Baker Romance 43 43

[szav]

10 minutes ago, Sqeggs said:

Interesting.  I just ordered a copy of the book.  Seems like a good one to have even apart from any light it throws on the art credit for this cover. SS 6 seems clearly Baker to me.  I don't think I've ever seen that one questioned.

It doesn't question SS 6... it offers SS 6 and Saint 4 as examples of what is definitely Baker (edited my remark in earlier post to clarify JVJ changed his mind on Saint 4).

Although art of glamour seems to question SS 6 iirc... his attribution says (Baker?). 

This will never be settled until someone developes a computer algorithm that can examine artwork and tell us who drew the damn pictures...

 

Edited October 17, 2017 by szavisca

[rjpb]

It's possible the cover and art to the first story in The Saint #4 is by John Rosenberger, who did other work Avon.  His work at the time is sometimes mistaken for Harry Anderson's. He later did a lot of Romance for DC in the Bronze Age, but by then drew  more in the house style of the time. A borrowed image that shows his talent.

 

 

Edited October 17, 2017 by rjpb

[Sqeggs]

1 hour ago, szavisca said:

It doesn't question SS 6... it offers SS 6 and Saint 4 as examples of what is definitely Baker (edited my remark in earlier post to clarify JVJ changed his mind on Saint 4).

Although art of glamour seems to question SS 6 iirc... his attribution says (Baker?). 

This will never be settled until someone developes a computer algorithm that can examine artwork and tell us who drew the damn pictures...

 

Good point about JV, Jr.'s equivocation over the Baker credit for SS 6.  I never noticed that before.  The OA for that cover exists and I thought perhaps the Baker family owned it (their ownership of OA being another way in a few instances to nail down a Baker attribution), but apparently not.

[rjpb]

Why would SS #6 be in doubt? It looks like a pretty solid example of Baker's work at the time.

[N e r V]

1 hour ago, szavisca said:

It doesn't question SS 6... it offers SS 6 and Saint 4 as examples of what is definitely Baker (edited my remark in earlier post to clarify JVJ changed his mind on Saint 4).

Although art of glamour seems to question SS 6 iirc... his attribution says (Baker?). 

This will never be settled until someone developes a computer algorithm that can examine artwork and tell us who drew the damn pictures...

 

There is no silver bullet in identifying on artist. If you were ever involved in the field of fine art you will find countless art “experts” who try to identify works. Sometimes they can and are correct, sometimes works are credited to the wrong artist for years and others are in debate among the various “experts” from day one. The increased value of certain artists also leads to corruption at times in the field.

 

There are a number of people in comics that try to identify works to artists. We find the same results as I posted above. Comics become even more muddy due to the fact you can have two or more artists working on the same piece/book. It’s why you see even more flip flopping. Artists that worked back then have a varied degree of accuracy with their opinions due to at times what we call poor or in some cases “selective” memories.

 

I still think it best for anyone putting something forward they use the “?” when the facts are missing. Matt Baker is one artist we have less information on a number of things you could call fact.

I base my opinions on looking at Baker stuff for 30 years now and if others beside myself are also thinking along the same lines. That’s not science that’s best guessing.   I also understand that any cover that looks like Baker still might not be a complete Baker work due to the chance of others inking or drawing some of it. I also leave open the door that I’m completely wrong.

 

 

 

Edited October 17, 2017 by N e r V

[rjpb]

Good point about the collaborative nature of comic art, not just a different inker than pencils on a lot of stuff, but sometimes one artist doing backgrounds after another has done foreground figures, or even someone finishing a strip in someone else's style. The burden of identifying interior artwork is even harder, as detail is often lost in the shoddy printing process common to the era. Looking at some of the original art from the era that's been posted on the web, and the actual comics look like they were printed from poorly traced reproductions.

[N e r V]

So earlier I was in no one way trying to be disrespectful in my reply to Squeggs. I don’t like debate on this type of thing due to the nasty nature people can have here. Some people can’t stop beyond “I think...”to the point of “you must agree with me”. I don’t find that healthy debate.

 

Since I posted it though I will explain my “opinion” very simply on why I think Baker had a hand in Saint #4. It’s why I thought it was Baker since I first saw the cover and that’s the female in the drawing. It seems to have his fluid body pose and looks like one of his faces on her. Did he draw it and someone else ink it? Did someone else assist him on the cover? I don’t know but I do see Bakers style which is what I see in other works by him at the time. His style continued to mature as we roll into the 50’s and his famous romance work there but it looks like his other work in this period to me. Also I don’t see anyone around that time that I could consider an option with his style.

 

You also  can’t reason that him doing the cover is out of place. Kamen is credited with #1, Ulmer signed issues #2 and 3 (and it’s sure not his style), #5 is signed by Walter Johnson, #6 is credited to Sieminsky, #9 is signed by Kinstler and so on. There is a complete lack of any “regulars”on covers.

 

So that’s my “opinion” which others may also share. I believe Baker had a hand in it at the very least due to it looking like a “Baker girl”on the cover by him in that time frame and I don’t see any other artist at the time who it would be. I don’t say it’s a 100% Baker though and I don’t leave out the possibility I’m wrong along with the rest who also think so.

Edited October 17, 2017 by N e r V

[szav]

38 minutes ago, N e r V said:

There is no silver bullet in identifying on artist. If you were ever involved in the field of fine art you will find countless art “experts” who try to identify works. Sometimes they can and are correct, sometimes works are credited to the wrong artist for years and others are in debate among the various “experts” from day one. The increased value of certain artists also leads to corruption at times in the field.

 

There are a number of people in comics that try to identify works to artists. We find the same results as I posted above. Comics become even more muddy due to the fact you can have two or more artists working on the same piece/book. It’s why you see even more flip flopping. Artists that worked back then have a varied degree of accuracy with their opinions due to at times what we call poor or in some cases “selective” memories.

 

I still think it best for anyone putting something forward they use the “?” when the facts are missing. Matt Baker is one artist we have less information on a number of things you could call fact.

I base my opinions on looking at Baker stuff for 30 years now and if others beside myself are also thinking along the same lines. That’s not science that’s best guessing.   I also understand that any cover that looks like Baker still might not be a complete Baker work due to the chance of others inking or drawing some of it. I also leave open the door that I’m completely wrong.

 

 

 

I was being sarcastic about the computer program if that wasn't apparent  

For all the reasons previously stated these attribution issues will never be resolved.  

For the record the faces on Saint 4 just don't look like Baker to me... my gut says it's not him... though the figures do look Bakerish... maybe it's a hybrid or the inker changed the faces?  

Its an amazing cover, classic in my eyes, and I don't care who did it.  I love it and will keep hunting for a higher grade copy.

Edited October 17, 2017 by szavisca

[jimjum12]

2 hours ago, Sqeggs said:

 

Wait, are we talking about Saint 2 or Saint 4?  GCD notes that Allen Ulmer signed the cover to Saint 2.  GCD does credit Baker with the cover to Saint 4.  GCD doesn't give a rationale for the attribution (as they sometimes do) but does note that the cover was reprinted in https://www.amazon.com/Thomas-Presents-Classic-Phantom-Lady/dp/1848636245/ref=pd_sim_14_1?_encoding=UTF8&pd_rd_i=1848636245&pd_rd_r=SH7J53AY4S8AJ2NXSQ2C&pd_rd_w=SKX0P&pd_rd_wg=bHhAC&psc=1&refRID=SH7J53AY4S8AJ2NXSQ2C&dpID=51hOKtW6LpL&preST=_SY344_BO1,204,203,200_QL70_&dpSrc=detail.

That book has an intro by JV, Jr. in which (I think!) he argues that the cover is not Baker. 

This is the one I was referring to....GOD BLESS...

-jimbo(a friend of jesus)

Edited October 17, 2017 by jimjum12

[N e r V]

11 minutes ago, szavisca said:

I was being sarcastic about the computer program if that wasn't apparent  

For all the reasons previously stated these attribution issues will never be resolved.  

For the record the faces on Saint 4 just don't look like Baker to me... my gut says it's not him... though the figures do look Bakerish... maybe it's a hybrid or the inker changed the faces?  

Its an amazing cover, classic in my eyes, and I don't care who did it.  I love it and will keep hunting for a higher grade copy.

Yeah I feel the same way about Jo Jo #25. I have doubts to it being a Baker but it’s a hell of a cover. Yes, I assumed you weren’t serious about Skynet being able to identify Baker works.  

[N e r V]

13 minutes ago, jimjum12 said:

This is the one I was referring to....GOD BLESS...

-jimbo(a friend of jesus)

Your sales thread JimJum is what got me my upgrade. Someone took me up on my request for an upgrade. 

[rjpb]

8 minutes ago, N e r V said:

Yeah I feel the same way about Jo Jo #25. I have doubts to it being a Baker but it’s a hell of a cover. Yes, I assumed you weren’t serious about Skynet being able to identify Baker works.  

I don't know that anyone has developed it, but i have little doubt the technology exists that would allow for identifying software that would use known work by an illustrator to evaluate the potential of questionable work.

The cover to JoJo #25 looks more like Baker than the interior art in the series that some would attribute to him.  I'm guessing the Iger Shop artists were told to constantly swipe or mimic the drawing of women  from Kamen and Baker, making attribution tough.

 

[N e r V]

5 minutes ago, rjpb said:

I don't know that anyone has developed it, but i have little doubt the technology exists that would allow for identifying software that would use known work by an illustrator to evaluate the potential of questionable work.

The cover to JoJo #25 looks more like Baker than the interior art in the series that some would attribute to him.  I'm guessing the Iger Shop artists were told to constantly swipe or mimic the drawing of women  from Kamen and Baker, making attribution tough.

 

Well they’ve had software programs for identifying handwriting (which is much easier by far than art would be) but they usually just “aid”the expert which still must make a decision be it right or wrong. 

I can imagine comic art with all it’s possible hands involved plus artists trying to not do their own style but at times copying others styles would be a nightmare to even attempt. Imagine what tracking an artist like Dan Adkins would be like. Yikes!

 

[N e r V]

2 hours ago, rjpb said:

It's possible the cover and art to the first story in The Saint #4 is by John Rosenberger, who did other work Avon.  His work at the time is sometimes mistaken for Harry Anderson's. He later did a lot of Romance for DC in the Bronze Age, but by then drew  more in the house style of the time. A borrowed image that shows his talent.

 

 

I know him. I like his work too. 

The female on the Saint cover looks to slick (to me) for his style. I’ll post a couple pages below that’s credited to him from Avon.

 

 

 

[N e r V]

2 hours ago, Sqeggs said:

Good point about JV, Jr.'s equivocation over the Baker credit for SS 6.  I never noticed that before.  The OA for that cover exists and I thought perhaps the Baker family owned it (their ownership of OA being another way in a few instances to nail down a Baker attribution), but apparently not.

 

I believe Jim Reid still owns it.

[Ricksneatstuff]

I’m not sure if this is Baker or not (think it is), but if it’s not- I like this guy just as well on this particular cover. 

 

[N e r V]

1 hour ago, Ricksneatstuff said:

I’m not sure if this is Baker or not (think it is), but if it’s not- I like this guy just as well on this particular cover. 

 

There's only 2 reasons why you like this cover (well 3 I guess if you count the ropes)

 

[Ricksneatstuff]

6 hours ago, N e r V said:

There's only 2 reasons why you like this cover (well 3 I guess if you count the ropes)

 

Really, this is the wrong thread to post this picture, but it is kind of romantic after alll.  

I like the arch of her back Best I think.  

[N e r V]

I don’t like the new labels listing this as a “bondage cover” and not the old “classic good girl bondage cover”. It is pretty classic.

 

[Sqeggs]

The scarcest of the APCs according to Gerber. He could have been right, although it's tough to tell.  Not an issue, I think, that gets slabbed that often.