Golden Age Collection

22 22

Leo O'Mealia (March 31,1884 - May 7, 1960)

I'd read that today was Leo O'Mealia's birthday, so I went over to GCD to take a look at a list of his art credits.

What I saw there was a listing of O'Mealia illustrated stories for characters such as Dr. Fu Manchu, which was a monthly feature in early issues of Detective Comics and a feature called Fang Gow of China, which appeared on a regular basis in More Fun Comics. I was familiar with those strips, so I wasn't surprised to see them listed...but then I noticed that O'Mealia also received credit for being the penciller and inker of the cover of Superman #1!!!

What the..?!!! I didn't know that!

Is that common knowledge and I'm just now learning that fact, or is that info that has only recently been discovered?

I've always assumed it was Shuster

GCD:

Artist revision revised from Joe Shuster to O'Mealia by Craig Delich 2013-4-24. Leo O'Mealia drew the cover of Superman #1 based on a Shuster panel in Action #10.

GCD:

 

Artist revision revised from Joe Shuster to O'Mealia by Craig Delich 2013-4-24. Leo O'Mealia drew the cover of Superman #1 based on a Shuster panel in Action #10.

The O'Mealia part I hadn't heard. Matt and I added the notation to the Price Guide about the cover coming from the Action 10 story. Matt ran an article on it in CBM quite a few years back

GCD:

 

Artist revision revised from Joe Shuster to O'Mealia by Craig Delich 2013-4-24. Leo O'Mealia drew the cover of Superman #1 based on a Shuster panel in Action #10.

I wonder where Craig Delich got his information?

If that information was revealed in an interview with an old time writer, artist, or editor who was around back then, I'd love to read that interview.

I don't have an action 10. I thought the supes figure was straight from Action 10 (not redrawn). Is that incorrect?

Perhaps O'Mealia just did the whitecaps and the "frame" - ie the design elements (which weren't really shuster's style in retrospect).

Or is the suggestion he drew the figure as well?

I guess it makes sense considering he did the other early covers.

Mind. Blown!

Leo O'Mealia Covers

AND Superman #1?

I don't have an action 10. I thought the supes figure was straight from Action 10 (not redrawn). Is that incorrect?

 

Perhaps O'Mealia just did the whitecaps and the "frame" - ie the design elements (which weren't really shuster's style in retrospect).

 

Or is the suggestion he drew the figure as well?

 

I guess it makes sense considering he did the other early covers.

 

Mind. Blown!

They don't give Shuster any credit so I guess they're saying O'Mealia redrew the figure.

Also, what's the deal with GCD now saying that an unknown staffer at DC drew the cover to Action #1?

From GCD's entry for the comic:

Indexer Notes

Error Report #2990 by Mike DeLisa states the following: "Cover was not by Shuster, actually by unknown member of DC staff based on one interior panel. Coloring was not by Jack Adler; Adler states that the work was done by DC staff. My source is the Court record and decision, which includes affidavits from Siegel, Shuster, and Adler."

Anyone here have access to the Official Court Records?

GCD:

 

Artist revision revised from Joe Shuster to O'Mealia by Craig Delich 2013-4-24. Leo O'Mealia drew the cover of Superman #1 based on a Shuster panel in Action #10.

 

The O'Mealia part I hadn't heard. Matt and I added the notation to the Price Guide about the cover coming from the Action 10 story. Matt ran an article on it in CBM quite a few years back

DC has maintained for quite some time that staffers drew (or perhaps "finished" might be the word) many early Supes covers (including the Action 1 cover) based on Shuster's panels. The Action 1 point came up specifically in the legal wrangling of recent years -- as a way to maintain that important elements of Superman were work-for-hire from the beginning. [i know at least one longtime historian who adamantly disagrees with this]

I don't know Delich but he's been at this a very long time, was an associate of Jerry Bails, so... you'd guess it might be from interviews, but beyond that when you've been at it for that long could be a lot of things.

Also, what's the deal with GCD now saying that an unknown staffer at DC drew the cover to Action #1?

 

From GCD's entry for the comic:

 

Indexer Notes

 

Error Report #2990 by Mike DeLisa states the following: "Cover was not by Shuster, actually by unknown member of DC staff based on one interior panel. Coloring was not by Jack Adler; Adler states that the work was done by DC staff. My source is the Court record and decision, which includes affidavits from Siegel, Shuster, and Adler."

 

Anyone here have access to the Official Court Records?

I don't recall affidavits that spoke to this issue specifically, when this was brought up publicly a few years back -- though that doesn't mean they don't exist. When I have a chance I'll see if I have any notes on it. I'm writing from memory here so I hope you'll forgive me my sins at a later date, should you find any.

That aside, to my mind there's a few key points this issue turns on:

1) When you break down the line items for the infamous Superman check, the check very clearly does not include payment for the Action 1 cover. It does include payment for the interior story, and for other material done around this time and before.

2) There exist letters between Siegel and Liebowicz discussing that various specific interior panel art be repurposed for covers. This is not definitive (and again, I'd have to go back and look at it closely), but it's possible to draw some inferences from how this played out and how it was discussed. It's not something like "ok, I will have Joe redraw that for a cover", but rather "I agree that would make a good cover". I'm not quoting exact wording, but that's the sentiment. This is CERTAINLY not definitive.

3) DC tried to hang part of their argument on the idea that the car on the cover of Action 1 is somewhat different from the car that Shuster drew on the interior. While I'll say that the cars do appear to be different, it is a really, really (really, really) weak argument. As I play this back in my mind now, this is what gives me pause about the purported affidavits speaking directly to this point. If DC had that smoking gun, why did they pull out this weaksauce argument?

Then again, IANAL so who knows. I will say that there are many historical points put forth by DC throughout this that could have been SHREDDED by a historian who knew their stuff. I've never known what to really make of that (besides, of course, that most people don't know their stuff)

4) One major point that has been put forth in favor of Shuster is that... if you look close! ... The Action 1 cover Superman's boots have those... not sure what you really call them... "Hercules sandal straps" and they are just colored over to sort of hide them. The theory here is that these are from the mid-30s Superman character sheet which is of course Shuster. Since the boots don't have those straps on the interior story, the theory goes they could only have come from Shuster.

It's an interesting argument, but I don't think it's definitive. It could simply mean that the staff artist saw the character sheet as well.

****

In summary, the above is not enough to sway me either way -- though I do find the (lack of) payment issue particularly interesting. When I have a little time I'll see if there's anything more out there, if nobody else turns anything up.

Leo O'Mealia (March 31,1884 - May 7, 1960)

 

...and a feature called Fang Gow of China, which appeared on a regular basis in More Fun Comics.

 

A great artist, I always find O'Mealia's efforts to be quite atmospheric.

Barry O'Neill (More Fun #7, January 1936)

Leo O'Mealia (March 31,1884 - May 7, 1960)

 

...and a feature called Fang Gow of China, which appeared on a regular basis in More Fun Comics.

 

 

A great artist, I always find O'Mealia's efforts to be quite atmospheric.

 

 

Terrific stuff!

 

Thanks, Michael.

 

In some ways that was one of my favorite Williamson stories that we've posted here of late.

 

Also, yet another one I hadn't seen before.

Absolutely my pleasure. That one is from Buster Crabbe #5. Inks by Evans.

A great artist, I always find O'Mealia's efforts to be quite atmospheric.

 

 

Barry O'Neill (More Fun #7, January 1936)

 

Beautiful examples of O'Mealia's work.

He was a talented artist whose artwork was a cut above many of his peers working in comics at that time.

Lovely. Agreed.

I don't recall affidavits that spoke to this issue specifically, when this was brought up publicly a few years back -- though that doesn't mean they don't exist. When I have a chance I'll see if I have any notes on it. I'm writing from memory here so I hope you'll forgive me my sins at a later date, should you find any.

 

That aside, to my mind there's a few key points this issue turns on:

 

1) When you break down the line items for the infamous Superman check, the check very clearly does not include payment for the Action 1 cover. It does include payment for the interior story, and for other material done around this time and before.

 

2) There exist letters between Siegel and Liebowicz discussing that various specific interior panel art be repurposed for covers. This is not definitive (and again, I'd have to go back and look at it closely), but it's possible to draw some inferences from how this played out and how it was discussed. It's not something like "ok, I will have Joe redraw that for a cover", but rather "I agree that would make a good cover". I'm not quoting exact wording, but that's the sentiment. This is CERTAINLY not definitive.

 

3) DC tried to hang part of their argument on the idea that the car on the cover of Action 1 is somewhat different from the car that Shuster drew on the interior. While I'll say that the cars do appear to be different, it is a really, really (really, really) weak argument. As I play this back in my mind now, this is what gives me pause about the purported affidavits speaking directly to this point. If DC had that smoking gun, why did they pull out this weaksauce argument?

 

Then again, IANAL so who knows. I will say that there are many historical points put forth by DC throughout this that could have been SHREDDED by a historian who knew their stuff. I've never known what to really make of that (besides, of course, that most people don't know their stuff)

 

4) One major point that has been put forth in favor of Shuster is that... if you look close! ... The Action 1 cover Superman's boots have those... not sure what you really call them... "Hercules sandal straps" and they are just colored over to sort of hide them. The theory here is that these are from the mid-30s Superman character sheet which is of course Shuster. Since the boots don't have those straps on the interior story, the theory goes they could only have come from Shuster.

 

It's an interesting argument, but I don't think it's definitive. It could simply mean that the staff artist saw the character sheet as well.

 

****

 

In summary, the above is not enough to sway me either way -- though I do find the (lack of) payment issue particularly interesting. When I have a little time I'll see if there's anything more out there, if nobody else turns anything up.

 

I would think it would be incumbent upon DC to produce evidence that payment was made to an artist other than Joe Shuster if they are claiming in a court of law that he wasn't the cover artist. The fact that payment wasn't included with payment for the story doesn't mean that it wasn't sent to Siegel and Shuster at a later date.

Just for discussion sake here, I'd argue that the cover art appears to be very much in keeping with Shuster's distinctive style. The figures, to me, look like Shuster's work, as does the shading on the figure of Superman. The lines are all diagonally angled from the top left of the page to the bottom right. That's what you would expect from a left handed artist. Why would another artist feel the need to so closely ape his style?

As to the claim that O'Mealia was the artist who drew the cover to Superman #1, I hope that the attribution was due to evidence found in DC files and not just because of someone's say so 75 years after the fact.

I don't recall affidavits that spoke to this issue specifically, when this was brought up publicly a few years back -- though that doesn't mean they don't exist. When I have a chance I'll see if I have any notes on it. I'm writing from memory here so I hope you'll forgive me my sins at a later date, should you find any.

 

That aside, to my mind there's a few key points this issue turns on:

 

1) When you break down the line items for the infamous Superman check, the check very clearly does not include payment for the Action 1 cover. It does include payment for the interior story, and for other material done around this time and before.

 

2) There exist letters between Siegel and Liebowicz discussing that various specific interior panel art be repurposed for covers. This is not definitive (and again, I'd have to go back and look at it closely), but it's possible to draw some inferences from how this played out and how it was discussed. It's not something like "ok, I will have Joe redraw that for a cover", but rather "I agree that would make a good cover". I'm not quoting exact wording, but that's the sentiment. This is CERTAINLY not definitive.

 

3) DC tried to hang part of their argument on the idea that the car on the cover of Action 1 is somewhat different from the car that Shuster drew on the interior. While I'll say that the cars do appear to be different, it is a really, really (really, really) weak argument. As I play this back in my mind now, this is what gives me pause about the purported affidavits speaking directly to this point. If DC had that smoking gun, why did they pull out this weaksauce argument?

 

Then again, IANAL so who knows. I will say that there are many historical points put forth by DC throughout this that could have been SHREDDED by a historian who knew their stuff. I've never known what to really make of that (besides, of course, that most people don't know their stuff)

 

4) One major point that has been put forth in favor of Shuster is that... if you look close! ... The Action 1 cover Superman's boots have those... not sure what you really call them... "Hercules sandal straps" and they are just colored over to sort of hide them. The theory here is that these are from the mid-30s Superman character sheet which is of course Shuster. Since the boots don't have those straps on the interior story, the theory goes they could only have come from Shuster.

 

It's an interesting argument, but I don't think it's definitive. It could simply mean that the staff artist saw the character sheet as well.

 

****

 

In summary, the above is not enough to sway me either way -- though I do find the (lack of) payment issue particularly interesting. When I have a little time I'll see if there's anything more out there, if nobody else turns anything up.

 

 

I would think it would be incumbent upon DC to produce evidence that payment was made to an artist other than Joe Shuster if they are claiming in a court of law that he wasn't the cover artist. The fact that payment wasn't included with payment for the story doesn't mean that it wasn't sent to Siegel and Shuster at a later date.

 

Just for discussion sake here, I'd argue that the cover art appears to be very much in keeping with Shuster's distinctive style. The figures, to me, look like Shuster's work, as does the shading on the figure of Superman. The lines are all diagonally angled from the top left of the page to the bottom right. That's what you would expect from a left handed artist. Why would another artist feel the need to so closely ape his style?

 

As to the claim that O'Mealia was the artist who drew the cover to Superman #1, I hope that the attribution was due to evidence found in DC files and not just because of someone's say so 75 after the fact.

agreed (thumbs u

not just because of someone's say so 75 after the fact.

I'm a guy who is generally very interested in comics history, and I've also read through quite a bit of the Marvel and DC -related court docs of recent times, and whenever historical points come up... they are very often shockingly lazy about how various arguments are supported.

Of course I know that depends on the specific law firms involved and how various elements fit into their strategy. But goodness knows it wouldn't take me very long to come up with a very long list of lawyers who actually do know wtf they're talking about when it comes to golden and silver age comics history.

Going hand in hand with that, the elephant in the room is that, yeah, lots of the info that has been derived from creator interviews over the years should be viewed skeptically. This is not to say throw it all out, but I do think it's clear that in a lot of cases, even over important points, creators have simply gone along with the version of history suggested to them by fandom over the years, simply due to not being able to remember events from 30-60 years prior.

Motion Picture Funnies Weekly is the example that should tell us all that there's probably important things in our history which we've still got wrong. Though there's a significant body of interview and other material in existence by 1974, there was no hint that it exists. Its discovery not only changed what we knew about history, it changed people's recollections of events in which they were involved.

The upside of that is important new discoveries will continue to happen. I'm pretty sure there's another shoe to drop on Whiz #1. The events surrounding Action 1, bet there's going to be some rewriting there. Other stuff.

 

I would think it would be incumbent upon DC to produce evidence that payment was made to an artist other than Joe Shuster if they are claiming in a court of law that he wasn't the cover artist. The fact that payment wasn't included with payment for the story doesn't mean that it wasn't sent to Siegel and Shuster at a later date.

 

Just for discussion sake here, I'd argue that the cover art appears to be very much in keeping with Shuster's distinctive style. The figures, to me, look like Shuster's work, as does the shading on the figure of Superman. The lines are all diagonally angled from the top left of the page to the bottom right. That's what you would expect from a left handed artist. Why would another artist feel the need to so closely ape his style?

I wouldn't expect DC to have paid a "staff artist" anything other than his normal salary to draw a cover. Thus, I don't think DC would logically or legally have any burden to produce such evidence.

The better evidence of who drew the cover is artistic analysis. I think your analysis makes a very telling point about the style and the left handedness of the artist. Coupled with Mark's comparison to the mid-30s style sheet, I find the case for attribution to Shuster to be strong.