attempted when the chattel was first discovered missing.

 

This would be a conversion case and it is tough to comment without knowing more, but it can be very difficult to prosecute and many states have a defense allowed for a bona fide purchaser where they would not have to return stolen artwork, but merely be liable for the market value of the item at the time of conversion or a reasonable time for making a replacement (which seems very inexpensive given the difference in value between now and then).