Please show me some nice Stan Lee sigs on original art because... 0

[The Voord]

On 1/15/2023 at 9:00 PM, J.Sid said:

So question for the board on that FF page: does that look like "76" or "96?"   

The angular straight edges at the top bar make it look like a "7," but was Stan signing Marvel OA in '76?  Does that fit in with the timeline of returned pages, etc..?  

At first glance, I thought it was a 96. now I'm not so sure, lol!  Personally, if I was writing the number 7, I'd start top left to bottom and there would be no reason to curl what should be a straight line across.  At least the sig's in the margin which, if I owned the art, wouldn't bother me at all.

Edited January 16, 2023 by The Voord

[Dr. Balls]

On 1/15/2023 at 2:00 PM, J.Sid said:

So question for the board on that FF page: does that look like "76" or "96?"   

The angular straight edges at the top bar make it look like a "7," but was Stan signing Marvel OA in '76?  Does that fit in with the timeline of returned pages, etc..?  

I used to collect vintage Stan Lee sigs (in older SA/BA books) that is definitely a 1976 autograph. His ballpoint signatures looked really good on newsprint back in the day. Considering that was an FF page, and if selling original art didn't happen much back then, perhaps it was something Stan took around with him/sold/gave away at appearances?

Edited January 17, 2023 by Dr. Balls

[Dr. Balls]

On 1/15/2023 at 9:57 AM, Dr. Balls said:

...

Final hammer on this piece was $6218. Take that for what you will - new JSC variant covers with two characters from his website (which are drawn in a similar vein: i.e. no backgrounds) are $10k, so  the defacement didn't seem to hurt the value? 

[JC25427N]

On 1/16/2023 at 10:47 PM, Dr. Balls said:

Final hammer on this piece was $6218. Take that for what you will - new JSC variant covers with two characters from his website (which are drawn in a similar vein: i.e. no backgrounds) are $10k, so  the defacement didn't seem to hurt the value? 

To be fair, its not like the sig is actually touching any of the art itself so I think defacement is a pretty strong word to use here. If someone was really adamant about it they could just white out the stan lee signature and none of the art is lost. 

Edited January 17, 2023 by JC25427N

[Dr. Balls]

On 1/16/2023 at 10:03 PM, JC25427N said:

To be fair, its not like the sig is actually touching any of the art itself so I think defacement is a pretty strong word to use here. If someone was really adamant about it they could just white out the stan lee signature and none of the art is lost. 

Very true. A little white out fixes that up. 

[JC25427N]

On 1/17/2023 at 12:24 AM, Dr. Balls said:

Very true. A little white out fixes that up. 

Yeah, that's one of the more fortunate ones

It's something like this where I would wholeheartedly agree with using defacement to describe what was done. Right over Campbell's own signature to boot  

 

[Dr. Balls]

On 1/17/2023 at 10:14 AM, JC25427N said:

Yeah, that's one of the more fortunate ones

It's something like this where I would wholeheartedly agree with using defacement to describe what was done. Right over Campbell's own signature to boot  

 

Oh YEAH, that one I posted is so much more mild than that one. Over the artist’s signature? Uuuuggghhhhh

[Phill the Governor]

On 1/17/2023 at 1:09 PM, Dr. Balls said:

Oh YEAH, that one I posted is so much more mild than that one. Over the artist’s signature? Uuuuggghhhhh

Would it be fair to assume that this was signed near the end of Stan's life? If so he was being pushed to sign so much stuff (so frequently) at his age he was on auto pilot and probably couldn't even clearly see the surface of everything he was signing. We see another signature under his, but he probably just saw some grass in the image (if even spending the time to assess it). It was probably put in front of him, rushed, and 10 minutes later he had already signed 30 more things and this was just one in a huge pile he had to get to. The signature itself looks like a struggle.

[JC25427N]

On 1/17/2023 at 1:29 PM, Phill the Governor said:

Would it be fair to assume that this was signed near the end of Stan's life? If so he was being pushed to sign so much stuff (so frequently) at his age he was on auto pilot and probably couldn't even clearly see the surface of everything he was signing. We see another signature under his, but he probably just saw some grass in the image (if even spending the time to assess it). It was probably put in front of him, rushed, and 10 minutes later he had already signed 30 more things and this was just one in a huge pile he had to get to. The signature itself looks like a struggle.

100% I don't think anyone finds any fault in Stan for signing it, I blame whoever put it infront of him. 

[The Voord]

On 1/17/2023 at 5:14 PM, JC25427N said:

Yeah, that's one of the more fortunate ones

It's something like this where I would wholeheartedly agree with using defacement to describe what was done. Right over Campbell's own signature to boot  

 

Maybe it's Stan's way of re-asserting himself as creator . . . with a little bit of help from the artists?     . . . I think.