MarvelComicsArt

Member
  • Content Count

    75
  • Joined

  • Last visited

1 Follower

About MarvelComicsArt

  • Boards Title
    Collector

Recent Profile Visitors

626 profile views
  1. Not sure what you are looking for to have a commission done of but just a heads up there is a great Rorshach Watchman cover recreation on heritage auctions that ends friday! (link below) Watchman Dave Gibbons Rorshach art https://comics.ha.com/itm/original-comic-art/dave-gibbons-rorschach-of-the-watchmen-cover-recreation-illustration-original-art-2013-/a/7187-93111.s?ic4=GalleryView-Thumbnail-071515 With most commissions you never know exactly what you will get so its kind of tricky . And there is always a long waiting list . But you should try regardless, lots of luck!!!!
  2. Unfortunately at some point Roz was signing as well... she would say leave it here and come back in a half an hour ... than she would sign whatever was there. So who knows who even signed what these days?
  3. I have a simple question to all of my fellow collectors. What if there was a in theory a "cover" that existed which was supposedly altered before it was printed. And what if this cover was originally created on separate sheets of paper. And than reassembled onto an entirely new board so as to create an image much closer to the original published version. Now what if this cover had a wonderful back story as well. And yet everyone always used words to describe it as"rumored to have been drawn on separate pieces of paper." "Rumored to have been altered at the time of printing, etc".... Now for the record i am not speculating on if this Cover art is authentic or not, I am merely referencing it to make a specific point. My question is a simple one. A) the paper is now glued to another board ( modern day paper) , that in itself creates a problem of " Knowing how the paper should feel. of course some people will immediately respond with " oh you can still tell by the top surface , how the paper feels." To which i answer not 100%. Such alterations create authenticity nightmares. B)The cover is altered and in places looks nothing like the published cover. So my other question is , do you trust your own eyes. The eyes of experts? The wonderful back story? Or do you look at it under a microscope with doubting eyes immediately? I bring all this up because its not always so cut and dry. The cover i am speaking about is the Captain America #100 by Jack Kirby. I have known its backstory for many years. Currently in the hands of a reputable dealer . And yet some collectors won't touch it while others swear by it. So who is correct. Self proclaimed experts on both sides disagree. Take a look and tell me how someone can be 100% sure if its authentic or not. The point is , unless its beyond obvious something is not authentic , it's not always so simple. And sometimes drastic changes are made to covers or alterations and you cannot judge the actual artwork solely by the printed version. Printed lines may not perfectly match the original art. Difficult questions , require difficult answers. Again i am not making any judgements on this cover either way, just using it as a point of reference.
  4. Also beyond heritage results, not sure if you are including Avengers # 16 from 1965 ... So thats another one as well. If it has not been mentioned.
  5. One of the most underrated indie artists. Jaime (Xaime) Hernandez has done some wonderful artwork during the course of his career! Great example of a splash page from the 1990's ( heritage archives )... sorry i know it's supposed to be all 80's . Just couldn't help myself.
  6. Another great example Is Jack Kirby and Joe Sinnott FF run. When a collector purchases that teams artwork they are purchasing Joe Sinnotts artistic vision as well . Joe loves Hal Foster, Norman Rockwell and other phenomenal illustrators of his day .His vision of the finished artwork on the Fantastic Four always reflected his admiration for these particular type of illustrators. You can see the influence poking through with every line, with every shadow, its truly majestic. So his inks were in my humble opinion , not just "inks". But almost "finishes" . Joe would alter head shots and redraw certain elements within the page so that it started to become a symbiotic relationship between Jack and himself. It's this kind of wonderful collaborative effort. That creates the printed " finalized version " of a totally unique visual world. These cases are very Rare indeed! I can also put John Buscema and Tom Palmer on that list of artistic symbiotic relationships. Tom Palmer is a wonderful artist in his own right , a classically trained painter. And therefore he too added an incredible amount of himself into the finished "printed" page . And in my my humble opinion Scott Williams is on that list for me as well. I can see elements of Alex Raymond Rip Kirby art in his inks. It tells me that Scott is a true student of the art form. He collects it , he loves it, he studies it. He produces it! So not every 'inker" is an "ELITE INKER". And the elite inkers add a certain polish , "a touch of class" to everything that they do. Thats why i think the title of "inker" itself should be taken with a grain of salt . On an individual by individual basis.
  7. Mike is totally 100% correct. According to Rumors it was never an actual cover. All individual character drawings. That were pieced together at a later date in time. If anyone is interested in more info on this Cap 100 cover here is another thread. ( page 2 of the thread)
  8. Thats comicinkking quote, not mine. Just wanted to give credit where credit is due. In most cases i would take the pencils myself.
  9. Very interesting topic - I was just thinking about this the other day. I am surprised at the number of people who said they'd pick pencils. I would take inks - that's what gets published, and that is what I like so much about the hobby - owning the original art used to print the comic. Technically, the pencils get destroyed anyway when an inker inks over them. Typically, original comic art is an ink based medium. If I could have both, I would take them. But if I had to choose, inks all the way. Regards, Tony www.comicinkking.com Edited 23 hours ago by comicinkking.com signature So supposedly there was a stat made of the original Jack kirby inked by Syd Shores Captian America #100 cover.( the original inked version is seen above in the thread). On top of that actual stat changes were made both in ink and in white out . Changes are made to almost every figure . And Captain Americas headshot ( supposedly an original drawing ) was pasted (over the Syd Shores inked version ) and onto that stat as well. So if this is correct. And there are actual inks/ white out applied to the stat. Than essentially its a re inking job , with a new fully redrawn /attached/pasted on headshot of captain america . Now i have also heard a different explanation. That a stat was made and a newly redrawn/re inked version of Captain America was placed right over the original inked version. In that case it gets even more complicated . Since the focal point is Cap, does that version become the original art. Especially if the "Captain America figure" pasted onto the stat is an actual fully inked drawing? Another point of complexity is that when viewing the original Jack Kirby Syd Shores inked cover ( not printed version) notice that everything has been cut out and reassembled onto one page. Why i mention this is to illustrate , that this unused version was made to resemble the published version. And may not have looked like this at the time of creation. So if it was never reassembled onto one page it may not have looked anything like the printed version at all. Difference in both layout and art. So which would you rather have . The Original fully redrawn Captain America version pasted onto the stat. Or the pretty inked unused version? Which one is the closest representation of the so called original? It's one thing if Caps face was the only part of the art that was changed.. But when the entire image has so many significant changes applied to it. Than the question should really be.... When should "original Cover art " no longer be referred to as the "Original" since it does not represent the published version. And maybe it starts being called something else entirely. Like the first version, the first draft, whatever title may suit it best.
  10. Yes there are considerable changes when you compare to the final printed cover . Does it take away from the value? Does it make collectors shy away from it? All valid questions. I guess the final answer is to each his own.
  11. So in that case if hypothetically the "finished" published stat version of the Captain America #100 cover emerged for sale would you consider that the inked piece. If the actual corrections were done on the stat ( re inked figures ) or redrawn Captain america figure on the stat. How would you feel about the original unpublished/ altered /art versus the published cover? here is a linked provided below by Twanj --- ( thank you again)... For a comparison of the art versus the published cover. just scroll sideways to adjust between images. https://cdn.knightlab.com/libs/juxtapose/latest/embed/index.html?uid=69740292-2fba-11e8-b263-0edaf8f81e27
  12. thank you very much! much appreciated this is being used in the "Original pencils versus blue line inks thread" link below https://www.cgccomics.com/boards/topic/79330-original-pencilsinks-vs-pencils-and-seperate-blueline-inks/?page=2
  13. Any chance you know how to make a comparison version of the Captain America #100 cover? or where to find one? It would be helpful as reference for another current thread. thank you
  14. One more and even greater complicated exception is the cover to Captain America #100. ( just as an example) There are considerable changes on the cover so that it no longer resembles the iconic printed version of Cap 100. The headshot of Captain America was redrawn and the Captain America Figure totally re inked . In fact the Captain America figure may have been totally re drawn all together . And reassembled on a stat , etc. Also multiple inking changes all over on other figures around Cap. So the dilemma here is a great one. It no longer looks like the printed version. So now its up to the individual buyer to decide if it's worth purchasing since its not the printed version. At what point is too much alteration considered "really too much" that it begins to affect the value of the original art in some manner. Also i am not debating whether the original or the published version is better. Thats all up to each individual collector to decide for themselves. Nor am i debating the authenticity of the un unaltered/ parts unpublished version of the Captain America #100 cover. My point is simply what is more important to a future potential buyer ? And this is why i also don't buy vellum inked covers unless its inked by the original penciler/ artist, and even than it's still a tough choice to make.