alxjhnsn

Yes, but the most important question, because there's LOTS of money at stake, was in which stuff Miller touched the board, and this item is finally settled. And we have documented references as to why we believe that it is settled. I think this is a big step. Anyone want to take on What If or Warlock/Starlin/Milgrom?

And why you see Giordano when you mean D-i-c-k Giordano

Yeah, that's a possibility. It really is. The summary and notes at least give us a benchmark to keep track of the evidence.

Updated because I missed Nelson's comment on 168 ----------- On the comicart-l and the CGC OA board, we have had a long conversation on the topic of the work split on the Miller DD run. This write-up is based on e-mails and posting from many people. Foremost among them are: Mitch Itkowitz, Ferran Delgado, Gene Park (notes on 158, 162, 163, 179-180), and Mike O'Halloran (Theory on 182-184), and NelsonAl (photocopies of 182 and 184; see below for their origin). I took notes and created this summary. I believe it represents the best understanding available to us, but it may not be perfect. Other comments are welcome and especially if they come with evidence that I can cite. Hope this helps. Be sure to save and reference! Here's the link to this post: http://boards.collectors-society.com/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Main=6672890&Number=8098126#Post8098126 The consensus of how Miller/Janson exectuted the "Miller" DD run is as follows: DD #158-161,163-172: Full pencils by Miller, inks by Janson. Notes:Rubinstein was the cover inker for #158 Ditko did all the art for #162 Rubinstein was the co-inker (with Janson) for #163 See discussion of 168 below [*]DD #173-184: Layouts by Miller on the same sheet, embellishment by Janson [*]DD #185-190: Layouts by Miller on a DIFFERENT smaller sheet, embellishment by Janson. Miller didn't touch the published original art. [*]DD #191: Detailed layouts by Miller, finishes by Austin The above summary was derived from a lot of evidence and speculation. I'm going to try and capture that in the following notes: Issue 168: The issue: GCD lists Miller as breakdown artist on issue 168 while the credits on the issue itself list Miller as artist but Janson as Inker and Embellisher. Notes: The issue was identified by MikeyO. NelsonAI states that he has photocopies that he describes as "full pencils" for this book. I have chosen to accept Nelson's claim in my summary above. I'll change it if better evidence comes along. [*]The style of the art shifted between 178 and 179-184, this made people wonder if the working method had changed. [*]There was once a theory that since issues 182-184 (Punisher arc) were originally intended for an earlier publication and since we know that from 185 on that Miller provided smaller pages with breakdowns that there might have a mix of (Miller pencils/Janson inks) and all Jansen pages from Miller layouts in those issues. It might be difficult to know who actually did what as the story was altered for the revised publication and changed situation. [*]Adding to the confusion was this comment posted by Klaus. In it he clearly states: [*]MikeyO, the articulator of the theory in the note above, later wrote: [*]New information was presented by NelsonAl in a post on the CGC boards that indicated that he had photocopies of the pencils for issues 168 (described as "crappy") and DD issues 182 and 184. This really galvanized the conversation since it contradicted Klaus' statement. [*] At the 2014 NYCC, Nelson and Gene discussed the issue with Klaus. Here's what Gene wrote: [*]One last comment on this from Gene. It includes the origin of the photocopies from Nelson. [*]Comment from NelsonAI on 191 reads:

Updated because I missed Nelson's comment on 191. ----------- On the comicart-l and the CGC OA board, we have had a long conversation on the topic of the work split on the Miller DD run. This write-up is based on e-mails and posting from many people. Foremost among them are: Mitch Itkowitz, Ferran Delgado, Gene Park (notes on 158, 162, 163, 179-180), and Mike O'Halloran (Theory on 182-184), and NelsonAl (photocopies of 182 and 184; see below for their origin). I took notes and created this summary. I believe it represents the best understanding available to us, but it may not be perfect. Other comments are welcome and especially if they come with evidence that I can cite. Hope this helps. Be sure to save and reference! Here's the link to this post: http://boards.collectors-society.com/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Main=6672890&Number=8096297#Post8096297 The consensus of how Miller/Janson exectuted the "Miller" DD run is as follows: DD #158-161,163-172: Full pencils by Miller, inks by Janson. Notes: Rubinstein was the cover inker for #158 Ditko did all the art for #162 Rubinstein was the co-inker (with Janson) for #163 Issue 168 - GCD lists Miller as breakdown artist on issue 168 while the credits on the issue itself list Miller as artist but Janson as Inker and Embellisher. [*]DD #173-184: Layouts by Miller on the same sheet, embellishment by Janson [*]DD #185-190: Layouts by Miller on a DIFFERENT smaller sheet, embellishment by Janson. Miller didn't touch the published original art. [*]DD #191: Detailed layouts by Miller, finishes by Austin The above summary was derived from a lot of evidence and speculation. I'm going to try and capture that in the following notes: The style of the art shifted between 178 and 179-184, this made people wonder if the working method had changed. There was once a theory that since issues 182-184 (Punisher arc) were originally intended for an earlier publication and since we know that from 185 on that Miller provided smaller pages with breakdowns that there might have a mix of (Miller pencils/Janson inks) and all Jansen pages from Miller layouts in those issues. It might be difficult to know who actually did what as the story was altered for the revised publication and changed situation. Adding to the confusion was this comment posted by Klaus. In it he clearly states: MikeyO, the articulator of the theory in the note above, later wrote: New information was presented by NelsonAl in a post on the CGC boards that indicated that he had photocopies of the pencils for issues 168 (described as "crappy") and DD issues 182 and 184. This really galvanized the conversation since it contradicted Klaus' statement. At the 2014 NYCC, Nelson and Gene discussed the issue with Klaus. Here's what Gene wrote: One last comment on this from Gene. It includes the origin of the photocopies from Nelson. Comment from NelsonAI on 191 reads:

On the comicart-l and the CGC OA board, we have had a long conversation on the topic of the work split on the Miller DD run. This write-up is based on e-mails and posting from many people. Foremost among them are: Mitch Itkowitz, Ferran Delgado, Gene Park (notes on 158, 162, 163, 179-180), and Mike O'Halloran (Theory on 182-184), and NelsonAl (photocopies of 182 and 184; see below for their origin). I took notes and created this summary. I believe it represents the best understanding available to us, but it may not be perfect. Other comments are welcome and especially if they come with evidence that I can cite. Hope this helps. Be sure to save and reference! Here's the link to this post: http://boards.collectors-society.com/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Main=6672890&Number=8096297#Post8096297 The consensus of how Miller/Janson exectuted the "Miller" DD run is as follows: DD #158-161,163-172: Full pencils by Miller, inks by Janson. Notes: Rubinstein was the cover inker for #158 Ditko did all the art for #162 Rubinstein was the co-inker (with Janson) for #163 Issue 168 - GCD lists Miller as breakdown artist on issue 168 while the credits on the issue itself list Miller as artist but Janson as Inker and Embellisher. [*]DD #173-184: Layouts by Miller on the same sheet, embellishment by Janson [*]DD #185-190: Layouts by Miller on a DIFFERENT smaller sheet, embellishment by Janson. Miller didn't touch the published original art. [*]DD #191: Full pencils by Miller, inks by Austin The above summary was derived from a lot of evidence and speculation. I'm going to try and capture that in the following notes: The style of the art shifted between 178 and 179-184, this made people wonder if the working method had changed. There was once a theory that since issues 182-184 (Punisher arc) were originally intended for an earlier publication and since we know that from 185 on that Miller provided smaller pages with breakdowns that there might have a mix of (Miller pencils/Janson inks) and all Jansen pages from Miller layouts in those issues. It might be difficult to know who actually did what as the story was altered for the revised publication and changed situation. Adding to the confusion was this comment posted by Klaus. In it he clearly states: MikeyO, the articulator of the theory in the note above, later wrote: New information was presented by NelsonAl in a post on the CGC boards that indicated that he had photocopies of the pencils for issues 168 (described as "crappy") and DD issues 182 and 184. This really galvanized the conversation since it contradicted Klaus' statement. At the 2014 NYCC, Nelson and Gene discussed the issue with Klaus. Here's what Gene wrote: One last comment on this from Gene. It includes the origin of the photocopies from Nelson.

Thanks. I'm very happy with them.

I have finally purchased a pair of strips from my favorite Carol Day story, Problem Child. Check them out. I think you'll be impressed with David Wright's work. Click to embiggen:

But not enough pages, however they were done.

Updated once again. Added Gene's comment on 182 in this thread to the notes along with a supporting opinion from RockMyAmadeus who provided a link to a scan to support his POV. ------ My Standard Answer starts here --------- On the comicart-l and the CGC OA board, we had a long conversation on the topic of the work split on the Miller DD run. This write-up is based on e-mails and posting from many people. Foremost among them are: Mitch Itkowitz, Ferran Delgado, Gene Park (notes on 158, 162, 163, 179-180), and Mike O'Halloran (Theory on 182-184). I took notes and created this summary. I believe it represents the best understanding available to us, but it may not be perfect. Other comments are welcome and especially if they come with evidence that I can cite. DD #158-161,163-172: Full pencils by Miller, inks by Janson. Notes: Rubinstein was the cover inker for #158 Ditko did all the art for #162 Rubinstein was the co-inker (with Janson) for #163 Issue 168 - GCD lists Miller as breakdown artist on issue 168 while the credits on the issue itself list Miller as artist but Janson as Inker and Embellisher. Note: [*]DD #173-178: Layouts by Miller on the same sheet, embellishment by Janson [*]DD #179-181: Layouts by Miller on a DIFFERENT smaller sheet, embellishment by Janson. Miller didn't touch the published original art. Note: Separate smaller layouts started with 179 per Jansen in the comments on a post about DD 172 on Comics Should Be Good on CBR. Regarding issue 181, Mitch wrote: [*]DD #182-184: Layouts by Miller in the same sheet, embellishment by Janson. Notes: Theory: Issues 182-184 (Punisher arc) were originally intended for an earlier publication and probably have a mix of (Miller pencils/Janson inks) and all Jansen pages from Miller layouts. It might be difficult to know who actually did what as the story was altered for the revised publication and changed situation. MikeyO, the proposer of the theory in the note above, later wrote: Gene Park proposed narrowing this down to 183-184. He points out that 182 really looks like 181 Gene’s point was echoed by RockMyAmadaus who provided a sample to support his POV: The "uplit little drugged girl" can be seen here. [*]DD #185-190: Layouts by Miller on a DIFFERENT smaller sheet, embellishment by Janson. Miller didn't touch the published original art. [*]DD #191: Full pencils by Miller, inks by Austin --------------------- End of standard answer ---------------------- [Yes, this might make my head explode. All I know is it was great reading off the stands way back when. ] Should I revise this or annotate it differently?

Updated once again. Added Mitch's comment on 181 in this thread to the notes. ------ My Standard Answer starts here --------- On the comicart-l and the CGC OA board, we had a long conversation on the topic of the work split on the Miller DD run. This write-up is based on e-mails and posting from many people. Foremost among them are: Mitch Itkowitz, Ferran Delgado, Gene Park (notes on 158, 162, 163, 179-180), and Mike O'Halloran (Theory on 182-184). I took notes and created this summary. I believe it represents the best understanding available to us, but it may not be perfect. Other comments are welcome and especially if they come with evidence that I can cite. DD #158-161,163-172: Full pencils by Miller, inks by Janson. Notes: Rubinstein was the cover inker for #158 Ditko did all the art for #162 Rubinstein was the co-inker (with Janson) for #163 Issue 168 - GCD lists Miller as breakdown artist on issue 168 while the credits on the issue itself list Miller as artist but Janson as Inker and Embellisher. Note: [*]DD #173-178: Layouts by Miller on the same sheet, embellishment by Janson [*]DD #179-181: Layouts by Miller on a DIFFERENT smaller sheet, embellishment by Janson. Miller didn't touch the published original art. Note: Separate smaller layouts started with 179 per Jansen in the comments on a post about DD 172 on Comics Should Be Good on CBR. Regarding issue 181, Mitch wrote: [*]DD #182-184: Layouts by Miller in the same sheet, embellishment by Janson. Notes: Theory: Issues 182-184 (Punisher arc) were originally intended for an earlier publication and probably have a mix of (Miller pencils/Janson inks) and all Jansen pages from Miller layouts. It might be difficult to know who actually did what as the story was altered for the revised publication and changed situation. MikeyO, the proposer of the theory in the note above, later wrote: [*]DD #185-190: Layouts by Miller on a DIFFERENT smaller sheet, embellishment by Janson. Miller didn't touch the published original art. [*]DD #191: Full pencils by Miller, inks by Austin --------------------- End of standard answer ---------------------- [Yes, this might make my head explode. All I know is it was great reading off the stands way back when. ] Should I revise this or annotate it differently?

Not I.

Updated once again. Thanks to Gene Park and Michael O'Halloran (MikeyO) for the additional thoughts and references. ------ My Standard Answer starts here --------- On the comicart-l and the CGC OA board, we had a long conversation on the topic of the work split on the Miller DD run. This write-up is based on e-mails and posting from many people. Foremost among them are: Mitch Itkowitz, Ferran Delgado, Gene Park (notes on 158, 162, 163, 179-180), and Mike O'Halloran (Theory on 182-184). I took notes and created this summary. I believe it represents the best understanding available to us, but it may not be perfect. Other comments are welcome and especially if they come with evidence that I can cite. DD #158-161,163-172: Full pencils by Miller, inks by Janson. Notes: Rubinstein was the cover inker for #158 Ditko did all the art for #162 Rubinstein was the co-inker (with Janson) for #163 Issue 168 - GCD lists Miller as breakdown artist on issue 168 while the credits on the issue itself list Miller as artist but Janson as Inker and Embellisher. Note: [*]DD #173-178: Layouts by Miller on the same sheet, embellishment by Janson [*]DD #179-181: Layouts by Miller on a DIFFERENT smaller sheet, embellishment by Janson. Miller didn't touch the published original art. Note: Separate smaller layouts started with 179 per Jansen in the comments on a post about DD 172 on Comics Should Be Good on CBR. [*]DD #182-184: Layouts by Miller in the same sheet, embellishment by Janson. Notes: Theory: Issues 182-184 (Punisher arc) were originally intended for an earlier publication and probably have a mix of (Miller pencils/Janson inks) and all Jansen pages from Miller layouts. It might be difficult to know who actually did what as the story was altered for the revised publication and changed situation. MikeyO, the proposer of the theory in the note above, later wrote: [*]DD #185-190: Layouts by Miller on a DIFFERENT smaller sheet, embellishment by Janson. Miller didn't touch the published original art. [*]DD #191: Full pencils by Miller, inks by Austin --------------------- End of standard answer ---------------------- [Yes, this might make my head explode. All I know is it was great reading off the stands way back when. ] Should I revise this or annotate it differently?

FWIW, 181 was amazing and I don't care who did it. I'll gladly take a page for Christmas. I've got to go with Scott on 168-172. They were very good and setup so much more to follow. I think Frank's entire run taken as a whole was astounding. He took a character that had become moribund and was on my pull list from habit (and the hope of something better) and blew my mind. I was shocked at how good the run was and I clearly remember picking up 158 35 years ago. Yeah, it may have been the low point of his run, but the low point was pretty good.

Updated with notes from Gene Park on 158, 162, 163: ------ On the comicart-l and the CGC OA board, we had a long conversation on the topic and this was the consensus there and I took notes and created this summary: DD #158-161,163-172: Full pencils by Miller, inks by Janson. Notes: Rubinstein was the inker for #158 Ditko did all the art for #162 Rubinstein was the co-inker (with Janson) for #163 [*]DD #173-180: Layouts by Miller in the same sheet, embellishment by Janson. [*]DD #181: Layouts by Miller in a DIFFERENT smaller sheet, embellishment by Janson. Miller didn't touch the original art. [*]DD #182-184: Layouts by Miller in the same sheet, embellishment by Janson. Notes: Theory: Issues 182-184 (Punisher arc) were originally intended for an earlier publication and probably have a mix of (Miller pencils/Janson inks) and all Jansen pages from Miller layouts. It might be difficult to know who actually did what as the story was altered for the revised publication and changed situation. MikeyO, the proposer of the theory in the note above, later wrote: [*]DD #185-190: Layouts by Miller in a DIFFERENT smaller sheet, embellishment by Janson. Miller didn't touch the original art. [*]DD #191: Full pencils by Miller, inks by Austin [Yes, this might make my head explode. All I know is it was great reading off the stands way back when. ] Should I revise this or annotate it differently?

On the comicart-l, we had a long conversation on the topic and this was the consensus there and I took notes and created this summary: DD #158-172: Full pencils by Miller, inks by Janson. DD #173-180: Layouts by Miller in the same sheet, embellishment by Janson. DD #181: Layouts by Miller in a DIFFERENT smaller sheet, embellishment by Janson. Miller didn't touch the original art. DD #182-184: Layouts by Miller in the same sheet, embellishment by Janson. Notes: Theory: Issues 182-184 (Punisher arc) were originally intended for an earlier publication and probably have a mix of (Miller pencils/Janson inks) and all Jansen pages from Miller layouts. It might be difficult to know who actually did what as the story was altered for the revised publication and changed situation. MikeyO, the proposer of the theory in the note above, later wrote: [*]DD #185-190: Layouts by Miller in a DIFFERENT smaller sheet, embellishment by Janson. Miller didn't touch the original art. [*]DD #191: Full pencils by Miller, inks by Austin [Yes, this might make my head explode. All I know is it was great reading off the stands way back when. ] Should I revise this or annotate it differently?

Thanks for the kind words. I should have asked if he had any prelims. Next time!

A few years ago, I made one of my first commission requests to Giordano. I had no clue what I was doing (and still don't know much except that I'm no Art Director). was very kind and patient. The big hangup was that I could not decide what character i wanted; he'd penciled, inked, or both all of the DC folks at one time or another. So, I decided on a 70's/80's JLA 80-Page Giant Roll Call type "cover." He delivered. Years have passed and, sadly, so did . As one might expect, the miscellaneous ephemera of his studio is appearing for sale. In scrolling through Anthony Synder's latest update, I found the prelim of my commission. A quick email exchange, a little cash, and some mailing time and I now own the prelim to my commission. It's kind of interesting. Click to embiggen:

I like it! But, you probably knew that.

Thanks. Got a con report to write now.

I'm not sure what happened this weekend at the Amazing! Houston Comic Con, but it appears that I may have gone into a strange new world of art collecting - MLP. The con started off well enough. I got a sketch cover by Ryan Kincaid featuring Commissioner Gordon in my VIP goody bag. I don't know his work, but it's a nice image and totally appropriate. I think you might enjoy it too. Click the image to embiggin: . Terry Moore and his wife, Robyn, were manning their booth and I finally pulled the trigger on a piece of art from Terry. I chose the OA for a print he'd done for Echo back in 2009. It features Julie pulling a someone through the desert. I really like it and Terry and I will soon search his warehouse for a copy of the print. You can see it here along with a picture of the three of us. Click the image to embiggin. . After that, things began to get hazy and confused. I ended up at Tony Fleecs table thumbing through some of his OA. Tony is a frequent artist for MLP: Friends Forever. As I was going through it and visiting with Tony about some other MLP artists/writers that I know (Tom Zahler, Katie Cook, and Andy Price), I found a DPS that features all of the ponies ever created (or close enough not to matter). It's amazing, but it's full of ponies! Clearly, I've gone to the dark side (or the brightly colored side) because I bought it. If you are courageous enough, check it out by clicking the image. and look at the additional images for the color version and a picture of Tony with the art. The con got stranger though. I visited with Tom Scioli of GI Joe and Transformer and Godland fame. A guy that draws serious, manly stuff! So, what did I ask him to create? A Kirbyesque pony inspired by a MLP Kirby Pony mockup cover that he did. It's pretty cool, but it's ponies! What has happened to me? Here's the drawing (click to embiggin): . You can see what started the trouble in the additional images section. I suspect that most of you won't find this update interesting, but check it out, you might be surprised.

That's really nice. Congratulations.

You may have read the story about my wife's reaction to my comic reading, but if not, click here. People change though. Not only did she encourage me to start again and not only has she actually commissioned artists for me, but she ventured out in 2013 and bought a comic (Hero Cats) for the first time in her life. This past year, she went further and bought the cover to the third issue of the series. Yep, she's crossed over to the dark side. Anyway, in honor of new collection, I have revamped my galleries to reflect the separate collections held by my wife and my daughters. Take a look. Alex - http://www.comicartfans.com/GalleryRoom.asp?Page=1&Order=Title&GSub=34812 Kathy - http://www.comicartfans.com/galleryroom.asp?gsub=159807 Allie - http://www.comicartfans.com/galleryroom.asp?gsub=159808 Elizabeth - http://www.comicartfans.com/galleryroom.asp?gsub=159809 Rebecca - http://www.comicartfans.com/galleryroom.asp?gsub=159810 Enjoy.

Thanks. 14 year old me appreciates it!

Okay, it's not really comic art and you could consider it tracing, but it is almost the only piece of art that I have ever created. Back in the 8th grade, I took a drafting class. One of the things we learned was how to scale a drawing to make it larger or smaller. The general technique is to make copy, lay on it a grid of 1cm squares, take the target page and grid it with smaller or larger squares to scale the drawing. Since I'm a big LotR fan (yes, I've bought, read, and enjoyed both the Silmarillion and Christopher Tolkien's History of Middle Earth), I decided in my youth to scale the map of Middle Earth from the hardbound books to a piece of poster board. I drew it in ink and colored it with colored pencils. I lost it years and years ago. A few years ago, I mentioned losing it to my mom. My youngest brother says, "It's not lost, it's behind the couch in the living room." Sure enough, it was in an art portfolio stuck between the couch and the wall. It'd been there from 30+ years. It's yellowed considerably from the acid in the paper, but that just makes the map look better. I had it framed a couple of months ago and have decided to post it to the CAF. Take a look and let me know what you think. Sadly, it's just a photo. I didn't want to spend the big bucks getting a good scan. A few notes: 1) When I'd finished this, no one beat me on a ME geography quiz 2) There were no posters to buy at the time so this was my attempt. 3) The Additional Images give you a feel for the detail so check them out.