• 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.

Ditko Spiderman page?

Started by AvengersFan,

115 posts in this topic

lmiller

lmiller

Posted
Posted

chrisco37. i gotta agree with ya on this one. i would stay away. it just don,t smell right.

 

also i really wished that somebody had a page from the same issue that could verify that the comic code stamp was not on the back. i can see maybe that one page was missing the stamp , but the whole issue. nawww not buying it. 893naughty-thumb.gif

 

larry ;]

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Sharkey

Sharkey

Posted
Posted

There are a whole lotta red flags going up over this one that keep saying "Don't look! Don't look!" 27_laughing.giftongue.gif

 

However, I do have to comment about the stamp on the back. The absence of a stamp does not mean the art is not real, it only means it was not part of the Marvel Art inventory and return project done in the 1980s. There is a whole lot of legitimate unaccounted for art that is out there without a stamp.

 

--Steve

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Spider-Variant

Spider-Variant

Posted
Posted
my personal take on the page as far as is it real or fake would be this .

 

1st i never owned a spidy page that early so iam wondering about the maching writing on the page for the title. i thought all early marvel book were done in hand not machine for the titles but i could be wrong.

 

but this one fact to me, would kill any and all doubts about if the page was real. if the guy would turn over the page and scan the comic code emblem that should list the month and date. & year, i think we all would feel somewhat vindicated that the page is real. any other thoughts. : 893scratchchin-thumb.gif

 

larry ;]

 

Not sure about the machine stamp. I have only one "old" (pre 80's) Marvel page and the title is stamped while the issue # is handwritten. From what I've seen of older SA marvel art, alot have the stamp. Newer books, however, all tend to be handwritten. That's just my (limited) experience.

 

I agree with you on the back scan though. Would certainly clear up any issues of legitimacy if the back scan had the emblem. It should also list the month and artist. But, I doubt this guy will scan it.

 

I still think the page looks too "fresh" to be the real thing. It shows no signs of yellowing, the corners aren't blunted or chopped off, the edges are all very smooth (alot of old Marvel art I've seen has all kinds of edge miscuts, etc..).

 

 

I did a search over on Heritage and there are a few other Ditko Spider-Man pages with the stamped "Spider-Man" on it. I did see one that had a stamped "Amazing Spider-Man" on it as well.

 

I agree, when I first saw this page, the Bells went off. Just the whole thing combined: Estate auction, I know nothing about original art, page is as white as the the driven snow, no stamp.

 

Hey, if your the gambling type, Go for it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Sharkey

Sharkey

Posted
Posted

 

I agree, when I first saw this page, the Bells went off. Just the whole thing combined: Estate auction, I know nothing about original art, page is as white as the the driven snow, no stamp.

 

Hey, if your the gambling type, Go for it.

 

Yep, gambling is right. And the seller has clearly stated "As-is, no refunds".

 

Danger Will Robinson!! Danger!! 27_laughing.gif

 

1777176-Robot.gif

1777176-Robot.gif.4ada24a85c1b125c717eed034c28c357.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites
jjeanius

jjeanius

Posted
Posted

Well, if you can get it at a low enough price, you could request to pick up the art in person, with payment in cash after having a chance to look at the page. Any HONEST seller would have no problem with this. Even if the seller has no idea what he is selling, he should have nothing to hide, and (hopefully) would want the buyer to be happy with their purchase. If that can't be arranged...then no deal. But if the page ends up selling for 5k less than market, is it worth a $300 plane ticket to find out for yourself?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
comix4fun

comix4fun

Posted
Posted

I still think the page looks too "fresh" to be the real thing. It shows no signs of yellowing, the corners aren't blunted or chopped off, the edges are all very smooth (alot of old Marvel art I've seen has all kinds of edge miscuts, etc..).

 

 

I held the complete art to ASM #31 in my hands about 9-10 months ago and it was the most pristine perfect white as if it were brand new. Perfect everything and 100% legit.

So it is not unprecedented.

 

Chris

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mister Trent

Mister Trent

Posted
Posted
mister trent. WTF. wow the page is from # 35 and not 28 are ya sure. now that what i call braking news. news.gif

 

larry ;]

 

Of course I'm sure.

 

The eBay ASM page is marked-up as being from # 28, but it actually appeared in # 35.

 

Doesn't everyone here know their Ditko Spidey stories?

 

Very curious . . . 893scratchchin-thumb.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites
GreatEscape

GreatEscape

Posted
Posted
Has no one else noticed that the page is marked as being from AMAZING SPIDER-MAN # 28 . . . when it's actually from # 35.

 

893scratchchin-thumb.gif

 

...and I'm not an OA expert, but all the Ditko (ASM in the 20s) pages in CAF all have labeled "Spiderman" on top left of the pages whereas this seller's page says "Amazing Spider-man" 893scratchchin-thumb.gif

 

Back in the 1960s, there was only ONE Spider-man book, so there was no need for a qualifier like Amazing.

 

GE

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Sharkey

Sharkey

Posted
Posted

Well, the seller just posted this info:

 

"On May-02-07 at 17:38:53 PDT, seller added the following information:

ATTENTION ALL: I've been told from a person in Canada that this is not a "Ditko" original. He also has told me this comes from a different comic- #35 Page 11. I have no way of verifying this myself other than a scan of the original page. The person made this statement has not actually seen the item in person. I've been told it's real and been told it's fake over the last two days. If your bidding assuming it's a "Ditko" please retract your bid unless you have information I do not. I never guessed the auction would go this high based on what I saw and I do not want someone assuming I'm holding a "Ditko" and come back at me later if they find out different. ONCE AGAIN, PLEASE DO NOT ASSUME THIS IS AN ORIGINAL AS I HAVE NO WAY OF KNOWING AND NO ONE IN THE AREA QUALIFIED TO CERTIFY THIS AS ORIGINAL. BUYER BEWARE. At this point with the amount of email that has flooded my work phone I'll be happy to recoup my listing fees. Thanks to all who have understood my frustration with what I assumed would be a quiet auction.

 

 

On May-03-07 at 06:30:18 PDT, seller added the following information:

Ebay in it's wisdom will not allow me to contact the bidders to advise them of my update, if someone is feeling bored they might contact them and tell them to view my warnings. Once again cancel your bid or contact me to if in doubt-this is NOT being sold as a Ditko. Thanks. "

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Dick Pontoon

Dick Pontoon

Posted
Posted

I look forward to comparing to my ASM 35 when I get home tonight. Assuming it's fake, isn't this kind of an unusual page to forge? Or would it be a good choice since its an interior page from late in the Ditko run and would seem less obvious?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Spider-Variant

Spider-Variant

Posted
Posted
Has no one else noticed that the page is marked as being from AMAZING SPIDER-MAN # 28 . . . when it's actually from # 35.

 

893scratchchin-thumb.gif

 

...and I'm not an OA expert, but all the Ditko (ASM in the 20s) pages in CAF all have labeled "Spiderman" on top left of the pages whereas this seller's page says "Amazing Spider-man" 893scratchchin-thumb.gif

 

Back in the 1960s, there was only ONE Spider-man book, so there was no need for a qualifier like Amazing.

 

GE

 

I saw one Ditko Spider-Man page on the Heritage Comic Auction Original Art Archives with an "Amazing Spider-Man" stamp. So, at least from that aspect, it was possibly.

 

art_ditko.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Sharkey

Sharkey

Posted
Posted
I look forward to comparing to my ASM 35 when I get home tonight. Assuming it's fake, isn't this kind of an unusual page to forge? Or would it be a good choice since its an interior page from late in the Ditko run and would seem less obvious?

 

It's definitely page 11 from issue #35 for sure, I looked last night in my Marvel Masterworks. So it's odd that it has issue 28 marked on it. Of course, if it's a forgery or someone doing a "recreation" of a Ditko page, or some type of stat it's hard to tell due to the lousy pictures the guy has up. 893scratchchin-thumb.gif

 

The guy posts his "warnings" in huge red type, so he clearly knows how to use HTML. So why can't he post a more decent pic of the page? With all this controversy, don't you think you'd add a few more closeups or other pics??? I guess that's a no BECAUSE IT'S NOT REAL.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Dick Pontoon

Dick Pontoon

Posted
Posted
It's definitely page 11 from issue #35 for sure, I looked last night in my Marvel Masterworks. So it's odd that it has issue 28 marked on it. Of course, if it's a forgery or someone doing a "recreation" of a Ditko page, or some type of stat it's hard to tell due to the lousy pictures the guy has up. 893scratchchin-thumb.gif

 

The "28" alone wouldn't convince me it was a forge. I know Kirby would often remove finished pages from a story, and they'd sometimes be inserted elsewhere later down the line or not used at all. Since this is mostly an action page with no plot-specific references, it could have been drawn for 28 and used later in 35.

 

Besides, that seems like a really weird and obvious mistake to make if its fake. 893scratchchin-thumb.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites
NightGallery1

NightGallery1

Posted
Posted

The seller claims that he's been inundated with emails and phone calls about the item in question throught which he's been apprised of its worth (if it is in fact 'the real deal').

 

Now maybe it's just me, but if I found out that I owned a collectible which could conceivably be worth between 20k - 30k but that there were some questions about its authenticity, I'd do the following.

 

1) Cancel the auction immediately.

 

2) Have it appraised by an expert from a reputable auction house that specializes in comic art.

 

3) Relist the item based on the information from the appraisal.

 

 

If this individual accepts any money for the current listing, he's either dishonest or foolish. I don't mean to be harsh here, but I can't see it any other way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
chrisco37

chrisco37

Posted
Posted
The seller claims that he's been inundated with emails and phone calls about the item in question throught which he's been apprised of its worth (if it is in fact 'the real deal').

 

Now maybe it's just me, but if I found out that I owned a collectible which could conceivably be worth between 20k - 30k but that there were some questions about its authenticity, I'd do the following.

 

1) Cancel the auction immediately.

 

2) Have it appraised by an expert from a reputable auction house that specializes in comic art.

 

3) Relist the item based on the information from the appraisal.

 

 

If this individual accepts any money for the current listing, he's either dishonest or foolish. I don't mean to be harsh here, but I can't see it any other way.

\

 

Yep. That would be the logical thing to do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Go to topic listing