The original, unused Ditko cover for Amazing Fantasy #15 has been published by Marvel at least twice over the years, and in both cases the black & white artwork was coloured. The version on the left is from Spider-Man Classics; the one on the right is from a later publication, The Official Marvel Index To The Amazing Spider-Man.



The one on the right, the newer one, looks "better" to my eyes ~ more "plausible" colouring for the most part, except maybe the purple building! ~ but I'm wondering if an "official" version of the colour guide for this cover was ever made in the first place? Are one of these images accurate, or are they both just guesses at what Steve and Stan intended the colours to be?

(Does anyone have a large scan of the original black & white art?)

I got nothing but love and admiration for Steve Ditko.

But wow -- ya gotta give Kirby his propers in this case.

No fooling, Mike? I like Ditko's version a lot better. Why does Kirby's work better for you?

Finding out who colored what is one of those research questions that can take years to solve. I WILL say that I agree with you, that the color of the one on the right is a better treatment than the one on the left. More pleasing to the eye, clearer, a little less jarring.

Don't fret about the accuracy of a purple building. Realism in doing a comic book color job is not always 100% the goal. A little creative liscense is employed to make it a better picture. A shadowy building in the background is rendered here quite effectively with that soft purple tone.

Hi Linda,

I like the colors on the right cover as well, but I doubt either one was based on an original color guide (if there was one). Perhaps Andy Yanchus, who was coloring most of the Marvel Tales reprints, and probably colored the cover on the left, might know. Stan Goldberg was doing most (if not all) of the coloring in the period in question, and he used a great many muted tones (grays, browns) as well as gradations of color, so I don't think it would have looked like either cover.

Hi Linda,

Steve's cover would work fine several issues into the series; it introduces an action, implies the germ of a story. It looks consistent with the character inside...

But Kirby's is more of a monument, an icon. It introduces Spider-Man as something never seen before, but which is going to be with us for a long time. More symmetrical, like a dollar bill or a monument. Upshot, giving it majesty. Gloomy tones unlike those we associate with heroes at the Distinguished Competition.

Three and a half decades later, Kirby's cover may seem inconsistent with the Spider-Man we recognize and love. But as a first-look at Spider-Man, I think Kirby's cover does a knockout job.

I'd be happy to see Steve's cover on a subsequent issue.