| Author |
|
Matt Hawes
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 16 April 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 16440
|
| Posted: 10 May 2024 at 6:23pm | IP Logged | 1
|
post reply
|
|
Why would Ron Zalme lie about such a thing? I don't quite understand all the controversy about this matter. Cover designs are often reworked for several reasons. Todd Klein and Ron Zalme were both Marvel employees during that period, so I see no reason to doubt them, and certainly not to accuse them of lying or suggest such a thing.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
| www
|
| |
Tim O Neill
Byrne Robotics Security
Joined: 16 April 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 10931
|
| Posted: 10 May 2024 at 7:49pm | IP Logged | 2
|
post reply
|
|
Matt, I think the skepticism comes from the fact that X-Men #137 is such a
landmark and legendary issue that all aspects of it have been picked apart,
reviewed, and discussed since publication. It was an instant flashpoint, and we
have been seeing unused work from all the Dark Phoenix issues since soon
after it appeared. "Phoenix: The Untold Story" even finished and published the
pages that weren't used soon after publication. For any unused artwork to
suddenly surface this far down the road is difficult to believe. I had no idea
who Ron Zalme was before this, but his being on staff and verifying this does
lend it some credibility. On the other hand, just because he was on staff does
not mean it's necessarily real and part of a significant moment in comic book
history. I don't see this thread on Facebook, as I assume it's on a private
group. But Ron Zalme's page does have a post from a few weeks ago saying he
is facing "unintended retirement", so he may be strapped for money and
suddenly finds something very valuable in a drawer? Warning bells are
clanging for me - at worst, he could have mocked this up after the fact as he
knew it would sell. Best case scenario is he genuinely found it and we have a
new image to add to an issue that had a huge impact and rich history. The
most likely letterer has passed away, so I would just like someone else to verify
this, and all signs are pointing to Jim Shooter.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Athanasios Kollias
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 27 September 2021
Location: Greece
Posts: 269
|
| Posted: 10 May 2024 at 8:46pm | IP Logged | 3
|
post reply
|
|
I would like to offer my apologies. I admit to being very vocal about this, but never did I intend to imply someone is lying.I will repeat, based on whatever experience I have as a collector and X-Fan of the time, I have doubts I have already listed down (no need to list them again).
I believe the lettering or even the image may have been intended for something else (ie an ad) and Ron may be misremembering. That's all. I am sorry if I have offended anyone, it was unintentional. |
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Athanasios Kollias
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 27 September 2021
Location: Greece
Posts: 269
|
| Posted: 10 May 2024 at 8:51pm | IP Logged | 4
|
post reply
|
|
Andrew, the cover is 8 years before the X-Men one. It must have been 1or 2 editors in chief ago. Also, the box is far less intrusive than the X-Men 137 one
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Mark Haslett
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 19 April 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 6144
|
| Posted: 10 May 2024 at 8:58pm | IP Logged | 5
|
post reply
|
|
Athanasios: I believe the lettering or even the image may have been intended for something else (ie an ad) and Ron may be misremembering. That's all. I am sorry if I have offended anyone, it was unintentional.
**
How could it have been intended for something else and then end up in its current configuration through a forgotten process?
It was either created as it is or it has been "doctored".
One reason I have stopped suspecting anything awry is that anything actually created to be used in creating or publicizing this highly prized comic book is valuable. Whatever intention was behind the creation of this material, --a cover, a house-ad, it doesn't matter--collectors' madness has made this material valuable.
So there's no reason for Zalme or anyone else to risk the consequences of re-configuring it from a house-ad into a fake-cover or anything else. I believe it is in its original form because it has undeniably authentic elements and there is more to lose than to gain by using those elements to create a fake-collectible.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Tim O Neill
Byrne Robotics Security
Joined: 16 April 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 10931
|
| Posted: 10 May 2024 at 9:07pm | IP Logged | 6
|
post reply
|
|
But Mark, by saying these are "undeniably authentic elements," you're ignoring
the fact that the artist sold this privately, skirting the usual avenues of
authentication that original art of this vintage would go through. There are still
unknown elements here for either side to be totally sure.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Mark Haslett
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 19 April 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 6144
|
| Posted: 10 May 2024 at 10:57pm | IP Logged | 7
|
post reply
|
|
I see your point, but I guess I disagree, Tim.
In my opinion, it is too unlikely that anyone, private or otherwise, would take an obviously valuable item (an original "X-Men #137 house-ad" for example) and risk the consequences of fraud just to create a similar item of similar value (a fake "unused X-Men #137 mechanical cover").
I've never seen the guard-rails of authentication for production art to be much to speak of --eBay is a particular haven for such fraud. Mountains of bogus transparencies are constantly available on ebay.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |