comicnoir Posted December 6, 2012 Share Posted December 6, 2012 I can't remember whether I'd posted my copy, but here goes, and yes it is a classic. In the Baker lexicon it is refered to as the "autumn " cover. Could this be the "Winter" cover? Is there a "Spring" and "Summer"? (How about Diary Secrets #27 as one of those?) Flowers in bloom might signify Spring. . Note the near-sequential publication dates. Yes, and those hands are perfect. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sqeggs Posted December 6, 2012 Share Posted December 6, 2012 Flowers in bloom might signify Spring. . Note the near-sequential publication dates. Yes, and those hands are perfect. Yep. One of "Bad Hands" better efforts. Look, I love the guy. But examine his drawings carefully. He often did have a problem rendering hands. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
29dukedog Posted December 6, 2012 Share Posted December 6, 2012 I can't remember whether I'd posted my copy, but here goes, and yes it is a classic. In the Baker lexicon it is refered to as the "autumn " cover. Could this be the "Winter" cover? Is there a "Spring" and "Summer"? (How about Diary Secrets #27 as one of those?) Flowers in bloom might signify Spring. . Note the near-sequential publication dates. And Diary Secrets #26 might get my vote for "Summer"... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flex Mentallo Posted December 6, 2012 Share Posted December 6, 2012 I can't remember whether I'd posted my copy, but here goes, and yes it is a classic. In the Baker lexicon it is refered to as the "autumn " cover. Could this be the "Winter" cover? Is there a "Spring" and "Summer"? (How about Diary Secrets #27 as one of those?) Flowers in bloom might signify Spring. . Note the near-sequential publication dates. And Diary Secrets #26 might get my vote for "Summer"... Just wondering - is there a February dated cover? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
29dukedog Posted December 6, 2012 Share Posted December 6, 2012 Cinderella Love #26 is cover dated Feb. '55. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buttock Posted December 7, 2012 Share Posted December 7, 2012 Another recent find, one of Baker's very best romance covers, IMO. Also a great example of how his "teen-age" males often look like adult men in their late thirties. Well, no one was saying the guys were teenagers. It's the title of the book!!! Whether the guys are teenagers is unimportant. You people are looking at the guys??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doohickamabob Posted December 7, 2012 Share Posted December 7, 2012 After looking at a lot of Baker lately, I would say his one weakness is his drawing of hands. He does decent a job on this cover -- although still a bit weak compared with how exceptional the rest of the drawing is -- but sometimes his hands are pretty awful. I dunno, I think most of the time with the romance covers, the hands are pretty good. They are usually small elements of the composition so they don't get a lot of detail. But some of them are rendered nicely. Some examples... And... Then again, sometimes Baker is a little too good at drawing hand details: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
comicnoir Posted December 7, 2012 Share Posted December 7, 2012 Baker could draw anything...well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
adamstrange Posted December 7, 2012 Share Posted December 7, 2012 Baker could draw anything...well. I agree. Not sure what the hub-bub is about. He was St John's main cover artist for a couple years was adept at all facets of illustration. Here's a Western cover with nicely drawn hands. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
comicnoir Posted December 7, 2012 Share Posted December 7, 2012 Let's give Baker a hand. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flex Mentallo Posted December 7, 2012 Share Posted December 7, 2012 Let's give Baker a hand. I'm a professional artist and any artist will tell you that hands are the hardest part of the human anatomy to render convincingly - for obvious reasons. Even Rembrandt had trouble with hands. Arnold Houbraken who was a painter and a contemporary of Rembrandt’s in Amsterdam, also an admirer was also very critical of Rembrandt’s drawing on occasion – “it is very seldom one finds in Rembrandt a well painted hand”– of his female nudes……“he has produces such pitiful things that they are hardly worth mentioning, they are invariably repellent and one can only ask oneself in amazement how a man with such talent and intelligence can be so stubborn in his choice of models.” Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sqeggs Posted December 7, 2012 Share Posted December 7, 2012 Baker could draw anything...well. Except, on occasion, hands! I ain't giving up! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
comicnoir Posted December 7, 2012 Share Posted December 7, 2012 Baker could draw anything...well. Except, on occasion, hands! I ain't giving up! Where's your evidence? I could post my case 'til doomsday (which, according to the Mayan calendar, is coming up. Where will I put my comics?) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sqeggs Posted December 7, 2012 Share Posted December 7, 2012 Baker could draw anything...well. Except, on occasion, hands! I ain't giving up! Where's your evidence? I could post my case 'til doomsday (which, according to the Mayan calendar, is coming up. Where will I put my comics?) Well, I know we're not looking at her hands, but how about the cover of PL 17? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
plady69 Posted December 7, 2012 Share Posted December 7, 2012 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doohickamabob Posted December 8, 2012 Share Posted December 8, 2012 Well, I know we're not looking at her hands, but how about the cover of PL 17? glands > hands Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sqeggs Posted December 12, 2012 Share Posted December 12, 2012 Baker bondage and sexy! The new book on Baker suggests that this cover is by someone imitating Baker's style but not by Baker himself. Note that on the label CGC doesn't attribute the cover to Baker. On the other hand, there is a copy in this Sunday's HA auction and they do attribute the cover to Baker. Any thoughts by knowledgable Baker fans? (p.s. Any way you look at it, it's a sensational cover and this copy is superb.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BB-Gun Posted December 13, 2012 Share Posted December 13, 2012 Baker bondage and sexy! The new book on Baker suggests that this cover is by someone imitating Baker's style but not by Baker himself. Note that on the label CGC doesn't attribute the cover to Baker. On the other hand, there is a copy in this Sunday's HA auction and they do attribute the cover to Baker. Any thoughts by knowledgable Baker fans? (p.s. Any way you look at it, it's a sensational cover and this copy is superb.) I don't think it is by either Baker, Kamen or Webb. Someone else is imitating Baker. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doohickamabob Posted December 13, 2012 Share Posted December 13, 2012 Baker bondage and sexy! The new book on Baker suggests that this cover is by someone imitating Baker's style but not by Baker himself. Note that on the label CGC doesn't attribute the cover to Baker. On the other hand, there is a copy in this Sunday's HA auction and they do attribute the cover to Baker. Any thoughts by knowledgable Baker fans? (p.s. Any way you look at it, it's a sensational cover and this copy is superb.) I don't think it is by either Baker, Kamen or Webb. Someone else is imitating Baker. I always assumed it was Kamen, Baker, or the two collaborating. It has similarities to Phantom Lady #23 and there is nothing about the style that is so far off as to suggest it can't be Baker/Kamen (doing a rush job), except that there are some quirks with the way the body is composed (the awkward head position and the bizarre pelvic protrusion). Come to think of it, though, there do seem to be many Fox covers late in the run, before the company shut down in 1949/50, that look like imitation/wannabe Baker covers. Some of them are obviously done by A.C. Hollingsworth (usually crime titles) but other ones do not appear to have any noticeable style. I wonder if some of these might be done by the same artist who did many of the covers for Superior publisher out of Canada? Many of the mid-to-late-run Brenda Starrs, for example, appear to be done by somebody imitating Baker/Kamen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flex Mentallo Posted December 13, 2012 Share Posted December 13, 2012 (edited) Two other possibilities might be worth considering. One is that Baker may have been asked to do lots of layouts for lesser artists to complete. There is no denying a certain elegance in the construction here, but Baker makes a face that looks at you, whereas this belongs in the "dot-for-an-eye" category. In addition to which, profiles are hard to get right, and the lines of this one aren't nuanced, as though the inker were tracing an outline rather than creating a three dimensional head from the inside out. Mark Schultz became so disenchanted with his inker on Xenozoic Tales that he ended up doing the inking chores himself and the later artwork looks quite different as a consequence - thank goodness. My second - entirely speculative - point is that It may also be that by this point Baker has become so disenchanted with the cheapskate Fox and is rushing out second rate work. Not sure that fits my image of Baker-as-perfectionist. But when an artist is not focused on doing their best work, rushing things, they can fall into stylistic bad habits. José Gonzales's splashes for Vampirella show he is a master of anatomy yet the style he uses for the rest of the Vampirella strips is very mannered - almost as if it is another artist. In trying to determine whether Baker did a cover what this all boils down for me is, can you see evidence of his hand "underneath" - in the layout of the composition, in the latent elegance of form? In the case of the Jo Jo I kind of do. But do I see him operant in the line, in the nuances? I dont. Edited December 13, 2012 by alanna Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
