grapeape Posted February 24 Share Posted February 24 On 2/23/2024 at 5:51 PM, batman_fan said: Question, if the brothers win this can they turn it into an "unpublished Spider-Man 1 Cover"? They can. They will. Hypothetically. Allegedly. Most definitely. batman_fan 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1classics Posted February 24 Share Posted February 24 (edited) On 2/23/2024 at 4:26 PM, pemart1966 said: Annoying that there's no photo of the back of the art. I wonder whether the CCA approved it? Judging by the image, I'd guess that it was done in 1964. I would think they would’ve highlighted and shown if it was stamped and cca approved on the back, that would be an interesting piece to the puzzle. But again, doubtful as I think Ditko was paid for it and it was then inventoried and eventually given away. 🤷♂️ Edited February 24 by 1classics grapeape 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pemart1966 Posted February 24 Share Posted February 24 On 2/24/2024 at 2:31 PM, 1classics said: I would think they would’ve highlighted and shown if it was stamped and cca approved on the back, that would be an interesting piece to the puzzle. But again, doubtful as I think Ditko was paid for it and it was then inventoried and eventually given away. 🤷♂️ You would think but you never know. Even if they had wanted to publish it, Marvel might have wanted the CCA stamp...just to keep things on the up and up... 1classics 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1classics Posted February 24 Share Posted February 24 On 2/24/2024 at 10:46 AM, pemart1966 said: You would think but you never know. Even if they had wanted to publish it, Marvel might have wanted the CCA stamp...just to keep things on the up and up... I’ll ask Ross or Josh on Monday or if they’re following this thread perhaps they’ll respond and add a scan of the back to the lot… I suppose this would “add value” in a way to show this was intended to be published in the era. Thoughts? 🤔 grapeape 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pemart1966 Posted February 24 Share Posted February 24 On 2/24/2024 at 4:03 PM, 1classics said: I’ll ask Ross or Josh on Monday or if they’re following this thread perhaps they’ll respond and add a scan of the back to the lot… I suppose this would “add value” in a way to show this was intended to be published in the era. Thoughts? 🤔 Great idea. Please let us know the result. "Added value"? Don't know if that could be quantified. The bottom line is that it wasn't published regardless of the intent. Twanj and 1classics 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jjonahjameson11 Posted February 24 Share Posted February 24 Based on the inking, can anyone determine the year of the unpublished pinup? for example, is it possible that it was intended for publication as the ASM #3 pinup, but rejected for one reason or another? Or was this piece illustrated later, perhaps as a pinup for Annual #1? 1classics 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grapeape Posted February 24 Share Posted February 24 On 2/24/2024 at 1:03 PM, 1classics said: I’ll ask Ross or Josh on Monday or if they’re following this thread perhaps they’ll respond and add a scan of the back to the lot… I suppose this would “add value” in a way to show this was intended to be published in the era. Thoughts? 🤔 Buddy, if you can get a scan from them and post here, it would be most appreciated. 1classics 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grapeape Posted February 24 Share Posted February 24 On 2/24/2024 at 1:34 PM, jjonahjameson11 said: Based on the inking, can anyone determine the year of the unpublished pinup? for example, is it possible that it was intended for publication as the ASM #3 pinup, but rejected for one reason or another? Or was this piece illustrated later, perhaps as a pinup for Annual #1? Bingo. That's what it looks like. It was a solid description but I think the more info on an unpublished piece the better the 💰 for seller. it's too good. It feels like this one was presented with one of the published ones, and was sent to the bench as a second choice. It's so damn good! This is why I search everyday to unearth treasures. None of the time is wasted. Not just the goal, or the grail, but the glory of the journey to fetch said treasure brings joy to a collector like me. Excelsior Stan Lee for giving this one away. Ditto to dashing Steve Ditko, the artist who quit us long ago, but we've never quit loving his mesmerizing talent. 1classics 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pemart1966 Posted February 25 Share Posted February 25 On 2/24/2024 at 4:34 PM, jjonahjameson11 said: Based on the inking, can anyone determine the year of the unpublished pinup? for example, is it possible that it was intended for publication as the ASM #3 pinup, but rejected for one reason or another? Or was this piece illustrated later, perhaps as a pinup for Annual #1? I said a page back that I thought that it looked circa 1964. In fact, before your post above, my thoughts were that it looked circa SM Annual #1 ish. So I think that you're bang on. But then again, my opinion and $8 will get you a cup of coffee at a specialty shop.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1classics Posted February 26 Share Posted February 26 On 2/24/2024 at 11:57 AM, grapeape said: Buddy, if you can get a scan from them and post here, it would be most appreciated. Just a heads up I just confirmed with clink there’s no cca stamp or anything on the back. They will be adding a scan of the back to the listing… Twanj, grapeape and Will_K 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1classics Posted February 26 Share Posted February 26 (edited) On 2/24/2024 at 11:07 AM, pemart1966 said: Great idea. Please let us know the result. "Added value"? Don't know if that could be quantified. The bottom line is that it wasn't published regardless of the intent. I was told back scan is up now on clink, but unfortunately nothing on there. Edited February 26 by 1classics Twanj 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Twanj Posted February 26 Share Posted February 26 On 2/26/2024 at 12:40 PM, 1classics said: I was told back scan is up now on clink, but unfortunately nothing on there. I see it. Seems to take a while for their scans to show up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1classics Posted February 26 Share Posted February 26 (edited) On 2/26/2024 at 7:55 AM, Twanj said: I see it. Seems to take a while for their scans to show up. I requested it and it’s up, just no stamp or any notes or anything on the back of the board as originally thought. Just not much to go on… Edited February 26 by 1classics Twanj 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Voord Posted February 26 Share Posted February 26 On 2/24/2024 at 9:57 PM, grapeape said: Buddy, if you can get a scan from them and post here, it would be most appreciated. If Stan pulled the artwork from publication and (presumably) not submitted for CCA approval,, why would there be a stamp on the back? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pemart1966 Posted February 26 Share Posted February 26 On 2/26/2024 at 1:16 PM, The Voord said: If Stan pulled the artwork from publication and (presumably) not submitted for CCA approval,, why would there be a stamp on the back? I think that you've answered your own question. If he had submitted it for CCA approval then there'd be a stamp on it, assuming of course that CCA hadn't refused approval. But given the content, I think that it's fair to assume that it was never submitted for CCA approval for whatever reasons and hence, no stamp. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Voord Posted February 26 Share Posted February 26 (edited) On 2/26/2024 at 7:17 PM, pemart1966 said: I think that you've answered your own question. If he had submitted it for CCA approval then there'd be a stamp on it, assuming of course that CCA hadn't refused approval. But given the content, I think that it's fair to assume that it was never submitted for CCA approval for whatever reasons and hence, no stamp. The question wasn't for myself . . . it was for those wondering why no CCA stamp on the back of the art Edited February 26 by The Voord grapeape 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grapeape Posted February 26 Share Posted February 26 On 2/26/2024 at 10:16 AM, The Voord said: If Stan pulled the artwork from publication and (presumably) not submitted for CCA approval,, why would there be a stamp on the back? Terry I'm not sure there is one. I just want to see what if anything might be there. The treasure Hunter in me. Artie Simek rocks!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1classics Posted February 26 Share Posted February 26 On 2/26/2024 at 10:43 AM, grapeape said: Terry I'm not sure there is one. I just want to see what if anything might be there. The treasure Hunter in me. Artie Simek rocks!!!! Well it's not there LOL, I replied to your message above. Too bad, guess we'll never know what this was intended for or the year done if there's no "X" designation on the board grapeape 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Voord Posted February 27 Share Posted February 27 (edited) On 2/26/2024 at 8:43 PM, grapeape said: Terry I'm not sure there is one. I just want to see what if anything might be there. The treasure Hunter in me. Artie Simek rocks!!!! Hey, Mike My question was a rhetorical one, asked for effect, and aimed at those wondering if a CCA stamp was on the back of the artwork. That is, if Lee decided (for whatever reason) not to publish the art in any of his books, why would it ever have been submitted to the CCA for censorship scrutiny/publication green-light? I get that you're curious if anything was on the back of the art (it's not uncommon to find thumbnail sketches and the like, or maybe notes). That's a different kind of interest. Edited February 27 by The Voord grapeape 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
F For Fake Posted February 27 Share Posted February 27 On 2/18/2024 at 9:41 AM, cstojano said: Hater: The bottom half of his right leg. Hater alert: What on god's green earth is going on with the anatomy over all? That intersection of thigh and waist is a trainwreck. It's like one big fused glob of muscle. Of course, I'm not in the buyer pool for something like this anyway, so it doesn't matter what I think. The Voord 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
