Original pencils/inks vs. pencils and seperate blueline inks 0

[Thomas]

Personally for me, neither. If I had to pick, I'd want the piece used in the published book hands down. Otherwise it's relatively easy to acquire non published art and have duplicates of it. By that I mean blue line pencils are fairly easy to acquire online http://www.artofjohnbyrne.com/pencilscans.html (as an example) and then commission an inker to ink those blue line pages and you can have that page in your collection but so does someone else. Then you're back to a commodity which is relatively widespread and more common than a one of a kind piece which is part of the allure to collecting OA to me.

 

I want the hand of the penciller on the page I purchase. I want to know it was on his board and he worked on it.

 

I really wanted a Kirby page from Super Powers until I found out they're all lightboxed and I'm not too terribly interested in owning a pencils only page so that's another page I'll never own.

 

-Tom

[comix4fun]

Just in terms of quality of inks I would take the Miki inks

If you look at the backgrounds of each panel and the costumes on Moon Knight in the last panel the lines are smoother, more confident, a little better defined.

 

It is a small difference overall, but if I had to choose one based on quality I would take the Miki.

 

Chris

[lmiller]

they both look like pretty good pages. why was it that marvel did not go with miki inks. ? did finch have a problem with miki inks.

 

larry

[Sensei Ryan]

I have a Walking Dead OA question...

At what point did the OA for these issues become pencils on one page and inks on another?  Also, are the INKS original, too?  Or are they photocopies over the pencils? I have recently acquired a piece of OA that says it was inked by one of the artists but it makes no mention of main artist Charlie Adlard.  Does this mean that there is a separate page that exists with pencil only AND if so, was there a photo-copy made and then inked over for the piece I have?  It's from the ALL OUT WAR storyline if that helps anyone answer my question (I'm a noob when it comes to OA so wanted some insight).

Thanks, all!

[Dick O.]

On ‎3‎/‎19‎/‎2018 at 4:13 AM, Sensei Ryan said:

I have a Walking Dead OA question...

At what point did the OA for these issues become pencils on one page and inks on another?  Also, are the INKS original, too?  Or are they photocopies over the pencils? I have recently acquired a piece of OA that says it was inked by one of the artists but it makes no mention of main artist Charlie Adlard.  Does this mean that there is a separate page that exists with pencil only AND if so, was there a photo-copy made and then inked over for the piece I have?  It's from the ALL OUT WAR storyline if that helps anyone answer my question (I'm a noob when it comes to OA so wanted some insight).

Thanks, all!

Welcome to the world of OA!

Here's an excerpt from my article:

"When it comes to Walking Dead OA, key scenes and pages with “Walkers” generally fetch premiums. Artwork by Tony Moore from the first 6 issues are most highly sought after, followed by Charlie Adlard’s #7 to #35 pages which were drawn on 11”x17” art boards, then pages from #36 to #114 that Charlie drew on 8.5”x14” art boards. Each page from #115 onwards is split into separate 11”x17” art boards, with one board containing Adlard’s pencils and another board with Stefano Gaudiano’s blueline inks."

You can read more here:

https://comicbookinvest.com/2017/12/15/market-report-december-2017-comicconnect-auction/

 

[comicinkking.com]

Very interesting topic - I was just thinking about this the other day.  I am surprised at the number of people who said they'd pick pencils.  I would take inks - that's what gets published, and that is what I like so much about the hobby - owning the original art used to print the comic.  Technically, the pencils get destroyed anyway when an inker inks over them.  Typically, original comic art is an ink based medium.  If I could have both, I would take them.  But if I had to choose, inks all the way.

Regards,

Tony

www.comicinkking.com

Edited March 24, 2018 by comicinkking.com
signature

[MarvelComicsArt]

Pencils are always King. 

Are you paying for the artistry and craftsmanship of the artist or the embellishment of the inker.

No disrespect to inkers ( a few are incredible artists in their own right ). Tom Palmer and Joe Sinnott come to mind immediately!

But purchasing inks over pencils means,  you actually value the guy who primarily went over the pencilled drawing with ink more than the person who created the intricate image itself. 

And that is totally absurd. I understand from a future flipping/selling point of view, explaining to a potential buyer how this is the actual reproduced page "in ink"

may be easier to comprehend than "here are the original un inked pencils."

But the original art -versus original published version , in my book pencils are and always will be the original art.

Now , there are always complicated exceptions.

If you have an artist who sometimes also takes inking inking  assignments on the side( or better yet gets finishing credits ) thats something else entirely.

For instance Kevin Nowlan, Al Williamson, Bill Sienkewicz. (to my knowledge Williamson never did inks over blue line so its just for example purposes only )

These individuals add more to the art than your usual inker would in terms of artistic choices.

Therefore the inks over blue line would also be considered original art,  along with the un inked pencils. 

At that point you have to decided (a) what looks better to you, which artistic vision (the pencilers or inkers?).

And (b) if you ever decide to sell , will it be easier to sell the "inked" artistic version that actually resembles the published version of the Comic. Or is the original penciled un published/ unseen version still the 'real' ART!

 

 

Edited March 24, 2018 by MarvelComicsArt

[Rick2you2]

7 minutes ago, MarvelComicsArt said:

Pencils are always King. 

Are you paying for the artistry and craftsmanship of the artist or the embellishment of the inker.

No disrespect to inkers ( a few are incredible artists in their own right ). Tom Palmer and Joe Sinnott come to mind immediately!

But purchasing inks over pencils means,  you actually value the guy who primarily went over the pencilled drawing with ink more than the person who created the intricate image itself. 

And that is totally absurd. I understand from a future flipping/selling point of view, explaining to a potential buyer how this is the actual reproduced page "in ink"

may be easier to comprehend than "here are the original un inked pencils."

But the original art -versus original published version , in my book pencils are and always will be the original art.

Now , there are always complicated exceptions.

If you have an artist who sometimes also takes inking inking  assignments on the side( or better yet gets finishing credits ) thats something else entirely.

For instance Kevin Nowlan, Al Williamson, Bill Sienkewicz. (to my knowledge Williamson never did inks over blue line so its just for example purposes only )

These individuals add more the art than your usual inker would in terms of artistic choices.

Therefore the inks over blue line would also be considered original art,  along with the un inked pencils. 

At that point you have to decided (a) what looks better to you, which artistic vision (the pencilers or inkers?).

And (b) if you ever decide to sell , will it be easier to sell the "inked" artistic version that actually resembles the published version of the Comic. Or is the the original penciled un published/ unseen version still the 'real' ART!

 

 

 

Perhaps there is another way to attack the question. 

When a publisher pays for art, do the penciller and inker typically get the same, or does the penciller get more?

[stinkininkin]

7 minutes ago, Rick2you2 said:

Perhaps there is another way to attack the question. 

When a publisher pays for art, do the penciller and inker typically get the same, or does the penciller get more?

Depends on who the inker and the penciller is.  When I ink over Jim Lee, Jim definitely get's paid more per page than I do.  When I ink other artist's, I get paid more than the penciler.  I don't think this metric means that much on what should be valued more vis a vis original art prices/desirability.

 

[MarvelComicsArt]

One more and even greater complicated exception is the cover to Captain America #100. ( just as an example)

There are considerable changes on the cover so that it no longer resembles the iconic printed version of Cap 100.

The headshot of Captain America was redrawn and the Captain America Figure totally re inked .

In fact the Captain America figure may have been totally re drawn all together . And reassembled on a stat , etc.

Also multiple inking changes all over on other figures around Cap.

So the dilemma here is a great one.  

It no longer looks like the printed version. So now its up to the individual buyer to decide if it's worth purchasing since its not the printed version.

At what point is too much alteration considered "really too much" that it begins to affect the value of the original art in some manner.

Also i am not debating whether the original or the published version is better.  Thats all up to each individual collector to decide for themselves.

Nor am i debating the authenticity of the un unaltered/ parts unpublished version of the Captain America #100 cover. 

My point is simply what is more important to a future potential buyer ?

And this is why i also don't buy vellum inked covers unless its inked by the original penciler/ artist, and even than it's still a tough choice to make.

 

Edited March 25, 2018 by MarvelComicsArt

[comicinkking.com]

1 hour ago, MarvelComicsArt said:

Pencils are always King. 

Are you paying for the artistry and craftsmanship of the artist or the embellishment of the inker.

No disrespect to inkers ( a few are incredible artists in their own right ). Tom Palmer and Joe Sinnott come to mind immediately!

But purchasing inks over pencils means,  you actually value the guy who primarily went over the pencilled drawing with ink more than the person who created the intricate image itself. 

And that is totally absurd. I understand from a future flipping/selling point of view, explaining to a potential buyer how this is the actual reproduced page "in ink"

may be easier to comprehend than "here are the original un inked pencils."

But the original art -versus original published version , in my book pencils are and always will be the original art.

Now , there are always complicated exceptions.

If you have an artist who sometimes also takes inking inking  assignments on the side( or better yet gets finishing credits ) thats something else entirely.

For instance Kevin Nowlan, Al Williamson, Bill Sienkewicz. (to my knowledge Williamson never did inks over blue line so its just for example purposes only )

These individuals add more to the art than your usual inker would in terms of artistic choices.

Therefore the inks over blue line would also be considered original art,  along with the un inked pencils. 

At that point you have to decided (a) what looks better to you, which artistic vision (the pencilers or inkers?).

And (b) if you ever decide to sell , will it be easier to sell the "inked" artistic version that actually resembles the published version of the Comic. Or is the original penciled un published/ unseen version still the 'real' ART!

 

 

I agree that the penciler does most of the heavy lifting in comics - it's a much bigger skill set than inking.  And I would agree that in general, they are more "important" than the inker in that sense.  But as a collector - I want the art that was published - bottom line.  Traditionally, the finished product of comic book art is an inked page in which the pencils have been obliterated.  In the case where the pencils and inks are separate - the finished product is going to be the same - the inked page.  It's the pencils which are now "unfinished" in a sense.  I'd want the inked piece.

[MarvelComicsArt]

So in that case if hypothetically the "finished" published stat version of the Captain America #100 cover emerged for sale would you consider that the inked piece. If the actual corrections were done on the stat ( re inked figures ) or redrawn Captain america figure on the stat.

How would you feel about the original unpublished/ altered /art versus the published cover?

here is a linked provided below by Twanj --- ( thank you again)... For a comparison of the art versus the published cover.  just scroll sideways to adjust between images.

 

https://cdn.knightlab.com/libs/juxtapose/latest/embed/index.html?uid=69740292-2fba-11e8-b263-0edaf8f81e27

22 minutes ago, comicinkking.com said:

I agree that the penciler does most of the heavy lifting in comics - it's a much bigger skill set than inking.  And I would agree that in general, they are more "important" than the inker in that sense.  But as a collector - I want the art that was published - bottom line.  Traditionally, the finished product of comic book art is an inked page in which the pencils have been obliterated.  In the case where the pencils and inks are separate - the finished product is going to be the same - the inked page.  It's the pencils which are now "unfinished" in a sense.  I'd want the inked piece.

[vodou]

LOL. Differences are not minor.

Who really drew that Cap face on the art?!

[MarvelComicsArt]

6 minutes ago, vodou said:

LOL. Differences are not minor.

Who really drew that Cap face on the art?!

Yes there are considerable changes when you compare to the final printed cover .

Does it take away from the value?

Does it make collectors shy away from it?

All valid questions. I guess the final answer is to each his own.

 

[vodou]

38 minutes ago, MarvelComicsArt said:

Yes there are considerable changes when you compare to the final printed cover .

Does it take away from the value?

Does it make collectors shy away from it?

All valid questions. I guess the final answer is to each his own.

 

Um, for me it sure does. I'm okay if it's Kirby:Kirby, but that is not what we've got here. I don't know what we've got but I'd love to hear the story

[Rick2you2]

15 hours ago, stinkininkin said:

Depends on who the inker and the penciller is.  When I ink over Jim Lee, Jim definitely get's paid more per page than I do.  When I ink other artist's, I get paid more than the penciler.  I don't think this metric means that much on what should be valued more vis a vis original art prices/desirability.

 

Actually, I think it means a lot. What you are saying is that they have comparable worth. If inkers were consistently paid less than pencilers, or visa-versa, then that would show something different. 

[comicinkking.com]

6 hours ago, Rick2you2 said:

Actually, I think it means a lot. What you are saying is that they have comparable worth. If inkers were consistently paid less than pencilers, or visa-versa, then that would show something different. 

Inkers are consistently paid less than pencilers - it's just that Scott is a superstar.

[comicinkking.com]

20 hours ago, MarvelComicsArt said:

So in that case if hypothetically the "finished" published stat version of the Captain America #100 cover emerged for sale would you consider that the inked piece. If the actual corrections were done on the stat ( re inked figures ) or redrawn Captain america figure on the stat.

How would you feel about the original unpublished/ altered /art versus the published cover?

here is a linked provided below by Twanj --- ( thank you again)... For a comparison of the art versus the published cover.  just scroll sideways to adjust between images.

https://cdn.knightlab.com/libs/juxtapose/latest/embed/index.html?uid=69740292-2fba-11e8-b263-0edaf8f81e27

Quote: "So in that case if hypothetically the "finished" published stat version of the Captain America #100 cover emerged for sale would you consider that the inked piece." 

I'm confused about this sentence - published "stat" implies it's not original - so I would never consider that the inked piece.  I don't know if this cover is a good example of what we've been talking about, but it's unfortunate that the b&w art does not match the printed cover.  If I owned this, I'd want the original redrawn Cap image to go along with it.  Without it, the value of the cover takes a big hit IMO.

[MarvelComicsArt]

1 hour ago, comicinkking.com said:

1 hour ago, comicinkking.com said:

Quote: "So in that case if hypothetically the "finished" published stat version of the Captain America #100 cover emerged for sale would you consider that the inked piece." 

I'm confused about this sentence - published "stat" implies it's not original - so I would never consider that the inked piece.  I don't know if this cover is a good example of what we've been talking about, but it's unfortunate that the b&w art does not match the printed cover.  If I owned this, I'd want the original redrawn Cap image to go along with it.  Without it, the value of the cover takes a big hit IMO.

 

Very interesting topic - I was just thinking about this the other day.  I am surprised at the number of people who said they'd pick pencils.  I would take inks - that's what gets published, and that is what I like so much about the hobby - owning the original art used to print the comic.  Technically, the pencils get destroyed anyway when an inker inks over them.  Typically, original comic art is an ink based medium.  If I could have both, I would take them.  But if I had to choose, inks all the way.

Regards,

Tony

www.comicinkking.com

Edited 23 hours ago by comicinkking.com 
signature

So supposedly there was a stat made of the original Jack kirby inked by Syd Shores Captian America #100 cover.( the original inked version is seen above in the thread). 

On top of that actual stat changes were made both in ink and in white out .  Changes are made to almost every figure . And Captain Americas headshot ( supposedly an original drawing ) was pasted (over the Syd Shores inked version ) and onto that stat as well.

So if this is correct. And there are actual inks/ white out applied to the stat. Than essentially its a re inking job , with a new fully redrawn /attached/pasted on headshot of captain america .

Now i have also heard a different explanation.  That a stat was made and a newly redrawn/re inked version of Captain America was placed right over the original inked version. In that case it gets even more complicated .

Since the focal point is Cap, does that version become the original art. Especially if the "Captain America figure" pasted onto the stat is an actual fully inked drawing?

Another point of complexity is that when viewing the original Jack Kirby Syd Shores inked cover ( not printed version) notice that everything has been cut out and reassembled onto one page.

Why i mention this is to illustrate , that this unused version was made to resemble the published version. And may not have looked like this at the time of creation.

So if it was never reassembled onto one page it may not have looked anything like the printed version at all. Difference in both layout and art.  So which would you rather have .

The Original fully redrawn Captain America version pasted onto the stat. Or the pretty inked unused version? Which one is the closest representation of the so called original?

It's one thing if Caps face was the only part of the art that was changed.. But when the entire image has so many significant changes applied to it.

Than the question should really be.... When should "original Cover art "  no longer be referred to as the "Original" since it does not represent the published version.  And maybe it starts being called something else entirely.

Like the first version, the first draft, whatever title may suit it best.

Edited March 25, 2018 by MarvelComicsArt

[Rick2you2]

14 hours ago, comicinkking.com said:

Inkers are consistently paid less than pencilers - it's just that Scott is a superstar.

Then that would be your answer. A lot less or just a bit less, or, is it "all over the map"?