• When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Steranko Asgardian art

Started by matewan1990,

31 posts in this topic

pkveronese

pkveronese

Posted
Posted
For those who have never seen Jim Steranko draw Thor, here's about as close as you could get:

http://www.comicartfans.com/GalleryRoom.asp?GSub=23810

That's a link to my latest acquistion, a Jim Steranko Hogun the Grim, penciled, inked and colored by Steranko himself.

Tell me what you think!

Mike B.

 

Sweet pickup Mike!

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Sal

Sal

Posted
Posted
I'm curious ... where's the Ditko influence? I've looked for a while now and can't see it. Help! Show me what you're talking about because I want to see it.

Thanks!

Mike B.

 

i was being cheeky more than anything, but since you asked, i think the pose, the face and the musculature, especially the left arm, seem very Ditko-esque. but that's just my take on it.

 

it also has a certain early BWS quality to it, back when both Jim and Barry were beginning to get away from their house versions of Kirby.

 

all in all it's a piece to be proud of, and that's in all seriousness

Link to comment
Share on other sites
matewan1990

matewan1990

Posted
  • Author
Posted

I see it now! Cool!

Yeah, I was very happy to get it. I love Steranko and had wanted a nice piece for years. Heck, I was prepared to take out a loan to get Steranko to draw something for me (I'm sure it'd take a loan), but this was available.

Mike B.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
matewan1990

matewan1990

Posted
  • Author
Posted

I spoke with Mike Royer yesterday afternoon to ask him the origin of this piece of art. It's unpublished, from 1969 and Royer doesn't remember inking it, although he said it's possible that he did. Mike Burkey, who owned it before me, says it's all Steranko. Royer did remember that Steranko gave him the art in appreciation for letting him stay at his home in California way back in 1969 (or possibly 1970, Royer said). Royer sold the art, along with several others that were drawn by Steranko for Marvelmania that were never published, to purchase an original 16-millimeter cut of an Errol Flynn movie that cost $225 way back in 1979 or 1980. He said he was talking with Steranko about not having the money to buy the film and Steranko told him to sell the art he gave him. Then, Royer said, after he sold the art and bought the film, Steranko got mad at him for selling it. Royer said he and Steranko haven't seen each other in about three years, and the last time he saw him, he was at a swap meet not far from Royer's home. He said "I told Steranko 'They'll let anyone in here,' and that was the extent of our conversation." The Asgardians drawings were meant for the Marvelmania magazine (fanzine) that was published in the late 1960s in California. According to Steranko publisher J. David Spurlock, the magazine folded before the art was published. Spurlock said it may be published in an uncoming Steranko art book.

When Royer looked at the art, he said it appeared to him that he had inked it. He said, however, that he saw what appears to be Dan Adkins inks there, too. Burkey said he checked with Steranko collector and enthusiast Pete Koch who says the art is all Steranko, pencils, inks and colors.

It's a beautiful piece of art no matter who inked it!

Mike B.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
matewan1990

matewan1990

Posted
  • Author
Posted
Burkey had the piece for sale at $2500 for at least a couple of years.

 

He had it for sale for $2500 for SEVERAL MONTHS. Not a couple of years. I tried to get it from him when he first put it on his site. That wasn't that long ago. Sorry to disappoint, but THAT PIECE WASN'T UP THERE EVEN A YEAR.

Mike Browning

Link to comment
Share on other sites
matewan1990

matewan1990

Posted
  • Author
Posted
Sorry, that's not true. It's been on there over a year. I spoke to Burkey about it at the Big Apple show in November 2004.

 

I spoke to Burkey about it just after he put it on the site and he may have had it for sale since Nov. 2004 at the Big Apple Con, but he didn't have it on the site two years. And, if you're counting, that's not two years. Not by a long shot. So, I'm telling the truth.

Even if you spoke to him about it in Nov. 2004, doesn't mean he had it on the site. As soon as he put it on the site, I started trying to trade him for it and I know it hasn't been on his site for two years.

Why would you even try to devalue the piece by saying it's been on the site for two years (because we all know the thoughts around here - and I don't share them - is that if a piece has sat on a site for too long, it's not worth the price put on it)? I'm curious. Is it because you wanted it and didn't get it? Is this just sour grapes?

Mike B.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
*paull*

*paull*

Posted
Posted

Mike,

 

First of all, I'm not looking for an argument with you. If you want to take something personally, do what you want, but I'm not going to join in some kind of verbal sparring.

 

Someone asked what the price was, and I told them, and mentioned that it had been there for a while. Facts. Not opinion. Why you didn't see it on the site, I don't know. I can't explain that to you. I know for a fact that when I spoke to Burkey about it, I had already seen it on his site.

 

Are you familiar with the Internet Archive? I checked an archived version of Burkey's site from October 2004. Have a look:

 

http://web.archive.org/web/20041016092632/www.romitaman.com/RomitaMan019.html

 

Sour grapes? If I saw the piece a long time ago and didn't buy it, how does sour grapes fit in?

 

Enjoy the piece. It's a nice one as I mentioned above.

 

Paul

Link to comment
Share on other sites
matewan1990

matewan1990

Posted
  • Author
Posted
Mike,

 

First of all, I'm not looking for an argument with you. If you want to take something personally, do what you want, but I'm not going to join in some kind of verbal sparring.

 

Someone asked what the price was, and I told them, and mentioned that it had been there for a while. Facts. Not opinion. Why you didn't see it on the site, I don't know. I can't explain that to you. I know for a fact that when I spoke to Burkey about it, I had already seen it on his site.

 

Are you familiar with the Internet Archive? I checked an archived version of Burkey's site from October 2004. Have a look:

 

http://web.archive.org/web/20041016092632/www.romitaman.com/RomitaMan019.html

 

Sour grapes? If I saw the piece a long time ago and didn't buy it, how does sour grapes fit in?

 

Enjoy the piece. It's a nice one as I mentioned above.

 

Paul

 

You prove my point perfectly with your Internet archive, saying it was on the site in October 26, 2004. Do your math. If it was put on there on October 6, 2004, then it WASN'T ON THE SITE FOR TWO YEARS.

Your comments are merely sour grapes because it's a piece you wanted from Burkey and didn't get. So, you attempted to devalue the piece by adding that you were glad it finally found a home and that it had been on the site for over two years. How were you glad it finally found a home? It had a home in Burkey's collection. It's not like it was floating out there looking for a collection to take it in. And you obviously can't add, saying that it's been on there for more than two years, when it clearly has not — by your own admission with the archive.

Thanks for proving my point. While I might have been wrong to say it hadn't been on there a year, I was right that it had not been on there for more than two years.

Why even say something like that? Did it fit into the conversation? KingofRulers merely asked how much it cost, He never asked how long it had been on a site.

Heck, the art was created in 1969 and, more than 35 years later, it's finally found a home... does that make it worth less?

Mike B.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Go to topic listing