Question for Jeff Jones Aficionados 0

[jjonahjameson11]

HI, folks:

The current Heritage Signature auction has an interesting Jeff Jones piece published as Bill Thailing's Catalog #212 Back Cover Original Art, published in 1970.

However, looking at Jeff's signature, and given its style, I would say the piece was done earlier, perhaps as early as 1967?  Can anyone confirm the year his signature changed over to a cartouche ('J' in a box) vs full name?

And I'm also wondering if this piece may have been published earlier, prior to 1970?

Any help would be greatly appreciated.

Here's a link to the auction, and a pic of the OA:

https://comics.ha.com/itm/original-comic-art/jeff-jones-bill-thailing-s-catalog-212-back-cover-original-art-bill-thailing-1970-/a/7187-93133.s?ic4=GalleryView-Thumbnail-071515

 

 

 

[Bronty]

it does look a little earlier to me too, but I'm no expert.

Heritage's archives do show pieces as late as 1970 signed "jeff jones" or "j jones"

like this one, bottom right

https://comics.ha.com/itm/original-comic-art/jeff-jones-all-stars-2-complete-7-page-story-the-return-of-the-fiend-original-art-san-francisco-comic-book-co-1970-/a/821-44276.s?ic4=GalleryView-Thumbnail-071515

Edited April 19, 2018 by Bronty

[Bronty]

By 1971 the cartouche appears to be in place (left)

https://comics.ha.com/itm/original-comic-art/jeff-jones-sea-siege-paperback-book-cover-painting-original-art-ace-books-1971-after-breaking-into-the-comics-field-2-items-/a/818-4219.s?ic4=ListView-Thumbnail-071515

Edited April 19, 2018 by Bronty

[vodou]

Jones early professional work often didn't see publication until years later. He was creating supply faster than demand was growing. Not long after the ratio flip-flopped. I'm thinking he would get requests for art and send whatever was lying around as by 1970 he was already very busy doing pb covers. That's the same workload that eventually pushed him out of illustration and into working for himself, fine art style. None of this is particularly true of THIS piece in HA, but more background to how earlier signatures could end up with later publication dates. Jones, his art, working methods don't fit the usual comic/illustration mold we're all used to.

[delekkerste]

Regardless of the publication date, I'd lean towards this piece being created prior to 1970 based on the signature. style, and lack of maturity/quality in the work.  I mean, this piece is pretty bad - the foreshortening of both arms, especially her right arm, is downright awful.  It just looks wrong six ways to Sunday.  IMO, I don't see Jones going from this to creating a masterpiece like Wonder Woman #199 in ~2 years.  I'm not a Jones expert, but, I wouldn't be surprised if this was created circa 1967 vs. 1970.  If it really was created circa 1970, Jones must have been having a really, really, really bad day at the studio.    

Edited April 20, 2018 by delekkerste

[hippiecop]

The copy of the catalog I have indicates the catalog was printed in July of 1970.  An acknowledgement inside, gives thanks to a local collector for loan of the artwork.  The piece dates back to some point pre-1970 at a minimum.

[jjonahjameson11]

15 hours ago, Bronty said:

By 1971 the cartouche appears to be in place (left)

https://comics.ha.com/itm/original-comic-art/jeff-jones-sea-siege-paperback-book-cover-painting-original-art-ace-books-1971-after-breaking-into-the-comics-field-2-items-/a/818-4219.s?ic4=ListView-Thumbnail-071515

Thanks!  Appreciate your response and the links are helpful or at the very least show that Jeff had several signature ‘styles’ published through ‘71, even though some of the work was completed several years prior to their respective published dates.

[jjonahjameson11]

14 hours ago, delekkerste said:

Regardless of the publication date, I'd lean towards this piece being created prior to 1970 based on the signature. style, and lack of maturity/quality in the work.  I mean, this piece is pretty bad - the foreshortening of both arms, especially her right arm, is downright awful.  It just looks wrong six ways to Sunday.  IMO, I don't see Jones going from this to creating a masterpiece like Wonder Woman #199 in ~2 years.  I'm not a Jones expert, but, I wouldn't be surprised if this was created circa 1967 vs. 1970.  If it really was created circa 1970, Jones must have been having a really, really, really bad day at the studio.    

See this is so funny because all of the faults you’ve pointed out are just some of the things that Kirby collectors don’t take issue with, but  personally, I hadn’t paid much attention to the shortcomings you’ve cited.  I find a certain appeal about this piece, and yes, it is a far cry from Wonder Woman 199, but what isn’t?

Edited April 20, 2018 by jjonahjameson11

[delekkerste]

16 minutes ago, jjonahjameson11 said:

See this is so funny because all of the faults you’ve pointed out are just some of the things that Kirby collectors don’t take issue with, but  personally, I hadn’t paid much attention to the shortcomings you’ve cited.  I find a certain appeal about this piece, and yes, it is a far cry from Wonder Woman 199, but what isn’t?

Kirby could make anatomically incorrect look good...this piece is just bad, though.  Jones got a lot better! 

 

[Bronty]

24 minutes ago, jjonahjameson11 said:

See this is so funny because all of the faults you’ve pointed out are just some of the things that Kirby collectors don’t take issue with, but  personally, I hadn’t paid much attention to the shortcomings you’ve cited.  I find a certain appeal about this piece, and yes, it is a far cry from Wonder Woman 199, but what isn’t?

More than anything it’s not signature Jones.    It’s tight stylistically where a Jones should be relaxed and confident.    Certain “flaws” can be overlooked if it’s part of a signature style like Kirby, but this looks more like Jones before Jones discovered what a Jones piece should look like

[vodou]

1 hour ago, Bronty said:

More than anything it’s not signature Jones.    It’s tight stylistically where a Jones should be relaxed and confident.    Certain “flaws” can be overlooked if it’s part of a signature style like Kirby, but this looks more like Jones before Jones discovered what a Jones piece should look like

Correct. It's signature subject matter but not quite execution. But you sure can see where it could all go one day too. Interesting piece for that, though the arms...ugh, I could not own this. But look at what Jones clearly is not struggling with: the hips/thighs, the waistlet, the jug. The stones...not great but I'm wondering if that's actually early Wrightson 'help' there?

[mxs7]

I would guess this was done for a fanzine pre-pro Jones, but even if it was published in one, good luck finding it. It is also a swipe of this Frazetta image.

Mike

[artcollector9]

Hi all

it's 1967 or so, full almost crude signature. 

It was published later as mentioned by others... 

Here is another 1967 piece for comparison. 

 

 

Edited April 20, 2018 by artcollector9
typo

[jjonahjameson11]

On 2018-04-20 at 12:28 PM, vodou said:

Correct. It's signature subject matter but not quite execution. But you sure can see where it could all go one day too. Interesting piece for that, though the arms...ugh, I could not own this. But look at what Jones clearly is not struggling with: the hips/thighs, the waistlet, the jug. The stones...not great but I'm wondering if that's actually early Wrightson 'help' there?

Exactly!  The parts that were executed correctly have a certain appeal and you get a good sense of the artist finding his style. And of course, you’re right about the arms!