To reprint or not to reprint, that is the question! 0

[Cat-Man_America]

While reflecting on the history of comics as it has changed over several decades, one of the more curious aspects of collecting has been the many attempts at paying homage to the great art of the Golden Age, a period roughly spanning less than twenty years ('38-'55), but carrying a vast wealth of variety within our hobby.  Some projects have provided great insight into that bygone era and are highly respected, others have ...frustratingly... fallen short in achieving that desired goal and failed to capture fan interest.  I'm not even sure that there's an interest in another thread discussing these efforts much less discussing the failures of reprinting comics across the board, which range from the good and the bad to the occasional ugly.

Where we would take such a discussion if there is an interest is entirely up to you, but to find examples of projects that have benefitted from homage and ...in some cases... fallen victim to mishandling one need look no further than the enduring legacy of EC.  Given the recent passing of Russ Cochran, respected advocate and godfather of EC fandom, it may be too early to dispassionately assess Russ's historically significant contributions, especially those having mixed results.  Other discussion-worthy areas include the approaches taken for hardcover archives published by DC, Marvel, and others including the many public domain publications.  The ultimate question being whether nostalgic reprints preserve legacies, rewrite history or something in-between.  

To start this thread off, assuming it doesn’t scroll into the abyss, it might be interesting to look at the pros and cons of Russ Cochran’s various EC projects from oversized reprints of B&W art to slipcased sets, comic reprints and the digitally doctored color archive editions that changed publishers several times due to wavering financial support.  Any thoughts?  If not, we can just bury this topic in a time capsule for several years until Electricmastro revives it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EC_Archives

Edited May 22, 2020 by Cat-Man_America

[Cat-Man_America]

Just for the sake of discussion here's a digital color image compared to Wally Wood's original...

Which of these color palettes and images do you find more reflective of the original work?

[catman76]

Here's a better scan of the original and I much prefer the original color. The digital color is pretty ugly and too bright, especially the background. The best looking EC reprints to me are the Gladstone issues which were printed the old original way with no digital anything at all and on cheap newsprint. What would be even better would be a watercolored version of this cover, how Robert Crumb colors his stuff. I would love to see that.

[Cat-Man_America]

Thanks.  What’s interesting about the original art is the subtle color shading Marie Severin employed and zip tone effects Wood used for galactic star-fields.  These are lost in digital enhancement.  The colors actually look flatter while being boosted and brightened for a theoretically more “modern” look.  This was also borne out by interior enhancement, which at best increased color gradations and at worst produced an artificial air-brushed appearance that reduced the overall impact of the original art.

While discussing missed opportunities, it shouldn’t be overlooked that when the original comics were finally reprinted in the early 90’s, the choice to replace original editorials and letter’s pages from the era with juvenile art submissions that can only be described as glorified refrigerator art lessened the overall appeal of the reprints for some long time collectors.

Caveats notwithstanding, Russ Cochran’s other efforts to enshrine Bill Gaines and EC’s legacy were the epitome of perfection.  His oversized EC Portfolios collecting many of the best stories and art of the era were remarkable.  And the slipcased B&W hardcover sets were the best means of collecting the entire run of comics and Picto-fiction magazines.  While fair criticism can be levied at some of Russ’s later efforts and the misguided attempts by several publishers to finish reprinting color archives with digital enhancements, nothing short of high praise can be given the passion behind Russ Cochran’s ambitious undertaking to keep EC relevant.

I’ve gradually come to the conclusion that most archives are worthwhile, even those that miss the mark in accurately reflecting the original art and color palette.  Of course each archive edition or comic reprint must be judged on merit and some archives & reprints are closer to replicating the original comics than others.  

One of the broader questions is assessing the appropriateness of art from another era by today’s standards.  I’m strongly opposed to censorship based on another era’s social biases, but endorse adding warnings to material deemed insensitive by today’s standards. For instance, who wouldn’t like to see all 26 issues of pre-Batman ‘Tecs released as hardcover archives? I suspect the reason these have been pulled from consideration has more to do with sensitivity issues than profit margins for a special interest product.

[Black Bat]

15 hours ago, catman76 said:

 

Here's a better scan of the original and I much prefer the original color. The digital color is pretty ugly and too bright, especially the background. The best looking EC reprints to me are the Gladstone issues which were printed the old original way with no digital anything at all and on cheap newsprint. What would be even better would be a watercolored version of this cover, how Robert Crumb colors his stuff. I would love to see that.

 

Regarding this better scan- I have a hard time believing this is the way the book looked on the newsstand.  It seems too dark overall.  Of course I could be wrong, but I'm curious.  Maybe one of the Gaines file copies might provide a truly accurate example?

Actually this thread is timely for me because last night I was looking for a hard cover volume of  Farrell's Haunted Thrills series after seeing some splash pages a board member posted.  All I found was some Kindle issues on amazon.  Didn't check the Yoe site though.  

Regarding reproductions, I'm of two opinions.  When reading, I like my comics to have the patina of age and wear of actual use.  But I also support some kind of preservation of what these comics looked like fresh off the press- supposedly how they were intended to look.  

Some years ago I started collecting the original comics with Fletcher Hanks' art. Of course these are not cheap books, and I wanted too read them, so I bought cheap beaters (in most cases...).  I found that I really appreciate the faded colors, yellowing paper, how the stories flowed graphically form page, the feel, etc....  

When the Hanks compendium books came out I bought them immediately and was delighted to have all the material in a book that I could read anywhere without worrying about damaging the originals.  But they are definitely not as aesthetically pleasing.  Too clean.  The paper too white,  No texture... no smell!

Are they better representations of the artwork than would be a high res scan of an actual book- not retouched, color corrected  and otherwise  cleaned up?  

Come to think of it, I prefer reprint books that focus on a particular artist.  I have Yoe's book on Disbrow, and the Hanks book.  Monographs I guess.  I'd love to see more of those- Lou Fine, Bake, etc etc etc.  

I've heard great things about a two volume Wolverton set that I haven't seen yet.  Well,  maybe monographs should be the subject of another thread...

Anyway i'm probably stating the same opinions that have been stated over and over already,  Ultimately I prefer  the "character'" that age and use gives a book, and want to see that reflected in high quality  reproductions.  

(I don't want to dis on the Hanks books though, Karasik did a killer job- I hope he takes up other artists...)

 

Edited May 22, 2020 by Black Bat

[Black Bat]

Here’s a Hanks (er... excuse me, Barclay Flagg) comparison with my favorite Fantomah story. Flying hands man!  Come on!!

The paper on the original is obviously much too tanned to be ideal but I still prefer it’s colors present as flat, matte and inkier (?) than the reproduction. My ideal would lie somewhere between these two.  

 

... actually after reviewing the post the reproduction looks much nicer than the OG- but in hand the differences are more distinct.  I promise! 😎

 

Edited May 22, 2020 by Black Bat

[fifties]

I've purchased reprints of iconic books that I would never be able to afford at current prices, such as several issues of Crimes By Women, Fantastic Fears 4, Mister Mystery 6, Out Of The Shadows 8, etc. from certain eBay sellers.

I also collected the entire TFTC, VOH, CrimeSS, ShockSS, Weird Sci and Weird Fan series reprints by both Russ Cochran and Gladstone Publishing.  

The downside with the non-EC reprints is that they are reprinted on paper that is almost "cover like", and with the EC's that they are sized as smaller modern comics, instead of as the originals.  

You forgot the first effort to revive EC's; East Coast Comix back in the early '70's.  I think they did about a dozen; I subbed at the time, and have all of them.

[Cat-Man_America]

7 hours ago, Black Bat said:

Regarding this better scan- I have a hard time believing this is the way the book looked on the newsstand.  It seems too dark overall.  Of course I could be wrong, but I'm curious.  Maybe one of the Gaines file copies might provide a truly accurate example?

Actually this thread is timely for me because last night I was looking for a hard cover volume of  Farrell's Haunted Thrills series after seeing some splash pages a board member posted.  All I found was some Kindle issues on amazon.  Didn't check the Yoe site though.  

Regarding reproductions, I'm of two opinions.  When reading, I like my comics to have the patina of age and wear of actual use.  But I also support some kind of preservation of what these comics looked like fresh off the press- supposedly how they were intended to look.  

Some years ago I started collecting the original comics with Fletcher Hanks' art. Of course these are not cheap books, and I wanted too read them, so I bought cheap beaters (in most cases...).  I found that I really appreciate the faded colors, yellowing paper, how the stories flowed graphically form page, the feel, etc....  

When the Hanks compendium books came out I bought them immediately and was delighted to have all the material in a book that I could read anywhere without worrying about damaging the originals.  But they are definitely not as aesthetically pleasing.  Too clean.  The paper too white,  No texture... no smell!

Are they better representations of the artwork than would be a high res scan of an actual book- not retouched, color corrected  and otherwise  cleaned up?  

Come to think of it, I prefer reprint books that focus on a particular artist.  I have Yoe's book on Disbrow, and the Hanks book.  Monographs I guess.  I'd love to see more of those- Lou Fine, Bake, etc etc etc.  

I've heard great things about a two volume Wolverton set that I haven't seen yet.  Well,  maybe monographs should be the subject of another thread...

Anyway i'm probably stating the same opinions that have been stated over and over already,  Ultimately I prefer  the "character'" that age and use gives a book, and want to see that reflected in high quality  reproductions.  

(I don't want to dis on the Hanks books though, Karasik did a killer job- I hope he takes up other artists...)

 

My earlier image suffers from inner envelope refraction and smaller size.  Alas, I usually don't post scans with labels.  

The subtle color and zip-tone effects is clearly visible on my monitor even with the refraction issue, but I'll include a resized full scan which will hopefully scale-up...

Spoiler

This should be a bit larger.  

 

Edited May 23, 2020 by Cat-Man_America

[AJD]

On 22 May 2020 at 5:06 PM, Cat-Man_America said:

Just for the sake of discussion here's a digital color image compared to Wally Wood's original...

Which of these color palettes and images do you find more reflective of the original work?

That's a loaded question (possibly by design). The question should be whether the reprint is worth having in its own right. I have all the books and all the reprint volumes of the EC sci-fi series (and quite a few of the others). I'm happy with both. In fact, a straight reprint with muddy 1950s production would have less appeal for me, not more.

[Cat-Man_America]

8 hours ago, AJD said:

That's a loaded question (possibly by design). The question should be whether the reprint is worth having in its own right. I have all the books and all the reprint volumes of the EC sci-fi series (and quite a few of the others). I'm happy with both. In fact, a straight reprint with muddy 1950s production would have less appeal for me, not more.

That’s an interesting perspective and my inclination is to agree although I haven’t seen much muddy production in actual 50’s era comics.  Now archival reprints, ...that’s another story.  Archives are all over the map, from close adherence to the original work as published to taking so many liberties with the work that it no longer resembles ...much less replicates... the original comics in any meaningful way.

There have been some surprisingly good attempts at recreating the look of the original comics.  One of the better efforts from about a decade ago was Mac Raboy’s Green Lama which was a Dark Horse two volume release.  The reprints appeared to be directly from the comics, capturing the original palette without over-saturation or muddying.

 

[rjpb]

I don't care for digital recoloring, though there is no reason it can't be made to look more like the original, particularly for covers. Interior coloring on GA comics was sort of hit or miss to begin with, but I generally prefer simpler coloring with interior art. I don't like slick paper either. Higher quality matte paper is okay. 

[telerites]

I wonder if the thought is to attract a younger generation who are more inured to digital colors which pop and/or are unaware or apathetic to staying to true to original color palettes and that old fogies like us will buy just for the content itself not necessarily dissuaded from a purchase due to the cover colors?

[Cat-Man_America]

19 hours ago, telerites said:

I wonder if the thought is to attract a younger generation who are more inured to digital colors which pop and/or are unaware or apathetic to staying to true to original color palettes and that old fogies like us will buy just for the content itself not necessarily dissuaded from a purchase due to the cover colors?

It may just be that folks have been conditioned to seeing everything in garishly unnatural colors. 

[Yorick]

I am particularly grateful for Artist Editions.  Nice full size reproduction from originals as they exist today.  Give me Black and White please!

I recently picked up DC Before Superman and was quite impressed with the O'Mealia reproductions inside.  I don't think the DC Archive books look as good.

[Cat-Man_America]

On 5/25/2020 at 3:35 PM, Yorick said:

I am particularly grateful for Artist Editions.  Nice full size reproduction from originals as they exist today.  Give me Black and White please!

I recently picked up DC Before Superman and was quite impressed with the O'Mealia reproductions inside.  I don't think the DC Archive books look as good.

Absolutely, B&W Artist Editions are usually excellent! 

Reprinted copies are another niche-filling part of the hobby.  It seems like there more licensed replica comics and ...I'd assume... public domain reprints being sold on-line now.  Obtaining filler or reading copies of comics that are scarce seems like a good idea when the art and -script is high quality and proper licensing hasn't been sidestepped.  

What troubles me almost as much as the licensing issue though are photocopy reprints/replicas looking better than hardcover archive editions which one would assume are under license.  Indeed this is a rare occurrence, but it does happen.

[BitterOldMan]

OA is better than original comic book printing.

 

[Cat-Man_America]

7 hours ago, BitterOldMan said:

OA is better than original comic book printing.

 

You make an excellent point that’s demonstrable via the example provided, but results may vary on a case by case basis.  I’ve seen some art that was brilliantly enhanced by a good colorist’s efforts.  The reverse is true as well.  And I’m sure we can all reference great B&W art ruined by poorly considered color.  A lot depends on the artist’s style and who’s assigned to envision it in color.

With EC most of the original color work was done by Marie Severin unless I’m mistaken.  Her work is usually exceptional.  However, it’s difficult to assess overall quality based on one sample in the course of a long run of printed comics.  While the B&W original art is clearly superior here based on the black ink strike, it would be interesting to compare with another sample or two earlier in the print run.

That Wood original is awesome, BTW.