 |
| Copyright MARVEL COMICS |
Above is the cover from the second THOR KING-SIZE SPECIAL from 1966, below is a reprint from 1994 - which still carries the original indicia, but with the words 'second printing' appended to it. Sharp-eyed readers will notice that ol' Goldilocks' right arm is different on the two versions, the first having been amended before printing, the second presumably featuring the cover as KING KIRBY originally drew it. (Though there's a hint of JOHN ROMITA about it.)
The reason for this is pretty obvious: Marvel's file copies of artwork were usually photocopied before any alterations were made, hence many reprints down through the years sported pages as they'd originally been drawn, not published. Thankfully, in recent years, Marvel has addressed this issue and striven to ensure that reprints are as close to archival quality as possible.
Thought you might enjoy seeing Kirby's original version.
But hold! There's even more to the story! Take a good look at this third version of the cover, below.
While thumbing through my hardbacked volume of THOR MASTERWORKS Vol 5 recently, I espied this amazing oversight. Either the patch covering Thor's original arm has fallen off (which would mean that Marvel had access to the original art), or an art restorer re-created the new arm on a file photostat, but then simply forgot to delete the original Kirby limb it was intended to replace. Who knows the truth behind this Marvel mystery? Answers in the comments section if it happens to be you.
6 comments:
That seems like a minor change to make to Thors arm it took me ages looking at these to see any difference.
And yet they jump off the page at me. Must be the Sherlock Holmes Observation Correspondence Course I took, McS.
Kid, the original arm looked perfect to me, the other two versions are terrible from an anatomical point of view. The second attempt looks disjointed in relation to the bicep, elbow and forearm, the third, looks like an heavy machine injury! What were they thinking?
When I read the post last night I was looking at the wrong arm but I see it now!
Yes, the first published version is the best, AAW, the second published version (on a reprint of the individual issue) may've been how Kirby originally drew it, though the inking on the biceps may be a later amendment for republication, and the third version has obviously had a patch covering the area, which has become detached. You'd think Marvel would be more careful, wouldn't you?
Were you on the sherry again last night, CJ? Tsk, tsk.
Post a Comment