Opinions on pencil only pages? 1 1

[SquareChaos]

That 60 / 40 pencils / inks split seems backwards to me. The inked piece is the final, (usually) collaborative piece, and typically it is the only piece published. I know there is a sort of... pencils done by lead singer, inks handled by the drummer... sort of mentality a lot of the time that perhaps explain it.

[Madman1138]

Here's the one that really makes the brain hurt. Artists who pencil and ink themselves, but do it as 2 separate pieces. As in they do fully finished tight pencils, then make a blueline copy and ink that. So both are finished, both are done by the same artist, but they are separate. How would the 60/40 split work there? And would you prefer one over the other?

[Flambit]

Since the topic is relevant: I always had a question about Mike Wieringo's pages.  His Marvel work, from what I've seen, was all pencils on one page, and I guess blueline inks on another (but I've never seen a blueline Marvel page for sale).  I was/am a huge fan, and got a couple of pieces back in the day, and the pencils are perfect!  There are no sketch lines, no erase ghost lines, nothing.   So perfect, in fact, that I wonder, did he possibly lay out his art on an even different prelim page and then lightbox the pencils to the artboard for some reason?  

(RIP Mike - he was my favorite "new" artist.  Still miss not having new Mike art on the stands )

[ESeffinga]

10 hours ago, Madman1138 said:

Here's the one that really makes the brain hurt. Artists who pencil and ink themselves, but do it as 2 separate pieces. As in they do fully finished tight pencils, then make a blueline copy and ink that. So both are finished, both are done by the same artist, but they are separate. How would the 60/40 split work there? And would you prefer one over the other?

The artists that work this way that I follow tend to sell the inks and pencils together as a set. I've seen pages from these artists come up for sale in the aftermarket, but alo as a set. I don't know that I've even noticed anyone selling the pencils and inks separately as of yet. It's bound to happen eventually, but I'm not aware of any good examples of this selling of pencils and inks separately scenario in the real world.

Anybody have some specific examples of that?

The closest thing I can think of off the top of my head is Darrow, but then it's not blueline, it's ink on velum. And there are dozens if not hundreds of the pinup type "inks" out there in all kinds of variations applied to them. For his published art, I've even see bits of that make it into his pinup type convention work for sale. I've no idea what the split in Darrow's published pencils and published inks works out to. I can't think of ever seeing the inks and pencils to the same cover turn up before.  I've seen published covers sell in the 1500-4000 range. Some of those listings were pencils. Some of those listings were ink. His cover size velum drawings he sells at conventions are more like $100-400 roundabout. But I think he's a bit of an anomaly anyway.

Edited June 23, 2017 by ESeffinga

[Kwan Chang]

Madman1138 said........................

Here's the one that really makes the brain hurt. Artists who pencil and ink themselves, but do it as 2 separate pieces. As in they do fully finished tight pencils, then make a blueline copy and ink that. So both are finished, both are done by the same artist, but they are separate. How would the 60/40 split work there? And would you prefer one over the other?

`````````~~~~~~if i am reading this correctly.........if the SAME artist did the pencils and inks (on seperate boards) who would he do the split with ?  himself ? 

do you have any specific examples ?  i am not aware of any artist who does this...................

i think artists who ink themselves would NOT need to do tight pencils BECAUSE they are inking themselves..

 

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

FLAMBIT said...............

Since the topic is relevant: I always had a question about Mike Wieringo's pages.  His Marvel work, from what I've seen, was all pencils on one page, and I guess blueline inks on another (but I've never seen a blueline Marvel page for sale). 

~~~~~~~check with karl.  he had a lot of the pages from their FF run.  panel pages do pop up once in a while.....but check with karl....he had a bunch last time i checked........... the donallys have some of the covers that were inked by karl (no 'Ringo pencils under the inks tho)

 

I was/am a huge fan, and got a couple of pieces back in the day, and the pencils are perfect!  There are no sketch lines, no erase ghost lines, nothing.   So perfect, in fact, that I wonder, did he possibly lay out his art on an even different prelim page and then lightbox the pencils to the artboard for some reason?  

---------------from what i remember........he did a commission for me a while ago and he sent the commission with a 8.5" x 1`1" prelim which was the exact same image.  so i would imaging he did his pages like this too....as you are right....the originals that i have are WAY too clean

 

[UnboxingTreasures]

I have no issues with pencils only on this piece :-)

[Madman1138]

7 hours ago, Kwan Chang said:

Madman1138 said........................

Here's the one that really makes the brain hurt. Artists who pencil and ink themselves, but do it as 2 separate pieces. As in they do fully finished tight pencils, then make a blueline copy and ink that. So both are finished, both are done by the same artist, but they are separate. How would the 60/40 split work there? And would you prefer one over the other?

`````````~~~~~~if i am reading this correctly.........if the SAME artist did the pencils and inks (on seperate boards) who would he do the split with ?  himself ? 

do you have any specific examples ?  i am not aware of any artist who does this...................

i think artists who ink themselves would NOT need to do tight pencils BECAUSE they are inking themselves..

I have seen this only in a few cases, and should clarify. The 60/40 was not the split with the penciler & inker but the discussed "value" of pencils to inks over bluelines. 60% "value" for pencils only and 40% "value" for the inks over bluelines, or some such. I was just referencing that from earlier in this chain. 

As for the artist doing full tight pencils, then making a blueline copy to ink separately, I have only really seen it with some newer artists. I agree that most would loosely pencil when inking themselves but I have seen it both ways. I can't think of other artist examples off hand except for these covers by Steven Russell Black, but I know I have seen the same practice somewhere else before, I just didn't buy it. But with the Black covers, one month I won the blueline inks to 2 covers on eBay, aka the published covers. Then the next month he listed the original pencils to both covers to eBay and I won both of those as well. So they were all sold separately, but I did manage to win all 4. I sold one set and kept another, shown below side by side. Maybe it is so the artist can make more money off the published art? Maybe it's in case they mess up on the inks and want to have that freedom? I don't have the answers for that but that is one example I have at least.

[Twanj]

8 minutes ago, Madman1138 said:

I have seen this only in a few cases, and should clarify. The 60/40 was not the split with the penciler & inker but the discussed "value" of pencils to inks over bluelines. 60% "value" for pencils only and 40% "value" for the inks over bluelines, or some such. I was just referencing that from earlier in this chain. 

As for the artist doing full tight pencils, then making a blueline copy to ink separately, I have only really seen it with some newer artists. I agree that most would loosely pencil when inking themselves but I have seen it both ways. I can't think of other artist examples off hand except for these covers by Steven Russell Black, but I know I have seen the same practice somewhere else before, I just didn't buy it. But with the Black covers, one month I won the blueline inks to 2 covers on eBay, aka the published covers. Then the next month he listed the original pencils to both covers to eBay and I won both of those as well. So they were all sold separately, but I did manage to win all 4. I sold one set and kept another, shown below side by side. Maybe it is so the artist can make more money off the published art? Maybe it's in case they mess up on the inks and want to have that freedom? I don't have the answers for that but that is one example I have at least.

Out of curiousity, which sold for more?

Which do you like more? ?

No need for exact numbers unless you want to give them

[Madman1138]

1 hour ago, Twanj said:

Out of curiousity, which sold for more?

Which do you like more? ?

No need for exact numbers unless you want to give them

I prefer the inks myself. I always prefer inked art, but will sometimes get pencil-only pieces if they look finished and these did. I knew they were inks over blueline copies, but the image was cool and the price was very reasonable. It was a month later when he offered the pencils on eBay, and I wanted them to have the pair. Both were cheap, but I think the inks sold for about 25% more. 

[Kwan Chang]

14 hours ago, Madman1138 said:

I have seen this only in a few cases, and should clarify. The 60/40 was not the split with the penciler & inker but the discussed "value" of pencils to inks over bluelines. 60% "value" for pencils only and 40% "value" for the inks over bluelines, or some such. I was just referencing that from earlier in this chain. 

As for the artist doing full tight pencils, then making a blueline copy to ink separately, I have only really seen it with some newer artists. I agree that most would loosely pencil when inking themselves but I have seen it both ways. I can't think of other artist examples off hand except for these covers by Steven Russell Black, but I know I have seen the same practice somewhere else before, I just didn't buy it. But with the Black covers, one month I won the blueline inks to 2 covers on eBay, aka the published covers. Then the next month he listed the original pencils to both covers to eBay and I won both of those as well. So they were all sold separately, but I did manage to win all 4. I sold one set and kept another, shown below side by side. Maybe it is so the artist can make more money off the published art? Maybe it's in case they mess up on the inks and want to have that freedom? I don't have the answers for that but that is one example I have at least.

 

 

hey again. i just figured out how to quote

yes.  even today inkers don't get the respect as pencilers.  so i would say 60/40 value is pretty good.

 

 

you also state that you bought the inks first.  it would suck if the artist was not up front with this and listed the pencils on ebay shortly there after.  but you did say you were aware of that fact. i would be a little bothered if an artist listed an inked piece in which i won and didnt offer me the pencils...................

the piece(s) you show here are really nice. but i dont know why an artist would do this unless it was to sell it separately as it saves ZERO time to ink......................as i think most people use the blueline method to save time.

 

[Colecor]

John McCrea did separate pencils and inks when he inked himself on Hitman and Demon.  Has never really bothered me (particularly as I have always been able to obtain both originals for each page).   I do not understand why some collectors have broken up some of the sets over the years.  Seems to me they were meant to stay together.  

[Mighty Hal]

On 6/22/2017 at 3:55 PM, SquareChaos said:

That 60 / 40 pencils / inks split seems backwards to me. The inked piece is the final, (usually) collaborative piece, and typically it is the only piece published. I know there is a sort of... pencils done by lead singer, inks handled by the drummer... sort of mentality a lot of the time that perhaps explain it.

The 60/40 pencils/inks split is unbalanced to me, too. I'd go 70/30 in favor of the pencils -- or 80/20. In most cases, it's the artist holding the pencil who has provided the greater creative impact for the particular page. IMO, of course.

I view it this way: If Jack Kirby penciled a page on one board and Vince Colletta lightboxed the page and provided the inks for the actual published page on another board...and both boards go up for sale... well, who gets your money? 

[SquareChaos]

15 minutes ago, Hal Turner said:

The 60/40 pencils/inks split is unbalanced to me, too. I'd go 70/30 in favor of the pencils -- or 80/20. In most cases, it's the artist holding the pencil who has provided the greater creative impact for the particular page. IMO, of course.

I view it this way: If Jack Kirby penciled a page on one board and Vince Colletta lightboxed the page and provided the inks for the actual published page on another board...and both boards go up for sale... well, who gets your money? 

You are entirely correct from the perspective of how you've framed it. But from the perspective of which piece was the final published piece, that is the inked piece, and it seems like a lot of these discussions tend to ignore that. But your point stands, I think my opinion on this is likely to evolve a great deal along with the circumstances.

[Panelfan1]

My problem with pages that are split (pencils/ ink) is that its no longer 1 of a kind.

For me, original art (vs. Prints or art books) is all about owning the one original.  If there is more than one it is less desireable for me.  While I do own some pencil only pieces  - I often wish they were inked.  

[Mighty Hal]

8 hours ago, Panelfan1 said:

My problem with pages that are split (pencils/ ink) is that its no longer 1 of a kind.

For me, original art (vs. Prints or art books) is all about owning the one original.  If there is more than one it is less desireable for me.  While I do own some pencil only pieces  - I often wish they were inked.  

I'm not fond of the "split", either. It's interesting to look at, though, and see what each artist brought to the table. On the other hand, a rushed or untalented inker might remove some of the art's beauty (just as a talented inker might improve a rushed original).

I own a piece that was published from it's pencils. For an additional fee, the artist offered to ink it for me. If inked, though, it wouldn't have been the cover as published, so I declined. Inked, it might have sold for more in the future but I think most collectors would have made the same call.

[Panelfan1]

45 minutes ago, Hal Turner said:

I'm not fond of the "split", either. It's interesting to look at, though, and see what each artist brought to the table. On the other hand, a rushed or untalented inker might remove some of the art's beauty (just as a talented inker might improve a rushed original).

I own a piece that was published from it's pencils. For an additional fee, the artist offered to ink it for me. If inked, though, it wouldn't have been the cover as published, so I declined. Inked, it might have sold for more in the future but I think most collectors would have made the same call.

I am struggling with the same thing. But in my case its not clear if its the pencils or a prelim.  The final cover was painted - by another artist - so I am not sure how to classify it.  My intention is to ask Mike Zeck next time I see him at a con. If its not the final pencils - I was thinking to have it inked. If it is, well then no chance I will alter the art.

 

See what I am talking about here.

[comicfanboy007]

Thank you so much for having this discussion. This is my first post on the CGC Boards.  Hi Everybody.

Despite collecting OA for years I am still a rookie when it comes to collecting. One thing that has been confusing to me is the distinction between Original Art inks and pencils. Of course I would prefer to own inks over pencil but that is becoming harder and harder particularly with more and more artists drawing digitally. I have a Superman page by Ivan Reis and Joe Prado, I bought off of Prado at C2E2. He told me Ivan is drawing digitally now but he (Prado) is inking the blueline print out. In this case would the inks be the original art since it's published and there are no physical pencils. Sorry if these are already figured out I am still learning my way around the hobby.

[Hekla]

If there are no other versions 'touched by the artists' hands' then you own the only original as well as the published version.

Similarly, I own a few pencil-only pages that were inked digitally (so I was told) and feel comfortable in knowing that I own the only original art for that page or cover.

[pinupcartooncollector]

The problem with pencil pages today is that many look incomplete, meaning they're waiting for more than just inking.  Josh Middleton pages, for example, are really just outlines, and it feels like 2/3 of the work is done digitally.

[PhilipB2k17]

I have an interesting twist on this subject. I have two pieces from an artist who ink washed the final version, but penciled them on the backside in reverse, then light boxed from the pencils. the pencils were not finished, but were more than just breakdowns or roughs. Now, in my portfolio, I display the ink washed final version, but I have an acid free backing board behind it so that I can put another piece of art in that slot opposite the ink washed piece.

Should I get rid of the backing board, and display both sides? 

Edited August 8, 2017 by PhilipB2k17