DocR

I had all the frames and mats cut professionally and then framed them myself at home. I wasn't comfortable leaving the pieces at a framing store. Plus by ordering the frames from an online retailer I can get more in the future that match exactly hopefully if I need to.

Finally got around to framing a bunch of my pieces. Check them out. http://www.comicartfans.com/galleryroom.asp?gsub=161578

Thanks Gene

Gene, thanks so much for confirming this. I thought I could make my first comic con this year but sadly no such luck. I would drove to hear Klaus comments once you track him down. thanks chris

Agreed. Except I would only want to own pages that had been touched by Frank Miller. As a fan of the Daredevil series and a collector of Frank Miller art, I would love to find the 8 x11 thumbnail layouts for DD 179 and 181. If there are in fact 8 x 11 layouts. I believe this has yet to be proven. If someone could produce one that would certainly back up KJ's 2012 statements.

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.

I think he put pencil to board up until 185. Also of note, the letters page scan I posted was from issue 188. So when they say "the last few issues" this means a few issues back from DD188, not a few issues back from DD185. Ok, thanks for the clarification, We are in agreement.

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. 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. Can someone help nelson out with scanning! I have an A3 scanner and would love this chore.

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. My head is starting to spin here. IS it your position that miller put pencil to board on 178 -184 or are there certain issues where you disagree with this statement?

I think the basic message with all of this and where I completely agree with Gene, is that Frank Miller was integral to this run and if he had penciled and inked everything himself vs loose layouts on separate sheets it shouldn't affect value dramatically because you are buying the run. That being said I can understand why people who may only have room in their collection for a single page of this value/caliber are concerned with the specifics. That all being said any pages from this run I consider to have especially high collector appeal and Frank Miller had a direct hand in their creation whether his hand directly touched page or not. I would love to see more of those 8 1/2 by 11 rough layouts surface to prove or disprove the issue. P.S. I wish auction houses put 1/10 of the effort into these things that we do

I always find it fascinating to chronologically take a look at what books an artist was working on at a given time (for instance, check out how many books Byrne was doing in a given month off and on in the 1977-1979 era - unreal). To perhaps state the obvious, but Miller most likely had to move to separate sheet layouts during the post-DD185 time period due to this Wolverine chores at the same time. I also reviewed the Miller DD TPB's last night and it is amazing the stylistic changes during the run...I have to say however that it is a little perplexing to me that if DD179-190 (except for 183/184) was done with separate layouts then 1) why did the title credits only adjust to "Miller - Storyteller, Janson - Art" as of DD185 and 2) why is there such a distinct stylistic difference between DD182 and postDD185? In other words, if there was no change in artistic approach from DD179-190 between Miller and Janson (meaning layout by Miller on a separate sheet), then why did things visually change as of DD185? As previously mentioned, there is a minor stylistic shift between DD178 and DD179 but not as significant as between DD182 and DD185-190. Some may say this is just my opinion but I believe it has always been widely acknowledged that DD185 onwards just looks more Jason-influenced than DD182 and before. To be transparent, I do own a page from DD182 so I do have a dog in this fight admittedly. Agreed, Would love to hear from Mitch regarding these points.

In all fairness to the comments re #182 I would like to hear from people with direct knowledge of the situation (Mitch Itkowitz, Frank Miller, Klaus Janson) before annotating the guidelines of miller dd run art breakdown duties. Yes I have a self interest, but also since these 3 persons are alive and well I don't see why we are relying on theory.

BTW. where did this #180 cut-off come from - shouldn't it be DD #173-#178 done on the same board and #179-181 and #185-190 done on separate sheets? Also, wouldn't the new pages from #182-#184 (those that weren't done around #167) be separate sheet layouts as well? Someone cited a 2012 post by Janson where he said that the separate sheets started with #179, not #181: "Just to set the record straight, though, Frank went to 8 and a half inch by 11 inch breakdowns on issue #179, not #185." I was just looking through the TPB covering DD #168-#182. I can't really detect any noticeable change between the art for #172 and #173 (when Miller supposedly went from full pencils to loose breakdowns). To the extent that I can detect any meaningful stylistic change, it's between #178 and #179 (not between #180 and #181). If #181 was a separate sheet layout issue, I would strongly suspect that #179 and #180 were too - and that is backed up by Klaus. Would love to get opinions from others after they take another look at their TPBs or back issues. Not that, as I said, it matters to me, but if we're trying to set the record straight here, let's set the record straight. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, I'm willing to take Klaus at his word; his recollection seems pretty clear to me from what he wrote. I believe this was the initial thought but Ferran Delgado did a ton of research and presented some evidence, which resulted in the summary that Alex provided. I could be wrong though.

[*]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? This has been my understanding of the consensus as well.

1. Page 32, iconic 2. Page 41, battle page 3. Page 40, batman through the glass, battle 4. Page 42 Battle 5. Page 45, the joke 6. Page 43, fake gun 7. Page 35, battle 8. Page 36, battle, acid 9. Page 33, maniacal joker 3rd panel 10. page 34, I'm a sucker for the bat mobile