• 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

Artemaria

Artemaria

Posted
Posted

That is the other mystery. Isn't it.

 

One thiing that I do agree with (which someone else posted on this thread) is that it would be idiotic for someone faking a Ditko page to make such an obvious mistake.

 

Thus, there are a couple of other theories as to how the wrong number got on a potentially real page.

 

1. The page was originally from issue 28, but later a decision was made to use it for 35. However, this theory seems a little stretched for a couple of reasons. One, the page doesn't really fit with issue 28. Two, the page has the ASM stamp, not SM handwritten, or SM stamp, and the ASM stamp apparently wasn't used until ASM hit the issues in the 30s. So that doesn't really make sense.

 

2. The other theory is simpler, but requires some speculation. The page was drawn for issue 35. But then some change was made, maybe it was minor, or something, because the scan was so crappy, we have no idea (but again, they apparently had white out, so why wasn't it corrected that way?). They didn't use it. Then when someone took the unused page from wherever it was -- Marvel's office's Ditko's studio, etc., the person to whom it was given said "Hey, what issue was this from?" and someone wrote down, next to the prestamped "ASM" at the top, the wrong issue number because the person writing remembered the Molten Man being in issue 28, but not 35. Then it made its way into the estate and the box, etc. (if all that was true). This theory would explain why there was no Comics Code stamp on the back, because the page never made it into an actual comic. It is an unpublished version of the page (although from what I could see, it looked very similar to the actual published page).

 

Even though I don't have a really good theory as to why the issue number is wrong, there is a very obvious reason as to why someone who is faking the page would make damn sure that the issue number would be right. So to me, that is more compelling than not knowing the details exactly of how the wrong number got there.

 

In the final analysis, I am extremely curious as to whether the page is real. If someone finds out, then please post.

 

Thanks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Sharkey

Sharkey

Posted
Posted
That is the other mystery. Isn't it.

 

One thiing that I do agree with (which someone else posted on this thread) is that it would be idiotic for someone faking a Ditko page to make such an obvious mistake.

 

Thus, there are a couple of other theories as to how the wrong number got on a potentially real page.

 

1. The page was originally from issue 28, but later a decision was made to use it for 35. However, this theory seems a little stretched for a couple of reasons. One, the page doesn't really fit with issue 28. Two, the page has the ASM stamp, not SM handwritten, or SM stamp, and the ASM stamp apparently wasn't used until ASM hit the issues in the 30s. So that doesn't really make sense.

 

2. The other theory is simpler, but requires some speculation. The page was drawn for issue 35. But then some change was made, maybe it was minor, or something, because the scan was so crappy, we have no idea (but again, they apparently had white out, so why wasn't it corrected that way?). They didn't use it. Then when someone took the unused page from wherever it was -- Marvel's office's Ditko's studio, etc., the person to whom it was given said "Hey, what issue was this from?" and someone wrote down, next to the prestamped "ASM" at the top, the wrong issue number because the person writing remembered the Molten Man being in issue 28, but not 35. Then it made its way into the estate and the box, etc. (if all that was true). This theory would explain why there was no Comics Code stamp on the back, because the page never made it into an actual comic. It is an unpublished version of the page (although from what I could see, it looked very similar to the actual published page).

 

Even though I don't have a really good theory as to why the issue number is wrong, there is a very obvious reason as to why someone who is faking the page would make damn sure that the issue number would be right. So to me, that is more compelling than not knowing the details exactly of how the wrong number got there.

 

In the final analysis, I am extremely curious as to whether the page is real. If someone finds out, then please post.

 

Thanks.

 

I think your speculative reason #2 is pretty sound. There are a couple of other speculative possibilities:

 

1. The page is a stat used for a reprint compendium like Marvel Tales that was touched up by another in-house artist prior to printing, and when Marvel stamped and refiled the page in the art inventory, somebody wrote the wrong issue number on it (for the exact reasons you state above).

 

2. The page is a fake, drawn by someone who doesn't know Spider-Man continuity very well. Deceitful people sometimes make very obvious, stupid mistakes. That's how a lot of criminals get caught.

 

I am also very curious as to whether this is real or not. Glen Gold posted that he looked very carefully at the scans and didn't think it was real due to the lettering not looking like crisp Artie Simek. Of course, it's impossible to tell from a bad scan but I trust Glen's judgment a lot.

 

If I'd had $2500 to gamble I would have bid. But I don't. And if the winner comes out of it with a real Ditko (or was that Ditka?? 27_laughing.gif ) page, then they won the poker game. confused-smiley-013.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites
westform

westform

Posted
Posted

In my opinion it is a real Ditko page. And, yes, the seller is a *spoon*. Don't feel like getting into a squabble so if anyone wants to know my unimpeachable evidence then send me a private email and I'll fill you in. Dan

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mister Trent

Mister Trent

Posted
Posted
The page is a fake, drawn by someone who doesn't know Spider-Man continuity very well. Deceitful people sometimes make very obvious, stupid mistakes. That's how a lot of criminals get caught.

 

Glen Gold posted that he looked very carefully at the scans and didn't think it was real due to the lettering not looking like crisp Artie Simek.

 

I'm inclined to agree with the above.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Sharkey

Sharkey

Posted
Posted
Just out of curiosity. What's a "spoon?" And how did the term originate?

 

It's how censorship on this site replaces swear-words automatically.

 

And it's either based on The Tick's battle cry "Spoon!" or the site architect's nod to The Matrix ("there is no spoon!").

 

Try it and see. If you type that somebody is a dumb- *spoon* *spoon* for brains *spoon*, you get all the spoons. 27_laughing.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Spider-Variant

Spider-Variant

Posted
Posted
How do you eat your cereal? Why, I use a spoon. smile.gif

 

Me, I use a *fork*.

 

Now that was funny! laugh.gif

 

I guess we needed to lighten things up.

 

I hope the page is real and the bidder got a great deal. I always hope people get good deals on art.

 

I guess if I were the seller, I would have pulled the auction and investigated. But that's just me.

 

Anyway, it definitely was a fun discussion. 893applaud-thumb.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Artemaria

Artemaria

Posted
Posted

But then, would the page labeled issue 28 be a stat or ink? The seller thought it was "hand-drawn" art. Also, when did Marvel Tales #28 come out? Was it later? Would the stat be re-inked for reproduction in MT 28?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
aardvark88

aardvark88

Posted
Posted

Cover dates:

ASM #28 Sept/65

ASM # 35 April/66

 

Marvel Tales #28 Oct/70 reprints ASM 35 The Molten Man Regrets story by Ditko. Possibly the stat was re-inked or had white-out corrections. $2k for a stat sounds aggressive. 893crossfingers-thumb.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Artemaria

Artemaria

Posted
Posted

To me, this explanation fits best with the few facts that we know about the page.

 

Also, it makes the absence of a stamp on the back seem logical as there may not have been a requirement to stamp pages for a reprint issue if there were no material changes to the text or art. A friend of mine who has real ASM Ditko pages says that both of them are stamped and dated on the back.

 

In addition, the usual practice for a page that is reshuffled for a different issue is that the first issue number is crossed out, which was not the case for this page. Otherwise, there may be ceaseless confusion.

 

That the issue number was right (and the book was wrong), as weird as it sounds seems to make much more sense. By 1970, people in Marvel's production department would know that by that time Ditko was off the book (and probably could easily tell the difference between a stat and actual art) and likely would have been readily determined that the stat was to have been printed in the Marvel Tales book.

 

Even further, it may serve to explain the seller's peculiar behavior. Although initially he apparently noticed the re-inked portions of the work, perhaps upon further examination he noticed that at least some of the work was a stat. As a result, he absolves himself from all responsibility by going crazy with the disclaimers in the auction.

 

As I'm fairly new to the hobby, I've found this particular page fascinating as no one really seems to know (although there have been some really compelling arguments both ways) for sure what it was, where it came from, or now, where it went.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
aardvark88

aardvark88

Posted
Posted

The confusion may result from the size of the deemed OA which in April/66 would have been twice up as detailed in the eBay auction. If it was a stat from October, 1970 it would have been small art 11 x 17 inches. 893crossfingers-thumb.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Go to topic listing