Miller/Janson DD? 3 3

[jbud73]

well I think that eludes to the fact that Janson had a lot more to do with this piece than Miller. Before anyone thinks that this is a CL thing, I believe that there is a similar thread regarding the X-Factor 1 cover currently up for auction at Heritage.

 

I will throw out a question that I think is valid. If Miller never actually touched the piece but did the conceptual layouts, what should the description read to be fair to both the consignor and the eventually buyer?

 

I admit that while the CL edits are closer to reality I do think they are definitely not erring on the side of caution here. Put another way, if I bought this piece for 10K reading the description (which leaves the door open for Miller to have done conceptual layouts on the artwork) and then read this thread. I'd be

 

While CL is a business, is that an argument that can be used to enable them to misrepresent a piece they have for auction? I'm not sure I agree with that logic.

 

So the ultimate question is, if an artist did layouts or conceptual breakdowns on a separate board, can they be attributed to the finished art when that art is created entirely by another artist?

[delekkerste]

Since "conceptual layouts" can be done on the actual board or, as in the Miller/Janson collaboration, on separate sheets of paper (meaning that Miller never put pencil to the actual piece of art that is being purchased), I have to agree with Ferran that I think this should be explicitly stated. Frankly, I bet most people who have been bidding on #185-#190 interiors already know this to be true and/or wouldn't care anyway if that extra bit of clarification was added. So, I think erring on the side of more disclosure would be preferable to less.

[drdroom]

I'm not sure what the exact wording ought to be, but you can't just call it a Janson page. Miller fully composed it.

 

With respect to auction houses misleading buyers, I've seen enough mistakes in the other direction to think that these are just businesses handling product, with employees of various levels of expertise doing their best and not probably caring quite as much as some of us.

[VintageComics]

If you have any intention of purchasing a page like this, you do need to know the difference. Because the other bidders know and care about the difference.

 

 

I didn't think it was too difficult to see which pages Miller touched and which he didn't. To me there was a distinct difference to Miller's pencils - at least I always thought there was.

 

I was always under the assumption that Janson pencilled 185-190 even as a young teenager. I can also see 179 and 180 although I'd have to look at 172/3 - 181 again to refresh my memory. I am almost positive that Miller pencilled 181, just by the look and feel the panels.

 

 

[Shemp]

I'm not sure what the exact wording ought to be, but you can't just call it a Janson page.

 

I would.

 

Janson pencil and inks. Based on Miller's layout done on a separate 8 x 10 paper (not available).

 

Simple and clear, I think, but we all know that's never going to happen. Too much money to be lost.

Edited May 10, 2013 by Shemp

[blowout]

After reviewing the information presented within this thread, and provided to me by Glen Gold privately (thanks Glen), the description has been modified further, to adjust sentence, which now reads as follows:

 

"This issue is without question one of the most memorable Daredevil collaborations, with Frank Miller's conception of the layout enabling Klaus Jansen to execute the finished pencils and inking on this piece."

 

I think it is sufficiently clear now.

 

-Josh

 

I disagree. A newby could be confused since you don't say clearly that these layouts were drawn in a separate sheet. I think that you're playing with words. My 2ç.

 

Ferran, he's in the business of selling art. I think he's said enough here (no horse in this race, just feel things are getting a little nuts).

 

I think Ferran is entirely correct in what he is saying. Comiclink are, in my view, still attempting to cloud the issue. They have all the relevent information to hand, why not explicitly state it in the description?

[J.Sid]

I'm intrigued by the Klaus claim that they started their thumbnail process with issue 179.

 

The "They started with 185" story has been around since the beginning.

 

Why 30 years later does Klaus suddenly remember things differently? or if he knew right away, why would he wait 30 years to start correcting people?

[CollectingFool]

Why 30 years later does Klaus suddenly remember things differently? or if he knew right away, why would he wait 30 years to start correcting people?

 

Because he has no pages left? Or because by now anyone that bought one from him at "Miller" prices doesn't have it anymore or wouldn't care?

 

Just guessing.

 

 

[Ferran Delgado]

Thanks for the support. It's never easy to disagree with top auction houses or top art dealers in a hobby like this one, when you can get accused of hidden agendas or something worse by pets. It's a pleasure to deal with people that can agree or disagree in a reasonably way.

 

About Janson, he already was wrong when he stated that Miller never worked on Craftint, as seen in this thread:

http://boards.collectors-society.com/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=5118982&fpart=1

 

So I prefer to believe what Janson told in the mag Back Issue #21:

-DD 158-172: Miller full pencils.

-DD 173-184: Layouts by Miller directly on the board.

-DD 185-190: Layouts by Miller in different sheet.

-DD 191: Miller pencils on the board, Terry Austin inks.

Exceptions: The Drug issues and fill ins.

All the covers were penciled by Miller directly on the board according Mitch.

[DocR]

ferran, thanks for your work on this issue. As the owner of a #182 page it has always appeared to me that Miller pencils "touched the page" and it also always has been presented that way by both the big guys and collectors. there is a distinct difference in the art on 185 and later (don't get me wrong, still great) and Janson's recent comments do really ring of sour grapes but I certainly do not claim to know the inside story.

 

thanks again, and I agree, if a description can be clearer at auction it should be.

 

http://www.comicartfans.com/GalleryDetail.asp?GCat=51600

[Ferran Delgado]

Russo, glad to help, although the merit should go to Mitch, who was Klaus' art dealer and held the art in his hands and he gave key info.

 

About the subject, I found a related comment in an interview to Miller published in the defunct mag Comics Feature #25, dated 1983 (first column at the bottom). Although the credits cites no particular month, I can deduce that the mag is dated Set-Oct.

 

The only clue is "a point in last year". This means 1982.

 

DD #185 has cover date of Aug, 1982, so this means that it hit the newstands circa June, and it was finished by the authors circa Apr-May, so this would fit the statement.

 

But DD # 179 wouldn't, since it has cover date of Feb, 1982, which means that it was distributed at the end of 1981 and finished circa Oct-Nov of 1981.

 

Anyway, credits of the comics are quite clear and the letter section posted at the beginning of this thread from DD #188 confirm that the change happened in #185. I think that you can be easy about your fantastic page of DD #182 (congrats, btw!)

 

[DocR]

Great update and thanks to mitch also. your in depth research is great stuff and you could probably have a future as a private investigator. thanks again!

[bocaratondefense]

A lot would depend on when the Frank Miller interview for Comic Feature #25 actually occurred. I imagine Miller was interviewed at least a few months before publication.

 

[Ferran Delgado]

The only clue I found in the interview is that Denny O'Neil was writing the DD title (see the scan), so this means DD #194 (May, 1983) onward. This leads to think that the interview still occurred in 1983, and he was still referring to 1982 when happened the switch to layouts in a different sheet. Miller says "a point in last year" and not "a year ago".

 

At the time of the interview, Miller had Ronin #1 totally finished and he was inking #2. Ronin #1 had July 1983 as cover date, so it was distributed a couple of months ago. This means that the interview probably happened circa spring 1983.

[Tokay]

In case anyone is interested, I wound up winning the 190 splash on Clink. Got it today and absolutely love it.

 

DD 190 Splash

[mtlevy]

Left a comment on your CAF, congrats!

[Silver Surfer]

Awesome page, a classic splash.

[Ferran Delgado]

I think that this is the final proof that Miller started to do thumbs in a separate sheet in #185.

 

Published in The Comics Journal #72 (May, 1982).

 

Then, with #185, [Miller] will begin to give Janson thumbnails sketches to work from;

 

[Dr. Balls]

Bumping this conversation since there's a DD 181 page on CLink - seems a bit high to me, but I'll defer to the experts on that commentary.

[RockMyAmadeus]

I suppose it's already been brought up, but if you just compare the linework of #185-190, to #184, #183, #180, there is a clear difference. The previous issues still show a classic Miller line (though he was even this early starting to develop the more delicate pencils that would be seen in Ronin), and it's clear from #185-190 that the work is all Klaus. So, even if Miller was only doing basic layouts from #179 on, he was either doing a little bit more linework than just outlines, or Klaus was doing a very good job of mimicking Miller by this point (and probably a mix of the two.)

 

PS. As an added bit of trivia, the "next issue" blurb at the end of #166 says the Punisher is slated for the next issue...which, had it happened, would probably have made #167 a book on par with Cap #241 in value, considering it was an early Miller that had a far lower print run than #182-184.