Action #1 Original Art

[fett]

This is a thread from the Collector's Society boards. Pretty neat job imo

http://boards.collectors-society.com/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=3908860#Post3908860

[OtherEric]

Cute.

What key books do we know art survives from?  I know Amazing Fantasy #15 still exists; I don't know if any earlier art from key books is out there.

[srca1941]

Marvel Comics #1 has at least a page of Everett Sub-Mariner art still in existance.

-Eric

[Yoc]

a nicely done fake!

[JVJ (RIP)]

This is a thread from the Collector's Society boards. Pretty neat job imo

http://boards.collectors-society.com/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=3908860#Post3908860

I don't understand why ANYONE would think that the "white" areas of the cover image wouldn't be the same browned color as the board it was supposedly "drawn" on. This is such a basic flaw in the recreation that it brands it as bogus as soon as you glance at it. Was the acidic content of the board somehow negated by the "whiteness" of the printed comic cover? Duh...

(|:{>

[fett]

There was an older post evidently when this was first was "invented", he explains what he was trying to do on page 2 I believe

http://boards.collectors-society.com/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=2007068#Post2007068

[bchat]

I don't understand why ANYONE would think that the "white" areas of the cover image wouldn't be the same browned color as the board it was supposedly "drawn" on.

Not everyone thinks like you (or I) do.  They only "see" something that appears old (the outer edges) that also contains artwork.  It doesn't register in their minds that the signs of aging they can plainly see doesn't extend into the artwork.

[Yoc]

It is explained but yes, it might have been more 'authentic' without using the brown wax as the creator explained it.
Still what I'd call a nicely done fake all in all.  Better than I'd be able to do if I tried.

-Yoc

[JVJ (RIP)]

Not everyone thinks like you (or I) do.  They only "see" something that appears old (the outer edges) that also contains artwork.  It doesn't register in their minds that the signs of aging they can plainly see doesn't extend into the artwork.

To some extent, bchat,
I agree with you. But whoever did this was trying to fool people who might be impressed with the cover art to Action #1 and I don't think that subset of people should have been fooled for one second. I mean, they would have to know:
1. what comic book original art WAS
   (to be impressed)
2. have SOME idea of what it looked like
   (to be fooled)
3. be somewhat skeptical to begin with
   (which he supposedly tried to overcome)

Those don't add up to the kind of people, IMHO, who wouldn't see through the difference in the aging of the board and the un-rendered portions of the "drawing."

Of course, I may have a unrealistically high notion of the folks who are interested in comic art...

Peace, Jim (|:{>

[bchat]

Not everyone thinks like you (or I) do.  They only "see" something that appears old (the outer edges) that also contains artwork.  It doesn't register in their minds that the signs of aging they can plainly see doesn't extend into the artwork.

To some extent, bchat,
I agree with you. But whoever did this was trying to fool people who might be impressed with the cover art to Action #1 and I don't think that subset of people should have been fooled for one second. I mean, they would have to know:
1. what comic book original art WAS
   (to be impressed)
2. have SOME idea of what it looked like
   (to be fooled)
3. be somewhat skeptical to begin with
   (which he supposedly tried to overcome)

Those don't add up to the kind of people, IMHO, who wouldn't see through the difference in the aging of the board and the un-rendered portions of the "drawing."

Of course, I may have a unrealistically high notion of the folks who are interested in comic art...

Peace, Jim (|:{>

Well, I don't know what the original intent was for re-creating the artwork to the cover (just fun for or something more sinister) ... my eyes kind of glazed-over after reading a half-dozen respones that didn't amount to much more than "hey that looks cool" and "yeah".

If someone were going to try to sell a fake piece of cover art AND get a ton of money, what better cover to pick than Action Comics # 1?  They'ld be looking for a sucker with a lot of money who could be convinced of the item's resale value, not a collector of original art who has a sharp eye & enough knowledge to know when something is fake.

[JVJ (RIP)]

I didn't mean to imply that he was really TRYING to fool anyone, bchat, and I certainly got NO sense of sinister motives. But I was just wondering why go through all that trouble to have that much fun and miss such an obvious "tell". But he obviously WAS playing to a particular audience - that was my point. Perhaps that was his motive - to make certain that no one took him TOO seriously. Wouldn't surprise me.

(|:{>

[bminor]

Well, I went over and looked at the Action #1 original art and decided to make a few changes.
Take a look at:

http://picasaweb.google.com/115241830584105911422/Action1#5473544357746062322

I have been in the pre-press and graphic design business for longer than I care to remember.

Action #1 may have looked a little bit more like what you see here.

It was a lot of fun revising the original posting.

[JonTheScanner]

My first reaction:  why would the number 1 be a paste-over and not the entire logo?

[GeneYas]

I think you guy are being too tough on this fake. The browning would be from glue. Golden age art didn't have centering symbols on it.

Here is a scan of art from 1948 that I know is real. It has browning. I've seen the piece in person.

http://i55.photobucket.com/albums/g126/Quato3/Art/PG09_002_PSFWH_650px.jpg

Gene

[JVJ (RIP)]

In its current state, you're absolutely right, Gene. The discussion prior to May 20th was in regard to a former state of the reconstruction. If you go to the top of the thread and click on the link THERE, you'll see what we were talking about.

Peace, Jim (|:{>