 |
| Copyright MARVEL COMICS |
And now, starting with the first ever issue of FANTASTIC that I actually bought, here's the second part of our 1960s' cover gallery of the jewel in the POWER PACK crown. There's something about the cover to #7 which gnaws at me - the speech balloons have been relettered and, if I'm not very much mistaken, the art has certainly been retouched in places - if not completely redrawn (traced, most likely).
On what do I base my opinion? By comparison with the cover of the original U.S. published version of TALES Of SUSPENSE. If you check it out, you'll see that the faces of KALA and STARK's friends differ slightly from the U.K. printing. I'd be interested in what anyone else thinks, so don't be shy now!
7 comments:
Kid,
In comparing the two covers it looks like there was some touch-up work done on the Fantastic cover, along with some re-lettering. The alterations appear to be minor though, so perhaps the changes were made because they had a poor stat to work from.
I'd also note that Fantastic # 8 featurres the original X-Men cover, before it was corrected. It's possible that the Iron-Man cover from # 7 was also from an uncoorected proof.
That was my first guess, Nick, but the brush work doesn't seem the same in some places. It's probably the case 'though. Regarding the X-Men cover - it's the other way 'round I think, Nick - that's the corrected version, isn't it?
Kid,
I might have confused you (which is easy since I confuse myself!) but to clarify, the Fantastic cover is from a stat. The published X-Men cover was altered, mainly by Marie Severin. Marie touched up the Angel figure, adding more lighting effects, and a few of the X-Men figures were changed as well. Does that make any sense?
Yup, I understand, Nick, but the unretouched cover had Cyclops and Iceman on opposite sides of the room to where they are now. I think Fantastic used the altered version (with perhaps further tweaks), not the original. My first-printing Masterworks volume shows the original version, The current softcover one and the Omnibus edition show the altered, printed version. That's more or less the one Fantastic used.
Kid,
My Bad! You have it correct and I had it absolutely backwards. At least I admit my errors, unlike other miscreants who protest that are right even when they're wrong!
No shame in being wrong occasionally, Nick. I've done it myself. There's simply too much information around to keep track of it in one's head in perfect sequence. You're usually 99.9% correct, so I was getting confused, doubting myself more than you. That's why I asked you to clarify things for me.
As for that other fella - obviously got 'issues'. (And incomplete ones at that.)
Post a Comment