MarvelComicsArt

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!!!!

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?

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.

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.

Very much deserved indeed ! A major congratulations!

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.

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.

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)

Thats comicinkking quote, not mine. Just wanted to give credit where credit is due. In most cases i would take the pencils myself.

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.

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.

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

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

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

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.

Pencils are always King. Are you paying for the artistry and craftsmanship of the artist or the embellishment of the inker. No disrespect to inkers ( a few are incredible artists in their own right ). Tom Palmer and Joe Sinnott come to mind immediately! But purchasing inks over pencils means, you actually value the guy who primarily went over the pencilled drawing with ink more than the person who created the intricate image itself. And that is totally absurd. I understand from a future flipping/selling point of view, explaining to a potential buyer how this is the actual reproduced page "in ink" may be easier to comprehend than "here are the original un inked pencils." But the original art -versus original published version , in my book pencils are and always will be the original art. Now , there are always complicated exceptions. If you have an artist who sometimes also takes inking inking assignments on the side( or better yet gets finishing credits ) thats something else entirely. For instance Kevin Nowlan, Al Williamson, Bill Sienkewicz. (to my knowledge Williamson never did inks over blue line so its just for example purposes only ) These individuals add more to the art than your usual inker would in terms of artistic choices. Therefore the inks over blue line would also be considered original art, along with the un inked pencils. At that point you have to decided (a) what looks better to you, which artistic vision (the pencilers or inkers?). And (b) if you ever decide to sell , will it be easier to sell the "inked" artistic version that actually resembles the published version of the Comic. Or is the original penciled un published/ unseen version still the 'real' ART!

Mike out of curiosity since you are very well informed have you ever heard anything about the cover to Amazing Fantasy #15? Thank you Kindly Sir

Not sure about the ASM # 1 annual. Never heard anything about that. But who Knows I also wanted to ask since some of you here may also be well informed, has anyone ever heard anything about the Amazing Fantasy #15 cover ? just curious

All i can say is this. Ed Summer had the magical ability with the help of his magical rolodex to get the most amazing artwork you could possibly think of. He knew every artist personally. I will share a tidbit. Jack Abel one day pops into the comic book store. He was renting studio space at Continuity studios ( YES , Neal Adams Continuity Studios) . He was a very nice gentleman and a huge baseball fan. Ask him about The M&M boys , he could recite every stat and detail about the magical summer of 61. The biggest Yankee fan EVER! And probably tied for being the biggest Baseball fan alongside with Joe Sinnott . Why i bring this up was that he came over to the store because, he was headed a few avenues up towards Central Park to play organized league softball . So he just casually drops off some Trimpe hulk pages, some " Gary Michaels" Colan Ironman pages and probably 100 or more Swan Superman pages . During the drop off Jack is furious because he mentions seeing a poster for an upcoming exhibition. A Roy Lichtenstein exhibition at the Whitney Museum . Boy oh boy was he pissed off .This was always a major sore spot for Jack . Roy swiped individual panels of Jacks art , blew them up and sold them like hot cakes. Jack was so livid he could hardly contain himself. Nothing made his blood boil more than the mere mention of Roy Lichtenson. That "son of a B**ch thief" was the exact quote. ( Which he used for many years ) I know, I know you are all asking yourselves what does this have to do with anything. Well, PATIENCE is a great virtue FOLKS! As he exits he says oh don't worry i didn't forget Ed i spoke with Steve about the cover. Oh and as i mentioned earlier in this post . Everyone, and i do mean everyone dropped by Continuity Studios at that particular time, including SD to see his friend "GARY MICHAELS"! I appreciate all the pm's but i will have to politely decline to not comment on any further info. Someone asked me to please not say anymore on the subject. So i will respect that persons feelings since i understand some topics are better kept private ( this was not about the asm # 1, but other art that ED sold)....

Bronty out of curiosity do you own the Gil Elvgren painting that you use for your avatar , the french bulldog painting?

This art was done in the early 1990's when Rich Buckler formed Visage Studios . It looks like something done for Malibu Comics. The art is a reminder of the times when the Image comics " look "reigned supreme and Rich started to experiment with that type of style. Some back ground panels and minor inks were done by members of the Studio as was common practice at that time. Rich always laid out all of the work. Enjoy the art!

Just a fun fact that has nothing to do with the mathematical equation.... ( yes a totally useless fact but a fun one) The DC/Marvel artist Rich Buckler was the first person to take a chance on Jim Lee when he hired him to do Samurai Santa , published by Solson publications based out of Brooklyn New York. This was when Rich became 1/3 partner of the corporation Solson Publications during the mid 1980's. And Rich always had a knack for finding young talent . George Perez was one of Rich's assistants in the 70's. And so was Denys Cowan ( who later returned the favor when he was publishing Milestone under DC comics . He brought Rich Buckler in to do pencils on Hardware ( Milestones african american version of Tony Stark/Iron Man) - Another useless note Milestone characters are all making a comeback sometime this year. Rich also published his own how to draw manual during the same time in the mid 1980's under Solson ( this was at the time when he was drawing a few issues of spiderman). After being blacklisted from Marvel due to an incident with Al Milgrom ( i won't go into it) , he was hired by Neal Adams ( the godfather to his son ) at Continuity Studios doing primarily advertising work. Until returning back to comics duty on Mr.T and the T FORCE ( replacing Norm Breyfogle at now comics ). As well as the run on Hardware in the early 1990's ( sorry had to get all that out--- old age memories- ahhh head feels much better now. lighter)

ABSOLUTELY STUNNING JACK KIRBY ART!!! The biggest congratulations possible, my hat is off to you Sir! I can look at this for hours. Just Breath taking ! Seeing this has put a huge smile on my face... a legendary era in which superheroes were ... Super Heroic! And larger than life.

The Amazing Spiderman has always been a soap opera played out on newsprint, so in my eyes there was no one better to add to this type of story telling than John Romta ! Great point Bronty! John Romita is an amazing artist , working on an amazing title... you see what i did there! wink AMAZING SPIDERMAN = ROMANCE COMIC WITH GREAT CHOREOGRAPHED ACTION SEQUENCES ! Isn't that what most silver age comics were ? Soap operas of their respective time.

And i love ya back! Bronty But come on , seriously, one day soon i will make you see the light on the glory that is John Romita ! And all of his majestic good girl art glory!