Is this the original cover art for iron man 11

[shapip]

Could use a little help here. I just purchased this piece from a guy who sold it to me as the original cover art for iron man 11. Said he had it for 20 years. When I saw the picture it was framed and did look like the original cover art. I now have it in hand, unframed, and I think it is the original cover but I'm not 100% sure. Three things give me pause: 1) the villian's robe on his right side is different on the comic - seems like it was altered to accomodate the logo; 2) there are no stats (which I knew) and no old glue for stats so it's as if there were never any stats on the peice; 3) the board the art was drawn on, although about the right size, doesn't have the usual markings on the side that I've seen on iron man covers from that era. That being said, if this is a recreation it's a masterpiece in its own right. I've stared at for about 20 minutes and I don't see any structural differences that would give it away as a recreation, only slight changes one would expect (I think).

 

Here's a link to the art:

http://img135.imageshack.us/img135/1687/ironman119bt.jpg

 

Here's a link to the comic:

http://comics.heritageauctions.com/common/view_item.php?Sale_No=15041&Lot_No=16363&src=pr

 

I'd really appreciate any insight the more experienced OA collectors can give me as to whether this is the original or not. I'm still pretty new to OA collecting. I don't think the guy was trying to rip me off so if this isn't the cover I may still be able to get my money back. Thanks.

-Peter

[aardvark88]

It should have a Marvel copyright stamp on the back with the year & date, if it is the authentic published cover art.

[shapip]

It doesn't have the stamp. But I have 3 other marvel covers and only 2 have the stamp. One doesn't and I'm sure it's the original (the cover to defenders 57) - signed by the artist with the orignal stats.

[Bronty]

I'm hardly the person to ask but I dunno something about that piece doesn't look right to me. And what about the lines on the robe that are underneath IM's helmet - not there on the OA. Also the alignment of the feet seems a little different(?) as the hole in IM's left boot is just above the black line on the OA but well above it on the comic, where the heel of the right boot is just below the line on both the comic and the OA. I'm not sure either, I don't know enough but this stuff, but it gives me pause also. But then again maybe I'm just spreading misinformation

[pkveronese]

I would suggest trying to get in contact with George Tuska (the cover artist). I thought I had his contact info, but after searching my e-mail, I don't see it. Do any of you guys have it?

[comicartfan]

I agree with Keith...I think you could also ask people on the Comic-L group....

[2 Sharpe's Collecting]

Hi Peter,

I had talked with the owner of this cover and I'm fairly confident that it is the original. It's a positive sign that the art is on comic art board, with some staining, printing smears, etc., on the outside edges. The changes that you note between it and the published cover were most likely done in the production stages. A photocopy was made of the original, note the 90%, written on the bottom, (the art as drawn may have been too larger for the normal cover template and had to be reduced), and the art alterations were done on this photocopy. The logo's and captions were then added, thus, there was at one time a "production" cover for that issue.

Congrats on an excellent pickup!

Best,

[shapip]

Thanks for the responses - much appreciated. I will send an email to comicart-L list to see if I can get George Tuska's contact info. After I sent the email I noticed something about the cover that gives me some more confidence it is the original cover. The art on the published cover extends further to the spine then the art on my OA, which at first glance might be a problem, but if you look at the extension point there's a noticable change to the art. You can match my cover to a clear demarcation line, then after that you can see that the extension art was added to the piece later. Based on that I'm pretty sure it is the original cover art.

-Peter

[westform]

looks like the original to me. s'nice!

[Mister Trent]

I'm not convinced either way. As you've already pointed out, the artwork's not been illustrated on regular cover stock (for that time period). Also, Mandarin's head is too near the top of the page - wheras on the published cover it's lower, to accommodate logo area.

 

Possibly, if it is the real deal, it started life as an intended pin-up - re-worked as a cover?

 

Hope it does turn-out to be genuine, as it's certainly very nice!

[westform]

Terry; I think it just started out too big(for editorial) and the editors shrunk it (hence the 90% indication). The surrounding areas that would be blank were filled in on the stat. I have covers just like this and have seen many more. Dan

[joe_collector]

I'm hardly the person to ask but I dunno something about that piece doesn't look right to me.

 

Me too, and I would definitely not put too much credence in the "stains and print smears" as no one would ever try to pass of a 1960's cover using bone-white paper stock.

 

I would definitely contact George Tuska and ask him, as the lack of a stamp and the art differences is enough to be concerned about. I'd hate to find out it was a fake a few years down the line.

[westform]

If the art was shrunk in editorial, then it will not have a stamp. The stat cover will have the stamp.

[shapip]

As I mentioned before I am much more comfortable that this is the original cover than I was when I first posted the thread. My digital photo was a bit off for comparison purposes but having the art in front of me while comparing to a big scan of the comic has convinced me. The info in this thread has also been very helpful and again I want to thank all the posters. In a sense the changes in the published cover favor it being original for a couple of reasons one being if it were just a recreation why do it so perfectly in some places but make obvious changes to certain parts like the cape. But one can never be 100% sure so I am going to contact the artist George Tuska. I emailed someone who definitely has his contact information and hopefully I'll have that soon. Once I get the story from the artist, assuming he tells it to me, I will post it here.

 

-Peter

[joe_collector]

If the art was shrunk in editorial, then it will not have a stamp. The stat cover will have the stamp.

 

Yes, IF.

 

Just ask Tuska, and then you can rest assured it's an original. Otherwise, you will never be sure.

[Sal]

layering your image over the Heritage image in Photoshop makes me feel that it's either the original, or a very, very, very, very good fake. the only discrepencies i can see are things like the number of lines in the Mandarin's pinky finger above and to the left of his ring. your copy has two lines, with three being on the finished cover.

 

but there are only about two or three of these, and all could easily be a function of the colouring process.

 

i would be happy with the purchase either way if i were you

[westform]

This is all much ado about nothing. Just have a collector who has been doing this for awhile look at it. I can already tell it is the original, but have someone hold it in their hands just to make sure if you want. Asking the artist is 50/50. This was along time ago, they are old, and they often cranked this stuff out.... yes, despite how good it looks they were just meeting a deadline. I and others have shown artists pieces that they definately did and had them say they didn't or they couldn't remember. Dan F.

[shapip]

Mike Gartland, George Tuska's rep and a family friend, says he thinks it's the original if that helps. I think George will eventually look at it as well but he doesn't have access to email so it's a bit harder for him to look it over.

 

The next time there's an art dinner in manhattan I'll do my best to join it and I'll bring this piece and show it to anyone who would like to see it so hopefully someone with experience will be able to verify.

-Peter

[shapip]

As a follow-up, I was able to confirm that this is definitely the original cover artwork to iron man 11. I sent George Tuska a photo of the cover and he signed it confirming he believed it to be the original. I also found the same original artwork, in its unaltered original form before it was reduced to a 90% stat and modified, in George's book. Here's a link:

http://img135.imageshack.us/img135/1687/ironman119bt.jpg

 

Interestingly, it seems to be the only original Iron Man cover art that was published in George's book (although there are a few other iron man covers, they all seem to be either taken from the comic or are recreations).

 

BTW, I purchased the book directly from George and for a very modest amount of money he drew two characters of my choice in the inside front cover (in my case, Iron Man and Mandarin). When I got the book I was floored by the quality, size and detail of the artwork. He really hasn't lost a step when it comes to his artwork. If you're interested in George's work and don't already have his book (which so far is a really interesting read and a great reference) I can't recommend enough buying the book directly from George and getting a commission in the inside front cover for a very small amount of money. The book has interviews with a bunch of people George worked with during his career and they all say the same thing, he was a terrific, kind person so I'm glad I was able to purchase the book directly from him (got the contact info from his rep Mike Gartland).

 

-Peter

[shapip]

Whoops, here's the link to the page in George's book:

http://img138.imageshack.us/img138/8268/img02633dv.jpg

-Peter