What is the OA 'Kiss of Death'?

[heartened]

I hate art that is signficantly yellowed over time due to poor storage. I also hate when art has multiple stats that are falling off. If am image was changed during the editing, such that the original art no longer looks like the published art, that is also something I don't like. Finally, too much white-out is a personal 'kiss of death', as the white-out tends to stay white while the page ages, and then looks very much out of place.

 

I agree with most of the other comments made on this list, but of course we all have different things that 'push our buttons' the wrong way.

[Mister Trent]

let's take a momet to state what should be obvious and poiont out that there's a HUGE difference unpublished and forgery.

 

Any forgery is, by definition, unpublished.

 

Sounds like two contradictory statements to me (in one breath you say, "HUGE difference between unpublished and forgery" . . . and in the next, "any forgery is, by definition, unpublished").

 

To Forge: to make a fraudulent copy of.

 

How can you say that any forgery is, by definition, unpublished???

 

But there are many covers that were created at the same time and by the same artists who worked on the published version. The siimply didn't make the cut, or the company decided to change the cover for some reason.

 

Yes, I'm well aware of that . . .

 

Think about the origial cover version for Young Allies 1, which was drawn depicting Stalin as a villain on the cover alongside Hitler. But before the book hit the stands, Hitler invaded Russia and suddenly we knew the soviets were going to be our "allies" (if only for a short time) and so the cover was pulled and a new one hastily drawn uo.

 

If the opriginal art were to turn up for that unpublished cover, I would hardly call it a forgery.

 

No, neither would I . . .

 

Marvel often ordered several versions of covers rroutinelly.

 

I know that . . .

 

MAny of them still exist. They are not forgeries. They're just unpublished version of covers created at virtually the same time.

 

, i

 

Never suggested otherwise.

 

P.S. When I said, "There's a subtle difference between 'unpublished' and 'forgery'." I wasn't expecting anyone to take me so literally.

[malvin]

Malvin and Mr. Trent,

 

I meant the art that is for sale on the CAF Galleries.

 

I get art on consignment all the time from collectors. The difference between Burkey and I, is that I won't take art that has been around for ages. I'll only deal with "fresh to the market" art.

 

Mitch I.

 

Hi Mitch,

 

I understand, but now I am wondering about my original question. If 2 similar pages were on sale on ebay (same superhero, same issue, same artist, etc) , would they fetch the same price if one was on someone's CAF for years while another just showed up for the first time? I am referring to lower end pieces (a hundred or two market value, not 1K+). What does everyone else think?

 

Malvin

[Solar]

Hi Mitch,

 

I understand, but now I am wondering about my original question. If 2 similar pages were on sale on ebay (same superhero, same issue, same artist, etc) , would they fetch the same price if one was on someone's CAF for years while another just showed up for the first time? I am referring to lower end pieces (a hundred or two market value, not 1K+). What does everyone else think?

 

Malvin

 

I seriously doubt that there would be a major price gap, especially on pieces that inexpensive. If two pages show up from a book I'm after, I'm going to bid on the better of the two (or on both), regardless of which has been shown publicly.

[SignatureSelect]

Unless of course we are trying to say Joe Simon intentionally created a fake piece to attempt to pass it off as the original, which is not what I read and not what I understand from the explanation Stephen included.

 

 

 

Bingo. Joe Simon wanted people to think he created Cap America. That is why he created the 1941 concept drawing in 1969.

 

As for the "unpublished" Cap #6 cover, don't know why that one was created.

 

S

 

I am sure you have solid information stating these are recreation. I was unaware of this. Could you post your sources for this information possibly a scan of an article if you have it available.

[metropoliscomics]

Unless of course we are trying to say Joe Simon intentionally created a fake piece to attempt to pass it off as the original, which is not what I read and not what I understand from the explanation Stephen included.

 

 

 

Bingo. Joe Simon wanted people to think he created Cap America. That is why he created the 1941 concept drawing in 1969.

 

As for the "unpublished" Cap #6 cover, don't know why that one was created.

 

S

 

I am sure you have solid information stating these are recreation. I was unaware of this. Could you post your sources for this information possibly a scan of an article if you have it available.

 

There was a Phil Seuling show in 1969 or 1970 that Joe Simon did the cover for. Art was drawn and given to Seuling 1 month before the show. In the months following the show, Simon claimed that the drawing was the original concept piece for Cap America drawn in 1941. Seuling told me that he was aware of the claims Simon was making but kept his mouth shut.

 

And some guy named Jack Kirby once told me that the "1941" Simon Cap concept art was not from 1941. I think he may have worked for Marvel.

 

S

[Mister Trent]

Unless of course we are trying to say Joe Simon intentionally created a fake piece to attempt to pass it off as the original, which is not what I read and not what I understand from the explanation Stephen included.

 

 

 

Bingo. Joe Simon wanted people to think he created Cap America. That is why he created the 1941 concept drawing in 1969.

 

As for the "unpublished" Cap #6 cover, don't know why that one was created.

 

S

 

I am sure you have solid information stating these are recreation. I was unaware of this. Could you post your sources for this information possibly a scan of an article if you have it available.

 

There was a Phil Seuling show in 1969 or 1970 that Joe Simon did the cover for. Art was drawn and given to Seuling 1 month before the show. In the months following the show, Simon claimed that the drawing was the original concept piece for Cap America drawn in 1941. Seuling told me that he was aware of the claims Simon was making but kept his mouth shut.

 

And some guy named Jack Kirby once told me that the "1941" Simon Cap concept art was not from 1941. I think he may have worked for Marvel.

 

S

 

Some extracts from one of Chris Ciara's previous posts (in response to my earlier posts on this subject):

 

" . . . I just think you are using the wrong language to explain it and that language is what I take issue with because it could lay some of the blame for this on Joe Simon.

 

I already said I agreed that labeling a piece created in 1969 as a 1941 piece is wrong. But I have to say Stephen's calling it a "hoax" is the best description in terms of accuracy that I have seen. It imputes culpability (and at the very least stupidity) on the exhibitor...and it doesn't include the artist.

 

Calling the piece a "Fake" imputes some sort of wrongdoing on the artist who created it.

 

If someone takes those same recreations and exhibits or sells them now calling them "rare unpublished covers" does that make the recreations fakes? No, it simply makes the seller a liar or mentally challenged or both.

 

That is why calling it a hoax means one thing (a potential attempt at fraud by the exhibtor) and calling them fakes (an attempt at fraud by the creator of the new piece) is entirely different. Unless of course we are trying to say Joe Simon intentionally created a fake piece to attempt to pass it off as the original, which is not what I read and not what I understand from the explanation Stephen included."

 

Chris

 

In light of Stephen Fischler's most recent post, which (unless I'm reading this wrong) indicates that it was Joe Simon himself who was claiming a 1969-produced illustration was the original concept drawing for CAPTAIN AMERICA dating from 1941 (and not necessarily the fault of any Museum exhibiting the artwork).

 

Chris's previous post/s seem to exonerate Joe Simon (as per the above extracts), while Stephen's posts suggest the opposite.

[comix4fun]

Chris's previous post/s seem to exonerate Joe Simon (as per the above extracts), while Stephen's posts suggest the opposite.

 

 

Actually, I was trying to not put words into Stephen's mouth.

My posts did not exonerate Joe Simon, nor did they seek to, they pointed out that the original posting of the incident did not impute any wrongdoing on the artist and without a specific allegation I was saying calling it a "fake" or laying this on Joe Simon was beyond what Stephen originally posted and it would be unfair to take what he posted and turn it into something it wasn't.

 

Up until Stephen "cleared the air" and laid the allegations plain and simple, no one was saying anything about the creator's intentions, all that was mentioned was the exhibit identified the pieces incorrectly. It was a leap at that point to turn those statements into an indictment of the artist and what he intended when he created those pieces. That was what I was saying.

 

It would have been irresponsible to read Stephen's original post as a criminal indictment of Joe Simon. His words did not even mention what, if any, role Joe played in the exhibit within which he saw the aforementioned pieces.

 

And now Stephen has made the statements very clearly and without doubt as to his (or his sources) position on Joe Simon's involvment or intent in the creation of these pieces. Being that I have no personal knowledge of what Joe did or did not do I cannot and will not attempt to exonerate anyone.

 

I wanted this discussion to stick to the exact words of the posters and not jump to conclusions when the reputation and integrity of the parties was at issue.

 

Chris

[Mister Trent]

Chris's previous post/s seem to exonerate Joe Simon (as per the above extracts), while Stephen's posts suggest the opposite.

 

 

Actually, I was trying to not put words into Stephen's mouth.

My posts did not exonerate Joe Simon, nor did they seek to, they pointed out that the original posting of the incident did not impute any wrongdoing on the artist and without a specific allegation I was saying calling it a "fake" or laying this on Joe Simon was beyond what Stephen originally posted and it would be unfair to take what he posted and turn it into something it wasn't.

 

Up until Stephen "cleared the air" and laid the allegations plain and simple, no one was saying anything about the creator's intentions, all that was mentioned was the exhibit identified the pieces incorrectly. It was a leap at that point to turn those statements into an indictment of the artist and what he intended when he created those pieces. That was what I was saying.

 

It would have been irresponsible to read Stephen's original post as a criminal indictment of Joe Simon. His words did not even mention what, if any, role Joe played in the exhibit within which he saw the aforementioned pieces.

 

And now Stephen has made the statements very clearly and without doubt as to his (or his sources) position on Joe Simon's involvment or intent in the creation of these pieces. Being that I have no personal knowledge of what Joe did or did not do I cannot and will not attempt to exonerate anyone.

 

I wanted this discussion to stick to the exact words of the posters and not jump to conclusions when the reputation and integrity of the parties was at issue.

 

Chris

 

Yes, that sounds a fair assessment.

 

The business of the Joe Simon 1941 CAPTAIN AMERICA concept drawing (alledgedly produced many years later, circa 1969) has been mentioned elsewhere (I'll have to dig around to uncover more info about this). This was influencing my take on Stephen's posts - which later confirmed my earlier memories of the story.

 

But you're absolutely right, it was wrong to jump to any conclusions prematurely.

 

So, in light of Stephen Fischler "clearing the air", what do you now think about all this?

[comix4fun]

Chris's previous post/s seem to exonerate Joe Simon (as per the above extracts), while Stephen's posts suggest the opposite.

 

 

Actually, I was trying to not put words into Stephen's mouth.

My posts did not exonerate Joe Simon, nor did they seek to, they pointed out that the original posting of the incident did not impute any wrongdoing on the artist and without a specific allegation I was saying calling it a "fake" or laying this on Joe Simon was beyond what Stephen originally posted and it would be unfair to take what he posted and turn it into something it wasn't.

 

Up until Stephen "cleared the air" and laid the allegations plain and simple, no one was saying anything about the creator's intentions, all that was mentioned was the exhibit identified the pieces incorrectly. It was a leap at that point to turn those statements into an indictment of the artist and what he intended when he created those pieces. That was what I was saying.

 

It would have been irresponsible to read Stephen's original post as a criminal indictment of Joe Simon. His words did not even mention what, if any, role Joe played in the exhibit within which he saw the aforementioned pieces.

 

And now Stephen has made the statements very clearly and without doubt as to his (or his sources) position on Joe Simon's involvment or intent in the creation of these pieces. Being that I have no personal knowledge of what Joe did or did not do I cannot and will not attempt to exonerate anyone.

 

I wanted this discussion to stick to the exact words of the posters and not jump to conclusions when the reputation and integrity of the parties was at issue.

 

Chris

 

Yes, that sounds a fair assessment.

 

The business of the Joe Simon 1941 CAPTAIN AMERICA concept drawing (alledgedly produced many years later, circa 1969) has been mentioned elsewhere (I'll have to dig around to uncover more info about this). This was influencing my take on Stephen's posts - which later confirmed my earlier memories of the story.

 

But you're absolutely right, it was wrong to jump to any conclusions prematurely.

 

So, in light of Stephen Fischler "clearing the air", what do you now think about all this?

 

Sounds like someone trying to create "provenance" or "evidence" to support their claim or creator's rights...after the fact, if all the allegations are true.

 

Nasty business either way. I just wonder what the true motivation was behind it all.

 

Chris

[metropoliscomics]

Chris's previous post/s seem to exonerate Joe Simon (as per the above extracts), while Stephen's posts suggest the opposite.

 

 

Actually, I was trying to not put words into Stephen's mouth.

My posts did not exonerate Joe Simon, nor did they seek to, they pointed out that the original posting of the incident did not impute any wrongdoing on the artist and without a specific allegation I was saying calling it a "fake" or laying this on Joe Simon was beyond what Stephen originally posted and it would be unfair to take what he posted and turn it into something it wasn't.

 

Up until Stephen "cleared the air" and laid the allegations plain and simple, no one was saying anything about the creator's intentions, all that was mentioned was the exhibit identified the pieces incorrectly. It was a leap at that point to turn those statements into an indictment of the artist and what he intended when he created those pieces. That was what I was saying.

 

It would have been irresponsible to read Stephen's original post as a criminal indictment of Joe Simon. His words did not even mention what, if any, role Joe played in the exhibit within which he saw the aforementioned pieces.

 

And now Stephen has made the statements very clearly and without doubt as to his (or his sources) position on Joe Simon's involvment or intent in the creation of these pieces. Being that I have no personal knowledge of what Joe did or did not do I cannot and will not attempt to exonerate anyone.

 

I wanted this discussion to stick to the exact words of the posters and not jump to conclusions when the reputation and integrity of the parties was at issue.

 

Chris

 

Yes, that sounds a fair assessment.

 

The business of the Joe Simon 1941 CAPTAIN AMERICA concept drawing (alledgedly produced many years later, circa 1969) has been mentioned elsewhere (I'll have to dig around to uncover more info about this). This was influencing my take on Stephen's posts - which later confirmed my earlier memories of the story.

 

But you're absolutely right, it was wrong to jump to any conclusions prematurely.

 

So, in light of Stephen Fischler "clearing the air", what do you now think about all this?

 

Sounds like someone trying to create "provenance" or "evidence" to support their claim or creator's rights...after the fact, if all the allegations are true.

 

Nasty business either way. I just wonder what the true motivation was behind it all.

 

Chris

 

I believe that the motivation was ego-driven and not money-driven.

 

S

[Mighty Hal]

Surfing eBay this afternoon, I began to wonder: What is it with cover recreations, anyway? There's nine of 'em listed in the original comic art section and I don't see where the value lies in them.

 

I know, we all collect the art we love. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder and all that. But, if I've paid money for it, I'd like it to have some dollar value if the time comes that I have to sell it.

 

I understand wanting the OA to an early X-Men/Spider-Man/whatever cover...and I understand that cover not being available (or not being available in a price range that most of us can afford)...but a recreation seems to lack any real significance as a piece of artwork. After all, it's only a copy of the item that actually has value.

[*paull*]

What are you talking about here? Bronze Age recreations?

 

What about recreations of artwork that doesn't exist, such as a Schomburg recreation of a Cap or Marvel Mystery cover?

 

How about Jon Berk's recreation of Mask Comics #1 by LB Cole? The published artwork doesn't exist and the recreation is simply beautiful. Instead of a pasted-up, messy b&w published original, Jon has a beautiful fully-painted version by the master himself.

[irchooker]

After all, it's only a copy of the item that actually has value.

 

Sort of like a poster...

[*paull*]

Are these worthless?

 

http://www.comicartfans.com/GalleryPiece.asp?Piece=38003&GSub=5137

 

http://www.comicartfans.com/GalleryPiece.asp?Piece=169574&GSub=26121

 

http://www.virtualcomicartcon.com/0346.jpg

 

http://www.comicartfans.com/GalleryPiece.asp?Piece=38624&GSub=5028

[Mighty Hal]

Paull, sorry if I angered you. And, while I questioned the value of a recreation, I didn't mean to call them worthless. I did -- and do -- wonder where their value lies as works of art by themselves.

 

Obviously, you're more than okay with comic cover recreations. You've got some beautiful stuff. Still, all in all, the truth is: I'd rather have a pasted-up, messy, b&w original than its gorgeous clone.

[Mighty Hal]

Although that Mask Comics piece is particularly nice....

[*paull*]

It doesn't anger me in the slightest bit, but I think you're missing the point. The GA original work simply doesn't exist. There's no point in calling it a 'clone', because that recreation is all that exists at this point.

 

If Cole and Schomburg didn't recreate their famous covers, there would be almost nothing in existance by them. They are two of the greatest artists ever to touch the comic medium. Without the recreations, we'd have nothing by them. And I can verify that Cole's recreations are even better than the original work.

 

If you are talking about X-artist recreating the work of Y-artist, and the original work is in existance also, then I agree with you.... what's the point?

[blowout]

I know, we all collect the art we love. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder and all that. But, if I've paid money for it, I'd like it to have some dollar value if the time comes that I have to sell it.

I understand wanting the OA to an early X-Men/Spider-Man/whatever cover...and I understand that cover not being available (or not being available in a price range that most of us can afford)...but a recreation seems to lack any real significance as a piece of artwork. After all, it's only a copy of the item that actually has value.

 

Not everyone collects art for the same reasons. Clearly, you have at least some financial motivation in your collecting habits. That is not the case with everyone, and believe it or not, some collectors actually buy art because they like to look at it.

 

Cover recreations, if done by the original artist can often be amazing pieces of art in and of themselves. Financial worth is irrelevent.

[Mighty Hal]

Blowout, I've gotta disagree with you. I don't think financial worth is irrelevent...unless you're Bill Gates. Then -- maybe.

 

Maybe I'm wrong but I think most of us exist somewhere between KK -- who seems motivated only by his financial drive -- and yourself, who purchases comic art without any financial consideration. My wallet is thin. Financial issues are always a concern. While I only collect artwork that I like, I am pleased when similar pieces go up in value.

 

That doesn't have much to do with the subject of cover recreations, though. As paull wrote, "If you are talking about X-artist recreating the work of Y-artist, and the original work is in existance also, then I agree with you.... what's the point?" And that's exactly what I meant to ask.