Identifying mystery artists 0

[conzo36]

Hi there, I'm doing research on comics connoisseurship, and I'm particularly interested in the identification of work by Golden Age or Platinum Age artists. How are they identified? What features of their work are considered most 'distinctive'? Does anybody have personal experience of IDing artists that they'd like to share? Or know of any good sources that help with the identification of artists? Maybe earlier threads on here? Basically any info on how the work of particular artists is identified would be great. Thanks!

[Electricmastro]

Jerry Bails was perhaps the first person to have consciously made a master list of people involved with comic books, Who’s Who in Comic Fandom (1964), which was said to have had 1,600 names. It’s also a source frequently used on public domain Golden Age comic hosting sites like Comicbookplus:

https://www.google.com/search?q=jerry+bails+who's+who+site:comicbookplus.com&client=safari&hl=en-us&ei=9TVDXuW2EaPI_Qas2r3wBQ&start=0&sa=N&ved=2ahUKEwilhdjw0MrnAhUjZN8KHSxtD144ChDx0wN6BAgLECw&biw=1101&bih=1412&dpr=2

Edited February 11, 2020 by Electricmastro

[adamstrange]

There are a handful of people who have been instrumental in building out the creator credits for American comics.  All are getting up there in age and we have lost some like Hames Ware.  These dedicated souls kept concise notes of the sort that you are interested in.  I have never seen any of those notes made publicly available.

[Scrooge]

4 hours ago, adamstrange said:

I have never seen any of those notes made publicly available

Neither have I though I've always wished I could know how they did it … aside from hours and hours of looking and matching signed work to unsigned work.

We know from interviews that artists themselves were instrumental on tipping collectors off to what distinctive features can be used to differentiate their work from other in the same studio. IIRC, Marc Swayze would know his work from his colleagues from how the ears on the characters were drawn.

At Atlas, Werner Roth's work is distinctive from the shape of the characters' faces (slightly elongated).

In some Dell Westerns, how hats or horses are drawn are helpful tips in distinguishing some artists apart (or so claim some indexers on the GCD).

[Cat-Man_America]

Attributing unsigned art can be tricky especially when different artists ink pencils.  However, there are often "tells" which can help identify an artist's involvement.  

For example, this unsigned cover for Shield-Wizard  #7 appears to have been at least penciled by Jack Kirby...

The fluid motion of the physical combat & kick is one tell, another is the creepy decomposing skull and spider-web motif (skulls & webs would often show up in Kirby's work for Timely just prior to this).  

Also, the costume redesign for the Shield emulates Captain America's costume.  

Is there absolute proof of Kirby's involvement? That's the $64000 question ...and as GA prices have been going that may not be too far off base!  

I bet there's a bunch of unsigned art that has yet to be formally identified that can still be attributed with reasonable accuracy.

 

[adamstrange]

Many of the most important comic artists have now been subject of biographies where their art is discussed and their credits are listed. (Note:  Sometimes these list are wrong or include disputed attributions.)  These biographies will get you the information you are looking for but some of the books will be expensive and you will have a lot of reading to do.  Magazines like "Alter Ego", "Comic Book Artist" or "Illustration" offer similar content but in shortened form that may be sufficient.

The best advice I have is to simply stare at known examples of an artist.  It is best to look at actual copies and not online scans due to the loss of resolution.  Ideally we would be staring at the original art which is the twice the printed size but so much has been lost and it is so expensive that very few can work this way.

The more you stare the more you will absorb all sorts of details of what you are seeing and that will make it much easier for you to decide if some unidentified piece fits a pattern you have seen.  You will get better over time, especially as you expand the set of artists that you are considering.  In your early days you may identify a piece as Artist A because you don't realize that there is an Artist B out there who is similar to Artist A.  As you gain experience you find that you can more easily articulate those aspects of an artist that are most notably distinctive. 

I personally like to make identification based on both an overall impression as well as a dissection of specific aspects.  I find that this dual approach is the most accurate for the way that my brain works.

Pro Tip #1:  If you know for certain that Artist A drew something (anything!) for a publisher, then he/she is a good candidate to be the artist for unidentified pieces that look "similar".

Pro Tip #2:  Comic book artist have to draw a massive number of images for low pay.  They frequently swipe and often collaborate.  Sometimes you can't be certain who did it.

Edited February 12, 2020 by adamstrange

[Yorick]

Grand Comics Database is a great resource for identifying artists.

As to "how to identify" a particular artist; I can tell you that I'd be able to identify the work of my favorite artists, but that's all.  Anyone with a love of a particular artist will look at multiple examples of their work and have a keener eye at spotting THAT artist's handiwork.

[Electricmastro]

The earliest cover listed under superhero on GCD with an unconfirmed credit is Adventure Comics #42 (September 1939, DC Comics), which suggests Creig Flessel and/or Chad Grothkopf.

What do you guys think?

[rjpb]

1 hour ago, Electricmastro said:

The earliest cover listed under superhero on GCD with an unconfirmed credit is Adventure Comics #42 (September 1939, DC Comics), which suggests Creig Flessel and/or Chad Grothkopf.

What do you guys think?

It's signed by Flessel in the top left.

[Electricmastro]

21 minutes ago, rjpb said:

It's signed by Flessel in the top left.

Right, but I was wondering if that was really Flessel or if there would be any particular reason Flessel would lend his name to Grothkopf.

Edited May 22, 2020 by Electricmastro

[Electricmastro]

On 2/12/2020 at 4:14 AM, Cat-Man_America said:

Attributing unsigned art can be tricky especially when different artists ink pencils.  However, there are often "tells" which can help identify an artist's involvement.  

For example, this unsigned cover for Shield-Wizard  #7 appears to have been at least penciled by Jack Kirby...

The fluid motion of the physical combat & kick is one tell, another is the creepy decomposing skull and spider-web motif (skulls & webs would often show up in Kirby's work for Timely just prior to this).  

Also, the costume redesign for the Shield emulates Captain America's costume.  

Is there absolute proof of Kirby's involvement? That's the $64000 question ...and as GA prices have been going that may not be too far off base!  

I bet there's a bunch of unsigned art that has yet to be formally identified that can still be attributed with reasonable accuracy.

 

It’s interesting, because Kirby is said to have done that for Archie in 1942, and also did a Pipsy story in 1947. Going by that, it appears he didn’t do work for Archie again until 1959, which is when he was involved in doing quite a bit of work on Private Strong and the Fly. Of course, him focusing more on the Fantastic Four and other such popular Marvel characters soon after pretty much shifted him away from Archie once again. Maybe his 40s Archie work were spur of the moment opportunities for him to make a little more money?

Edited August 21, 2020 by Electricmastro

[IngelsFan]

While we are ID’ing cover artists, any idea who did this one? Heritage thought Avison 15 years ago, but I’m not convinced it’s him 100%. I would appreciate any thoughts on the matter. 
 

Edited August 21, 2020 by IngelsFan

[adamstrange]

If I were Avison, I wouldn't want to be blamed credited for it either.

[Electricmastro]

An “AB” is signed on these covers, but I’m not sure which person that worked for Green Publishing it’s referring to:

Edited August 22, 2020 by Electricmastro

[Cat-Man_America]

6 hours ago, Electricmastro said:

It’s interesting, because Kirby is said to have done that for Archie in 1942, and also did a Pipsy story in 1947. Going by that, it appears he didn’t do work for Archie again until 1959, which is when he was involved in doing quite a bit of work on Private Strong and the Fly. Of course, him focusing more on the Fantastic Four and other such popular Marvel characters soon after pretty much shifted him away from Archie once again. Maybe his 40s Archie work were spur of the moment opportunities for him to make a little more money?

I've written about this at greater length before, so apologies if any of this seems repetitive.  IMO, this has less to do with Archie ...or rather Archie's publisher MLJ (Maurice Coyne, Louis Silberkleit and John Goldwater)... than a parting shot taken at Martin Goodman for being deprived of fair participation in Captain America profits.  This is just my impression based on reflections taken from Joe Simon's autobiography combined with the evidence and a logical extrapolation of events.

Joe Simon and Jack Kirby produced art and story content on a fairly regular basis for Timely since mid-1940. When Goodman was looking for a patriotic hero to compete with MLJ's Shield (main feature in Pep Comics since Jan. '40), S&K had Cap ready.  Joe pitched the character and negotiated for editorial control and profit sharing.  Cap was an immediate success, but through a tactic known as basket accounting ...often used to conceal success of characters to potential competitors... Cap's profits were lumped together with less profitable Timely titles.  This provided a dual benefit to Martin Goodman in that he could write off his losses without sharing profits for Cap's success with the creators.  Naturally this didn't set well with S&K, so they started moonlighting work for other publishers.  Eventually they were confronted about it and fired by Goodman (after Cap #10) for what the publisher considered a breach of trust.  Shortly after leaving Timely ...around the time S&K were hired by DC... The Shield was redesigned for MLJ (Shield-Wizard #7, Summer '42).  The cover is unsigned, but unmistakably similar art style and costume design to S&K's Cap.  It comes across as a big ...uhhh, thank you... from Joe & Jack to Martin Goodman for his generosity. 

[RareHighGrade]

This cover is credited to Schomburg.  I don't think that's accurate.  Thoughts?

[adamstrange]

I don't see any way that is anything more than partial Schomburg or inspired by Schomburg.  You had Avison and others imitating him around this time.  When you compare this to the issues 31, 32 and 33 which are by Schomburg, it's hard to reconcile with this cover.

[Electricmastro]

Cover suggested to have been done by Gus Ricca:

[N e r V]

19 hours ago, Cat-Man_America said:

I've written about this at greater length before, so apologies if any of this seems repetitive.  IMO, this has less to do with Archie ...or rather Archie's publisher MLJ (Maurice Coyne, Louis Silberkleit and John Goldwater)... than a parting shot taken at Martin Goodman for being deprived of fair participation in Captain America profits.  This is just my impression based on reflections taken from Joe Simon's autobiography combined with the evidence and a logical extrapolation of events.

Joe Simon and Jack Kirby produced art and story content on a fairly regular basis for Timely since mid-1940. When Goodman was looking for a patriotic hero to compete with MLJ's Shield (main feature in Pep Comics since Jan. '40), S&K had Cap ready.  Joe pitched the character and negotiated for editorial control and profit sharing.  Cap was an immediate success, but through a tactic known as basket accounting ...often used to conceal success of characters to potential competitors... Cap's profits were lumped together with less profitable Timely titles.  This provided a dual benefit to Martin Goodman in that he could write off his losses without sharing profits for Cap's success with the creators.  Naturally this didn't set well with S&K, so they started moonlighting work for other publishers.  Eventually they were confronted about it and fired by Goodman (after Cap #10) for what the publisher considered a breach of trust.  Shortly after leaving Timely ...around the time S&K were hired by DC... The Shield was redesigned for MLJ (Shield-Wizard #7, Summer '42).  The cover is unsigned, but unmistakably similar art style and costume design to S&K's Cap.  It comes across as a big ...uhhh, thank you... from Joe & Jack to Martin Goodman for his generosity. 

So besides Captain America the Timely titles published during the S&K run were Marvel Mystery, Human Torch, Sub-Mariner, All Winners, Young Allies, Daring Mystery, Mystic and USA comics. S&K had prepared to leave Timely a bit before Cap #10 was out so I’d guess USA comics which only had a couple of issues published when they left didn't factor much into anything. So all those other titles sold really well for Timely with the exceptions of Daring Mystery and Mystic which underwent genre changes until being buried by their sales. 
 

So if the “basket” theory is viable the two titles of Daring Mystery and Mystic were used to dilute Captain America’s nearly one million copies an issue sales? 
 

That’s a question because if you pooled their entire line up in a basket it would still be strong numbers but I’m guessing if Daring and Mystic sold poorly enough that would impact Caps sales more although I’m not sure if just those two titles in with Cap sales of how bad it would be. Both Timely titles might be less common than others but still a fair amount exist so I’m guessing they didn’t sell incredibly bad just not as expected.

The only comment I remember Kirby going off on about his exit was DC was offering like triple the pay back then over cheapo Goodman but DC was known to be the quality paying guys over Timely back then for everyone. 
 

So is this “basket accounting” a proven fact with Goodman or a theory others have had about his “dealings”? 

Edited August 23, 2020 by N e r V

[Cat-Man_America]

1 hour ago, N e r V said:

So besides Captain America the Timely titles published during the S&K run were Marvel Mystery, Human Torch, Sub-Mariner, All Winners, Young Allies, Daring Mystery, Mystic and USA comics. S&K had prepared to leave Timely a bit before Cap #10 was out so I’d guess USA comics which only had a couple of issues published when they left didn't factor much into anything. So all those other titles sold really well for Timely with the exceptions of Daring Mystery and Mystic which underwent genre changes until being buried by their sales. 
 

So if the “basket” theory is viable the two titles of Daring Mystery and Mystic were used to dilute Captain America’s nearly one million copies an issue sales? 
 

That’s a question because if you pooled their entire line up in a basket it would still be strong numbers but I’m guessing if Daring and Mystic sold poorly enough that would impact Caps sales more although I’m not sure if just those two titles in with Cap sales of how bad it would be. Both Timely titles might be less common than others but still a fair amount exist so I’m guessing they didn’t sell incredibly bad just not as expected.

The only comment I remember Kirby going off on about his exit was DC was offering like triple the pay back then over cheapo Goodman but DC was known to be the quality paying guys over Timely back then for everyone. 
 

So is this “basket accounting” a proven fact with Goodman or a theory others have had about his “dealings”? 

My recollection is that the claim of bundling low performing titles with Cap came directly from one of Joe Simon's books (either his autobiography My Life In Comics or The Comic Book Makers), but I've read other articles and interviews where this topic was discussed with some authority.  How the bundling of Cap with was achieved is certainly open to debate.  My suspicion is that Cap was just bundled with the titles that were losing money to lower the percentage of shared profits.  For quick reference I pulled up the article below. S&K were apparently supposed to receive 25% of the profits from Cap.  The article describes a second conflict with MLJ over use of the Hangman (the first was over the shield design).  Simon learned about the accounting maneuver when pulled aside by Maurice Coyne, who also happened to be Goodman's accountant...

http://marvelsilverage.blogspot.com/2020/02/exposed-myths-of-marvels-silver-age.html

 

This won't answer all the questions still locked in the basement of time (in fact, it may raise a few more), but the schemes make perfect sense in the cutthroat world of 1940's comics.