Koa

Just received my first commissioned art in the mail today.

It was done by Mike Hoffman and found him easy to work with. Turn around time was very quick also.

 

Enjoy!!!!

 

 

I'll post some better pics once I get it framed.

 

It's titled "Mermaid Treasure"

This is fantastic. I thought Hoffman stopped doing this type of work long ago.

I like issue 20.

Koa, I thought I was the only Trencher fan out there. A piece pops up now and then (there are 14 Market Data Results on CAF) and a very few pieces on CAF itself. Good luck!

No way! I can't believe more people didn't get into this series. I love trencher. it was so irreverent. The book had so much personality. I wish giff would bring the series back or do that art style again. It was sublime

Thanks for the info Shemp.

Did the cover to trencher 1-3 ever make it to market?

Kieth Giffen has been a chameleon of sorts of the years changing his style pretty dramatically more than a few times. My favorite incarnation of Giffen the artist came during the early 90's when he developed a bizarre style on (I think, the first place I saw it anyway) lobo infanticide and used again on Images of Shadowhawk and his creator owned series trencher. Giffen abandoned that drawing style after a few projects but I loved it.

I've seen a few Lobo infanticide pages and some Images of Shadow hawk but I don't think I've seen any trencher art. Does anyone know if Artwork from the trencher series ever made it to market? Covers and splash pages especially.

Does anyone know if Todd MCfarlane's Conan the barbarian cover ever made it to market? I It's one of my favorite Mcfarlane covers & would love to see the original art on that.

Byrne and his board are a trainwreck. He doesn't understand how "Bad Byrne Stories" get started and doesn't realize that his comments on his board are perfect examples of "Bad Byrne Stories". Here are some gems that he has said on his message board and at other places over the years that perpetuate this opinion (Crocodile Hunter is a real standout).

 

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/John_Byrne

 

That said, he is a great artist and am a fan of his work, but I don't care for him as a person.

 

 

John's internet persona is very anti-social toward fans, which is odd considering these are people who love him. That said it is the internet and everyone comes off that way from time to time. is byrne the same in personat convention appearances and signings?

Let's not forget a HUGE thank you to Nelson!!!

 

Ron

 

Yes, thanks to Nelson and Cheeky Joe - it was definitely a team effort to get to the bottom of this!

I wish you guys shot video of this outing and talk with klaus, it would have been much fun to watch

He either forgot or deliberately didn't disclose the fact that Miller did 11x17 boards on 182 and 184, which Nelson has copies of. Again, this is called evidence.

 

Given the rescheduling of the #182-#184, I don't find it implausible that there may have been reasons why these issues were created in a different fashion than #179-#181 (to maintain consistency, for example). That's definitely a question to be posed to Klaus and Frank if anyone can pin them down. As for Nelson's copies, I think everybody wants to see scans of these so we know exactly what we are dealing with.

 

Even if we can prove that #182-#184 were all done by Miller's pencils on board, to me, that wouldn't necessarily invalidate Klaus' statement if he recalls that those issues were done that way because they were started that way, but the other issues weren't. If he says, no, no, those were separate sheets too, then I can believe that he was just wrong about #179-#181 as well. But, right now, I don't see anything even remotely resembling a smoking gun.

 

If he's at the NYCC again this year, let's go ask him.

 

His testimony has already been proven to be.... let's call it "incomplete."

 

I've got to say something doesn't smell right about the 2012 comments by Janson. Hasn't there been a falling out between Miller and Janson? Nelson's comments and description of the scans also seem to contradict Rubinstein's comments that Miller just provided squiggles for that book. Maybe inkers just don't like Frank Miller, Maybe they feel he gets too much credit. All I know is the thing that's odd about the 2012 comments is that it took 30 years for this sentiment to surface. I find that more troubling than the idea that Janson can't remember 30 years ago. J Sid's point is that how is there radio silence on this issue for 30 years and then "BTW, I was really doing pencils on one of the most celebrated runs in comic book history 6 issues earlier than everyone thought." Not trying to impugn Janson's integrity, but it just strikes me (and a lot of other people) as quite odd.

Didn't the falling out occur via 3rd party? From all the interviews I've seen or heard it seems like Miller just cut off contact completely with janson during or shortly after DKR.

Did miller ever even talked to janson about what happened directly.

Wasn't he told 3rd party that Frank was upset Klaus farming out DKR pages to assistants. Janson was asked about this on a (terribly conducted) podcast a few years ago and if i remember right seemed genuinely confounded by lack of communication with Frank over the years.

I think the story janson said he was given from a 3rd party was that Frank had come back from vacation and saw some pages which he felt were "hacked out" &someone at the DC offices told him janson was farming out the last book of DKR to assistants. Frank got really upset and started reinking panels and their collaboration came to an abrupt end. Maybe Frank just wanted to go solo and needed to break the personal and professional relationship to do it?

Psst ...

I have been sharing information.

I think my copies are more reliable than the memories of FM, KJ, and JR. Hell, I have trouble remembering what I ate for lunch yesterday so who would not have fuzzy memories from 30 years ago.

 

 

Again, I'm not part of any discussion group outside of CGC. I only chimed in recently when I read this thread and thought I could contribute in a positive manner.

 

Cheers!

N.

I'm not doubting your assessment. I'm agreeing that your copies of the pencils can end this debate once and for all. A picture is worth a thousand words.

I lugged the copies to NYCC several years ago so a few collectors saw them in person. Other collectors were not interested in seeing them.

You found an eager audience here at CGC and I'm sure you're scans would get a warm welcome over at comic art fans.

Several years ago on these chat boards I provided a scan of a DD / Kingpin page which showed FM's detailed layouts. My scanner was working then. The OA was up for auction and my scan helped clarify questions about FM's pencils.

Can someone help nelson out with scanning!

I agree with you Jeff.

 

With all due respect to the inkers/finishers, the memories of Klaus and Joe may be a bit fuzzy after all these years

 

I don't see why their memories should be any more suspect than Frank's. Miller has given janson a lot of credit for the look of those issues over the years. it seems like you could set the record straight by sharing some of those pages.

There really shouldn't be this much mystery/debate surrounding who did what when most of the collaborators are still alive and copies of the process still exist.

I've been getting bombarded with emails regarding my stash of photocopies of Miller's pencils.

 

First, let me say that I am not part of any yahoo discussion group. I am only on CAF or these CGC chat boards. If you want to reach me via CAF, please include your email or check on the special box CAF provides to display your email. If you don't, I can't reply back to you or certainly not on a timely basis.

 

To address certain questions ...

 

YES, I am confirming that Miller did detailed layouts in pencil directly on 11 x17 bristol for DD 182 and DD 184.

 

My copies of DD 182 are full sized 11 x 17 (A3). The copies also show hand drawn word balloons and text. The handwriting is consistent with FM's handwriting I have seen elsewhere. The pencils are also consistent with FM's style.

 

My copies of DD 184 are small 8.5 x 11 letter sized. While it is a 1/3 reduction, it is still obvious that the copy was made of the original full sized bristol. The copy also shows hand drawn word balloons and text along with the pencilled layouts.

 

While I do not have a copy of art from DD 183, it looks obvious that 'Child's Play' was originally a 1 issue storyline. DD 182 and DD 184 were new stories and art to frame the drug issue and incorporate it into the current timeline following the Elektra saga.

 

The art from DD 183 (originally 167), stylistically looks like full pencils from FM's earlier period.

 

Since FM pencilled DD 182 and the issue ontinues the Elektra storyline, I would venture a guess and say FM also pencilled the detailed layouts directly on bristol for DD 179 - DD 181. It just wouldn't make sense for him to layouts on separate sheets but then switch back to do pencils on bristol for DD 182 and DD 184.

 

More to come.

Cheers!

N.

 

 

 

 

I still haven't been convinced that the statement from the DD letters page, (OK'd by Editors and published at the time when all this was occurring) is anything other than accurate.

 

Klaus's online statement came 30 years later. Sorry Klaus, if you'd done an interview back in the 80s where you'd made similar statements I'd be more inclined to give them credence.

 

Mitch's statement that he received all the pages from 181 doesn't necessarily mean that Klaus drew all those issues. As pointed out, complete issues were sometimes split up when returning art to penciller/inkers.

Has anyone asked Joe Rosen (before he passed on) Denny O'Neil or Jim Shooter? they would have seen the pencils through the entire run.

The letters page says janson began penciling a few issues prior. I think Miller said in interviews it was the last year or so of their run..so that would put Klaus taking on more responsibility for the finished art at around 178 (not counting 191)

I think it's perfectly possible that Frank did full pencils on some issues and layouts on others non sequentially. Frank is mercurial after all. There really shouldn't be this much mystery/debate surrounding who did what when most of the collaborators are still alive.

I do think Janson deserves much more respect as an artist than he seems to be getting though

 

Also, Miller didn't have a definitive look back then.

 

I don't agree with this, but interesting points.

In general inkers had so much more latitude over the final look of the art. tight pencils as we know them today were very rare from what i understand (and have seen)

 

What I mean was that it looks like he deferred a lot of the final look to Klaus (and joe Rubinstein on wolverine) and focused on storytelling & composition more and more. When you look at DD 191 and Ronin Miller's aesthetics in terms of line work and spotting blacks were coming from a very different place than his work with janson.

 

I understand what you're saying, and you are 100% correct that inkers were much more responsible for the finished look back then, but I don't think it's correct to say Miller didn't have his distinctive look. You can see it in Twilight Zone #84 and #85, John Carter #18, PPSM #27, 28, Unknown Soldier #219, DC Special #21, Werd War #64 & #68, and many covers, inked by Springer, McLeod, Milgrom, Bulanadi, and others, and Miller's distinctive look is apparent in all.

 

Klaus just became the collaborator that Frank felt the most comfortable with.

 

With #191, you're looking at the middle stage of his evolution between his 1978-1981 work, and what he eventually ended up with in Ronin and DK. Plus, Austin had his quite distinctive hand in the issue, too. I agree, it is markedly different from what came before, but by this time, in late 1982, Miller had clearly grown tired of the restrictions of monthly books, and, as most artists do, was experimenting with the look of his work.

 

Aside: Issue #191 is the definitive issue of the relationship between DD and Bullseye. It's outstanding, and an excellent sendoff to Miller's original run.

Fair enough. When i look at Miller and Janson's work apart from one another it's Janson's drawing that looks the most descendant from their DD collaboration. Of course correlation does not imply causation so I could be wrong.

DD was a couple of years before I really got into comics and miller. Seeing Sin City first than going backward to find what came before maybe biased my eye in terms of what i consider a signature style.

 

Also, Miller didn't have a definitive look back then.

 

I don't agree with this, but interesting points.

In general inkers had so much more latitude over the final look of the art. tight pencils as we know them today were very rare from what i understand (and have seen)

What I mean was that it looks like he deferred a lot of the final look to Klaus (and joe Rubinstein on wolverine) and focused on storytelling & composition more and more. When you look at DD 191 and Ronin Miller's aesthetics in terms of line work and spotting blacks were coming from a very different place than his work with janson.

When I look at #182-184...especially #183....I see Miller lines throughout, which would make sense, as this was the story originally slated for #167 (aside...I love the original unpublished cover art to #167.)

 

When I look at #181, I see Miller, Janson. and Miller/Janson. For example (sorry, I don't have pages annotated)...the page with Castle, where he's doing chin-ups in prison...that looks like Miller's linework (as opposed to Klaus' mimicry.)

 

But, when you turn to the page with Bullseye shoving Elektra's sai into her....that looks like Klaus the whole page, even in the faces, even though they retain a Miller-style. The possible exception I see is the last panel on the page, but again, it could be skilled mimicry.

 

I recognize the stylistic difference in #179-up, and this has bothered me for literally decades, trying to decipher what was Miller, and what was Janson, and who did what. Even not knowing what I know now, I still saw differences in the linework that weren't entirely explainable.

 

We had the opportunity to discuss the Wolverine mini-series, among other things. It was great getting his view on how things worked, how long it took him to finish the issues, etc. I came away with a better appreciation for his work on Wolvie, which, while certainly Miller's vision, was as much Rubinstein's work, if not more.

 

I always felt the same way about wolverine. Rubinstein is all over the look of the final art. Finished art by Frank around that time had a very different aesthetic than his collaborations with Janson and Rubinstein.

I read in interviews that Frank made a conscious choice to hand over the superficial aspects of style ot Klaus Janson once he started writing. Frank's attention quickly shifted to staging and janson took over lighting/rendering. This suggests (to me) that even when when Frank was working on the art board Janson was doing a goo I think Klaus defined the line work rather than mimic/trace. Also, Miller didn't have a definitive look back then.

Even with other artist Klaus inks are so heavy handed (although he's toned it done the last 10 years) that I don't think he could mimic another artists line consistently.

Again? The difference lies in the purpose and execution, and in the reception the art receives. As one panel in a Crappy comic book aimed at kids and miscreants, he image is easily forgettable.

 

But singled out and recreated as a full size painting, hung in a Gallery where it is reeaxamined by itself, or in a series of similar images on canvas, invites an appreciation of the meaning of the elements and emotions of the panel. Taken out of its original context increases the focus of the throwaway panel drawn for a per page rate on a deadline. The viewer sees the image and experiences the same image in a completely different way.

 

Anyway, that's the theory. It works for me. How different is lichtensteins work, basically reinterpreting an existing man made creation, than any painter painting any other found object and reinterpreting it in a new context?

 

You could argue tht Lichtenstein saw more value in the original panel than the comic book artists did, having sold it for pennies.

This makes perfect sense to me. i don't know that i agree with it but it's a very illuminating point of view.

I've been talking offline with someone about this issue and wrote the below, which I thought I would share:

 

At the end of the day, Miller didn't write #158-#167, so I personally discount those pages just as much as pages from issues #185-#190 (even though the former are full Miller pencils and the latter are Miller separate sheet layouts).

Similarly, #173-#180 may have had only loose Miller breakdowns, but the art generally looks better and the story is definitely better than #168-172 taken as a whole (of course I love #168 on its own, though). And, if #181 is actually all-Janson...well, again, #181 looks and reads better, is more important, and more loved than any other issue in the run - it is the pinnacle of Miller DD, full stop (DD #227 I would say comes admirably close and is the next best single Miller DD issue...Frank's pencil never touched those boards either, though!) Maybe if Frank had wrote #181 and some hack had drawn it, those pages would trade at a discount, but between Frank's signature layouts and Klaus' consistent inks throughout, even trained eyes can't tell the difference between who drew #181 and who drew the other issues looking at the art alone.

Even though frank is my favorite comic book artist/writer when it comes to the DD run I don't think whether or not he touched the art board should matter, Miller had yet to begin his definitive visual style & I think Janson has such a heavy handed inking style that he couldn't help but over power Miller's work from early on anyway.

that said, I completely understand why it would be important for collectors paying today's prices that Miller penciled on the original art board given his name recognition and pedigree is so much more so than Klaus Janson but when it comes to Miller's original DD run I think the more Janson contributed to the art the better it looked so I'd be inclined to think Miller didn't return to full pencils for 181.

It's all about page 32 for me.

after that,

43 this is definitely my 2nd favorite. Probably the most iconic joker sequence ever for me. in 89 i had a t-shirt using many of the images on this page.

41

42

40

37

36

20

13

3

John Van Fleet, from the time of his mini series in the 90s.

thanks, it's incredible. can't believe i never heard of him.

Looking for help on finding this one. Any tips that lead to it will be considered for reward.

 

And this one.

 

 

Thanks!

who is the artist on this typhoid mary pin-up?

Here's another one I've wanted to track down over the years. Not sure how many re-creations of it exist

I've met him and agree Joe Quesada is a great guy who means the best at whatever he does. I'm a huge fan of his. I shouldn't have engaged past my original comment. My apologies for contributing to the derail of this thread.

This was one of my first comics and would love to find this cover.Does anyone know who the artist was on this and where it is? Always thought it was done by Mike Zeck but looking at it now I can see it's not. Maybe Michael golden? If it's Golden was it true he destroyed much art from the early 80's?

My IMPRESSION is sour grapes missing out on something that was available over a decade ago for a MERE 5K and the knowledge that it probably won't be pried away from the current owner anytime soon.

It's in BAD FORM to mess all over something that was done for CHARITY. I seriously doubt Joe had the clout to scare anyone off from a CHARITY auction at this time. It's not like Todd was bidding on it and chasing people off with his 3 million dollar baseball bids. This is quite frankly one of the dumbest things I have ever read on this board and is burgeoning to epically moronic proportions.

 

These are my opinions of the situation.

 

 

I think If you donate a prize to a charity auction you shouldn't outbid everyone. You think that's moronic and I think you're mistaken. I don't care if it's artwork or a Dinner date. You are donating an item to get people "in the seats" for a charity. if you go to an auction where a Dinner date with leo Dicaprio is a up for auction and leo outbids everyone, it's bad form. I don't think that's a moronic expectation to not have Derek jeter bidding on "batting practice with Derek jeter" at an auction (for example) but like I told LB, I respect his opinion otherwise.

 

I'm not ting on the charity at all OR on Joe. I think joe is a great guy. The post was not a personal attack on Joe or LB. i shouldn't have bothered engaging in a discussion on a message board rather i should have just called anyone who disagrees with me a insufficiently_thoughtful_person and left it at that. My bad.

 

 

 

 

 

Gotta say I agree with everyone else on this one. Ultimately, the goal was to benefit the charity. So whether it's Leo DiCaprio, Derek Jeter, or Joe Q, they may all be bidding to make sure a certain amount is achieved. For all we know, buying the piece back may not have been Joe Q's intention at all. I see nothing wrong at all in this scenario. Everyone in the room understands the purpose of the auction (i.e. a faux "competition" to raise money for a cause). Really, I think you're the only one who doesn't.

 

As well, I don't think you know what "shilling" means.

I think I'm the only one in this conversation that understands what donating art actually means.

No where is buying your own art back at a charity discussed or recommended because it's not.

http://www.artbusiness.com/auctips.html

http://www.artbusiness.com/auctips2.html

My IMPRESSION is sour grapes missing out on something that was available over a decade ago for a MERE 5K and the knowledge that it probably won't be pried away from the current owner anytime soon.

It's in BAD FORM to mess all over something that was done for CHARITY. I seriously doubt Joe had the clout to scare anyone off from a CHARITY auction at this time. It's not like Todd was bidding on it and chasing people off with his 3 million dollar baseball bids. This is quite frankly one of the dumbest things I have ever read on this board and is burgeoning to epically moronic proportions.

 

These are my opinions of the situation.

I think If you donate a prize to a charity auction you shouldn't outbid everyone. You think that's moronic and I think you're mistaken. I don't care if it's artwork or a Dinner date. You are donating an item to get people "in the seats" for a charity. if you go to an auction where a Dinner date with leo Dicaprio is a up for auction and leo outbids everyone, it's bad form. I don't think that's a moronic expectation to not have Derek jeter bidding on "batting practice with Derek jeter" at an auction (for example) but like I told LB, I respect his opinion otherwise.

I'm not ting on the charity at all OR on Joe. I think joe is a great guy. The post was not a personal attack on Joe or LB. i shouldn't have bothered engaging in a discussion on a message board rather i should have just called anyone who disagrees with me a insufficiently_thoughtful_person and left it at that. My bad.

Re: The Joe Q/McFarlane 9/11 firefighter illustration

 

I'm pretty sure it's on Joe Quesada's wall. If I remember correctly he or his wife bought it off at the benefit art auction that followed the tribute book.

 

I know... disappointing ( wish it was on my wall too ).

 

Oh man. I think that's bad form for an artist to buy his own piece at a benefit auction... I remember it selling for under 5k but I couldn't get set up in time. It's one of my favorite pieces by either artist. One of the best ink jobs Todd ever did, IMO.

 

Like I said, I'm not 100% sure it's the case, but I do seem to recall Joe Q mentioning this years ago on newsarama. Probably not too hard to confirm if someone can ask him at a con.

 

As for Joe Q buying his own piece, I'm fairly certain he mainly wanted it for the McFarlane inks. Hey, it's not every day that you can get Todd to ink your stuff so I totally get where Joe Q was coming from ( It prob didn't hurt either that it was Todd's best inking job since his Spidey heydays ).

 

Also, 5K wasn't cheap for a piece in 2001 or 02.

 

I think it was possibly the historic nature of the project as well as the desire to raise money for a worthwhile cause. That he brought Todd Mcfarlane back to Marvel after Todd said he would NEVER work for them again was a coup.

I agree it's one of Todd's best inking jobs. I think as a work of art it's one of the 10 best single images either has done. Very powerful. It's likely a once and a lifetime deal.

Perception or not, I doubt that anyone is going to be chased off at a charity auction.

You understand my point though.