Shortly after the 1978 Golden Shield Cupcake Advertisement resurfaced in collector circles, debate emerged regarding the identity of the uncredited penciler.
The advertisement’s artwork displayed:
• Dramatic foreshortening
• Heavy black shadowing
• Kinetic posture despite minimal action
• An unusually majestic rendering of Nixon’s jowls
This led to speculation that a major comic artist had moonlighted on the project.
The Leading Theories
- The Kirby Hypothesis
Some collectors argue the exaggerated musculature of Dr. Malice and the cosmic crackle pattern behind Nixon’s briefcase resemble the style of Jack Kirby.
Supporting arguments:
• The late 1970s were financially turbulent.
• Snack ads reportedly paid extremely well.
• The villain’s stance resembles mid-70s Kirby layouts.
Counterpoint:
• Kirby never acknowledged it.
• The hands are “almost Kirby,” not fully Kirby.
A 1996 fanzine described it as:
“Kirby at 60% conviction.”
- The Neal Adams Theory
Others point to the hyper-detailed facial rendering and anatomical realism reminiscent of Neal Adams.
Supporting arguments:
• Nixon’s expression is almost photorealistic.
• Adams was known for moonlighting commercially.
• The briefcase shading is unusually precise for a snack ad.
Counterpoint:
• Adams publicly denied involvement in any “dessert-based vigilante material.”
- The Giffen/Buckler Swipe Theory
A third camp proposes the art was done by a younger artist heavily influenced by Kirby, possibly:
• Keith Giffen
• Rich Buckler
Both artists were known at different times for drawing in a strong Kirby-influenced style.
Proponents argue:
“It looks like Kirby drawn by someone who had Kirby open on the desk.”
This theory suggests the true artist may have:
• Accepted the lucrative paycheck
• Requested anonymity
• Viewed it as a temporary commercial detour
Why the Mystery Persists
- Golden Shield Comics dissolved in 1981.
- No payroll records have surfaced.
- The original art boards have never been auctioned.
Several industry veterans have responded to inquiries with identical phrasing:
“That was a different time.”
The Nixon Rendering Question
One persistent detail fascinates historians:
The Nixon figure is drawn with remarkable dignity.
• Strong posture
• Commanding eye line
• Controlled gesture
Some argue the penciler “respected the subject too much” for it to be parody.
Others argue that seriousness is what makes it parody.
Current Scholarly Position
The Tricky Wiki Editorial Board maintains:
The artist remains unknown, but privately, debate continues.
Tricky Wiki Addendum
The “House Style” Face Controversy
Among the most debated aspects of the 1978 Golden Shield Cupcake Advertisement is the rendering of Nixon’s face.
Several academics and long-time collectors have argued that the original pencils “did not match house style.”
The Rumor
According to persistent industry folklore:
- The original penciler rendered Nixon in a bold, exaggerated style.
- The publisher allegedly deemed the likeness “too operatic.”
- An emergency inker was brought in to redraw Nixon’s face to align with Golden Shield’s “editorial standards.”
The inker most frequently named?
Vince Colletta.
The Academic Argument
In a 2004 symposium on “Commercial Comic Ephemera”, Professor Harold M. Sutter (Rutgers) stated:
“The jawline in Panel Three lacks the angular tension present in Panel One. This suggests redrawing. The eyelids are distinctly Colletta-esque.”
Supporters of the theory cite:
- Slight inconsistencies in Nixon’s hairline between panels
- Softer cheek shading in the final printed version
- A noticeable reduction in jowl mass from pencil scans
The Kirby Parallel
The rumor echoes longstanding industry stories involving Jack Kirby, whose depictions of certain characters were allegedly modified to conform to “house style” expectations.
In the Nixon case, critics argue:
“The original face was too Nixon. The printed face was more ‘Presidential Adjacent.’”
Others counter that the differences are simply printing artifacts common to late-1970s four-color processes.
The Counter-Theory
A minority position argues that no redrawing occurred and that:
- Variations are due to ink weight shifts.
- Or the artist simply refined the likeness mid-process.
One Golden Shield production assistant (interviewed anonymously in 1993) stated:
“Nobody redrew anything. We just didn’t want it looking like a courtroom sketch.”
The Lasting Question
If Colletta did redraw the face, scholars debate the implication:
Was it:
- A technical correction?
- A political softening?
- Or a necessary harmonization with Golden Shield’s house aesthetic?
No original pencil boards have surfaced to confirm the theory.
The “lost Nixon pencils” remain one of the Nixonverse’s most obsessively debated artifacts.
As of the most recent editorial review, no authenticated pencil boards from the 1978 Golden Shield Cupcake Advertisement have surfaced in private collections, auction catalogs, or publisher archives.
Multiple inquiries conducted between 1991 and 2018 yielded identical responses from former Golden Shield personnel, each describing the production environment as “fast-moving” and “poorly documented.”
Requests for clarification regarding penciler attribution have historically produced one of three outcomes:
- Silence
- Vague recollection
- Laughter followed by subject change
The Tricky Wiki Editorial Board continues to classify the penciler attribution as Unresolved (Category B: Historically Plausible, Administratively Elusive).
Should the original boards ever surface, authentication protocols remain in place.
File Status: Open
Artifact Condition: Unverified
Scholarly Temperature: Elevated