• When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.

Ferran Delgado

  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Ferran Delgado

  1. Austin later pasted the following drawing in the UPC box of the original art, as seen in the Modern Masters book.
  2. The art of the cover of MTU #79 ––one of my favorite Byrne/Austin book ever–– was published in the Modern Masters book focused on Byrne (page 90), although contrasted, so "only" linework is visible. A pity that it was not published at full page as it deserves. Probably Terry Austin still keeps the art, since he contributed with many pieces to the book. Byrne proposed Austin to ink MTU when Byrne got the X-Men gig (he wanted Grainger in X-Men to make easier the transition from Cockrum), but Goodwin was hooked on the team of Marvel Preview #11. This is why Byrne wrote the following comment in the UPC box of the cover of #141 (below). Read the story told by JB in this link: http://www.byrnerobotics.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=24283&PN=0&TPN=1 CLICK ON THE IMAGE TO ENLARGE IT!
  3. I posted this question in my FB group, and these are some of the names cited: Frank Thorne, Brett Breeding, Karl Kesel, Bret Blevins or John Romita Sr.
  4. I do not want to wait a year or two. If you pay AFTER the piece is done, you'll see how he's much faster, reducing the lapse of time to a few months, or even weeks. But if you pay in advance, you''d better be patience...
  5. This is what it looks out of context, but for regular visitors of the forum or people like I that used to visit it till got sick and felt in risk not to read another Byrne comic in his life, like it happened to other visitors, this means something quite different.
  6. 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.
  7. But this should be put in context. The length of Byrne's replies depends on the blind loyalty of the posters. This is his forum and he's a master playing with his victims/fans. Probably this guy didn't harass enough to someone who disagreed with JB or didn't give enough praise to his latest commissions. Probably.
  8. Thank you very much for your info based on facts that stops speculations and rumors.
  9. It's a coincidence, because I just came across this ad from Tony Dispoto in an old CBG which provides info about a particular piece. He talks about a calendar piece, but from his description maybe he refers to the plate from the Marvel Team-Up portfolio:
  10. Thanks, Gene. Now let's hope that Auction houses and art dealers take note about this, and from this moment on, they describe the pages according to this info, and stop fooling with descriptions, which only harms their reputations.
  11. This is what I meant in my "what if". Omission is not proof, but it might reinforce evidences of the official version.
  12. But let's get paranoid. What if Miller and Janson had an agreement back then to say officially that Miller did full pencils and now he decides to break the deal?
  13. I agree. It's not only what it's told back at the age, but the opportunities that Janson has to clarify what's told officially at the lettercol of the series and the credits, and he keeps in silence about the subject.
  14. I didn't refer to Janson when I said that this subject stinks. I'm talking about art dealers and auction houses and collectors that are very interested to defend their investments and be shady about the pages not touched by Miller. We saw many cases with vague or false descriptions trying to cheat novices. I don't know why Janson suddenly started his claims that his contribution was greater than officially attributed, but this is not the first time that a part of a great creative team suddenly claim more than he used to admit for many years. We have Kirby's case, when decades later, sick of Lee's getting the full credit, started to claim that he build the whole Marvel Universe all by himself and denied credit to Lee. I don't know if Janson's change of mind has nothing to do with this, but i don't think that we'll get nothing clear unless layouts like the ones auctioned at Heritage or Nelson's photocopies show. Till then, I believe the sources from the age.
  15. Janson is obviously aware that this is why everyone thinks that separate sheet breakdowns began with #185 (and, in fact, that's when Marvel started changing the credits to list him as penciller). And yet, he specifically says that it's wrong and that's not how it actually happened. Why would he do that? Trying to steal Frank's thunder, having a senior moment, or just correcting a misconception out there in the public? My guess is that it's the latter, but I say we ask the man himself, present the evidence as to why people think the separate sheets began with #185, and see if he has a good explanation regarding his claim. Given the clarity and specificity of his recollection to the contrary, I'll bet that he does. Well, there are a few sources from the age that point out that they started working this way from #185 on. Why correct it decades later? Why to wait so long when he got interviewed a few times since then? If Miller didn't give due credit to Janson back then according to Klaus, why start doing it now? I think that all this subject stinks since there are many economic interests involved. Sorry, but I don't believe to Klaus unless I can see some evidence otherwise.
  16. Now that I think of it, I remember that Rubinstein told me long ago that he got all the art from #2. I should check it out with him again, but I remember that he commented it to complain that nowadays a single page is sold for more than he sold the complete issue.
  17. Wow, that photocopy is impressive! I never imagined that the original layouts looked like that one! Thanks for sharing!
  18. I also agree that the inker gets the complete art of an issue doesn't mean that he did all the art. Many times the penciler and inker split their share in complete issues instead of getting the inker a third of it.
  19. I already posted this in page 4 of this thread. I think that this is proof enough that Miller began doing breakdowns in a different sheet from #185 on. This was published originally in The Comics Journal #72 and written by Kim Thompson. «Miller explained that he has already begun giving Klaus looser breakdowns to work from. Then, with #185, he will begin to give Janson thumbnail sketches to work with; » This was written at the same age that this happened. More specific, impossible.
  20. I think that this is the final proof that Miller started to do thumbs in a separate sheet in #185. Published in The Comics Journal #72 (May, 1982).
  21. The only clue I found in the interview is that Denny O'Neil was writing the DD title (see the scan), so this means DD #194 (May, 1983) onward. This leads to think that the interview still occurred in 1983, and he was still referring to 1982 when happened the switch to layouts in a different sheet. Miller says "a point in last year" and not "a year ago". At the time of the interview, Miller had Ronin #1 totally finished and he was inking #2. Ronin #1 had July 1983 as cover date, so it was distributed a couple of months ago. This means that the interview probably happened circa spring 1983.
  22. Russo, glad to help, although the merit should go to Mitch, who was Klaus' art dealer and held the art in his hands and he gave key info. About the subject, I found a related comment in an interview to Miller published in the defunct mag Comics Feature #25, dated 1983 (first column at the bottom). Although the credits cites no particular month, I can deduce that the mag is dated Set-Oct. The only clue is "a point in last year". This means 1982. DD #185 has cover date of Aug, 1982, so this means that it hit the newstands circa June, and it was finished by the authors circa Apr-May, so this would fit the statement. But DD # 179 wouldn't, since it has cover date of Feb, 1982, which means that it was distributed at the end of 1981 and finished circa Oct-Nov of 1981. Anyway, credits of the comics are quite clear and the letter section posted at the beginning of this thread from DD #188 confirm that the change happened in #185. I think that you can be easy about your fantastic page of DD #182 (congrats, btw!)
  23. Thanks for the support. It's never easy to disagree with top auction houses or top art dealers in a hobby like this one, when you can get accused of hidden agendas or something worse by pets. It's a pleasure to deal with people that can agree or disagree in a reasonably way. About Janson, he already was wrong when he stated that Miller never worked on Craftint, as seen in this thread: http://boards.collectors-society.com/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=5118982&fpart=1 So I prefer to believe what Janson told in the mag Back Issue #21: -DD 158-172: Miller full pencils. -DD 173-184: Layouts by Miller directly on the board. -DD 185-190: Layouts by Miller in different sheet. -DD 191: Miller pencils on the board, Terry Austin inks. Exceptions: The Drug issues and fill ins. All the covers were penciled by Miller directly on the board according Mitch.
  24. I disagree. A newby could be confused since you don't say clearly that these layouts were drawn in a separate sheet. I think that you're playing with words. My 2ç.
  25. I never understood why auction houses like Heritage or CLink risk to damage their reputation with misleading descriptions like that ones. Imho, credibility for big companies like them should be more important than a few thousand of dollars, which is nothing compared with their volume of income.