X-Men #1 Jack Kirby 1963 Original Art 2008 Sales History

[stinkininkin]

In terms of the inking quality, X-Men #1 is a train wreck.

 

Yeah, but who cares about inking? They just trace the pencils, right?

 

Scott Williams

[Bronty]

that's what I hear!

[alxjhnsn]

Re: Just trace the pencils

Hmmm...

 

I'd guess that the right answer is no?

 

[tth2]

In terms of the inking quality, X-Men #1 is a train wreck.

 

Yeah, but who cares about inking? They just trace the pencils, right?

 

Scott Williams

In fact, if the pencilers are supposed to be the real talent, why shouldn't we prize those inkers who are the least obtrusive and whose inks are most faithful to the pencils?

 

Were we really better off by having Colletta impose his particular style over Kirby's pencils? I think most comic fans would say no.

[CollectingFool]

I appreciate a lot of inkers over Colletta but as far as I understand it, Colletta was just doing whatever he had to in order to get the books done in time. You can fault him for being sloppy or slow but I don't think he was trying to "impose his particular style" over Kirby. I think he was just slinging ink trying to get the stuff done as quickly as possible. Besides, didn't he work in a small room with two (unknown to me) assistants knocking pages out assembly-line style? Looking back with an artistically/aesthetically critical eye at stuff created in those conditions is bound to leave you disappointed.

[tth2]

I appreciate a lot of inkers over Colletta but as far as I understand it, Colletta was just doing whatever he had to in order to get the books done in time. You can fault him for being sloppy or slow but I don't think he was trying to "impose his particular style" over Kirby.

Then how do you account for the fact that most SA Marvel fans can spot Colletta's inks from a mile away?

 

More than most inkers, he most definitely imposed his style on Kirby's pencils, because Kirby looks completely different inked by Colletta than any other inker.

 

[Bronty]

and yet his fourth world inks don't have that different look at all. Anybody know why the drastic change? Its extremely noticeable in the catalog if you compare the thor cover to say the jimmy olsen pages

[adamstrange]

Were we really better off by having Colletta impose his particular style over Kirby's pencils?

Kirby's great inkers (Wood, Ditko, Sinnott, Royer) all imposed their style. The complaint about Colleta is that he was not true to the spirit of the pencils and, in later years, farmed out the work to others or put in inferior effort. While he deserves to take some knocks, I actually think Colleta's inking of Kirby's Thor, especially the Tales of Asgard backup stories, was a valid interpretation well-suited to those stories.

[AKA Rick]

I really like Chic Stone's inks over Jack Kirby the best, followed by Ayers, then by Joe Sinnott. I'm not a huge fan of the 70's + Kirby artwork and inkers like Mike Royer in comparison to the early-mid 60's work.

[tth2]

Were we really better off by having Colletta impose his particular style over Kirby's pencils?

Kirby's great inkers (Wood, Ditko, Sinnott, Royer) all imposed their style. The complaint about Colleta is that he was not true to the spirit of the pencils and, in later years, farmed out the work to others or put in inferior effort. While he deserves to take some knocks, I actually think Colleta's inking of Kirby's Thor, especially the Tales of Asgard backup stories, was a valid interpretation well-suited to those stories.

It's inevitable that an inker impose his style to some degree on the pencils, particularly the more basic the pencils that were provided to them are, but it comes down to how overt it is. In my opinion, the Kirby inkers most favored by collectors, most notably Joe Sinnott, were the most true to Kirby's pencils.

 

Inkers like Colletta and Syd Shores tended to overpower the pencils and almost put the inker into the starring role, and you could tell it was them inking immediately.

 

Having said that, aesthetically speaking I actually like Shores' inks on Kirby, but clearly they weren't everyone's cup of tea.

[CollectingFool]

In my opinion, the Kirby inkers most favored by collectors, most notably Joe Sinnott, were the most true to Kirby's pencils.

 

I am not the expert on Kirby someone like Doc V is but I'd say Joe Sinnott (my personal favorite) wasn't as true to Kirby pencils as some others. I think the reason Sinnott is such a fan favorite is because his style was well suited to Kirby's pencils but his style was evident. The most "true" to Kirby's pencils was Royer. I know most Kirby collectors know this story and I may even have bits wrong but I'll try to tell it anyway. Please jump in and correct if I'm wrong:

 

Kirby didn't regularly look at his stuff after the work was submitted so many times he had no idea how his stuff was inked. I believe it was at DC where someone pointed out a page that Colletta had inked over him there. Kirby was outraged. Not so much because of the style but because a lot of his backgrounds were erased to do the page quicker. I believe he said in an interview it was the only time he ever had someone thrown off his books. He felt guilty about that for years as he lived through the depression and you didn't mess with someone's livelyhood.

 

If I remember correctly, Kirby himself was happy with Royer because he believed Royer was the most true to his original pencils and that made Jack happy. Personally, I think they are a little flat. I prefer Sinnott and Stone over Kirby way more than Royer. I don't mind Colletta on early Kirby Marvel either. Colletta could do beautiful work when he took his time and that's evident in some of this earlier Romance stuff. The end result is these guys were getting paid to produce by the page and Marvel was fine with Colletta's work. They were going to pay him the same regardless of how long he took. I can't fault the guy for trying to work faster so he can get a little more in his paycheck if the company was satisfied with the quality of his work. For what those guys were making, who could really blame him.

 

 

 

[Claudio]

Colletta could do beautiful work when he took his time and that's evident in some of this earlier Romance stuff. The end result is these guys were getting paid to produce by the page and Marvel was fine with Colletta's work. They were going to pay him the same regardless of how long he took. I can't fault the guy for trying to work faster so he can get a little more in his paycheck if the company was satisfied with the quality of his work. For what those guys were making, who could really blame him.

 

 

The man was cutting corners. Lots of people could blame him. If you are going to do a job, do it right. Besides, I think what he did (erasing backgrounds) cheats Kirby, Marvel and the readers of the time.

[CollectingFool]

The man was cutting corners. Lots of people could blame him. If you are going to do a job, do it right. Besides, I think what he did (erasing backgrounds) cheats Kirby, Marvel and the readers of the time.

 

You aren't seeing things in the proper perspective. We can feel that way now as fans but back then the only opinion that mattered was Marvel's. They were satisfied with whatever he was doing so there was no problem. That really is all that mattered at the time.

[pinupcartoonguy]

Back in the day, especially during the Golden Age, comic book publisher were nothing more than mills. As many as 7 or 8 guys might work on a page. This was never meant to be considered art, and none of these guys really wanted to be comic book artists. I'm betting much of this mentality carried over into the Silver Age. There's a reason that Stan Lee is now Stan Lee--he didn't want his real name associated with comics. So for me, it's hard to criticize some of these guys who were "churning it out," especially for what I'm guessing was a pretty low page rate.

[Claudio]

I understand the churning mentality. However, erasing Kirby's pencils to save time means they wasted hours of Jack's hard work. It is disrespectful.

[AKA Rick]

It would be great to see a Jack Kirby penciled piece embellished by today's top inkers the way they'd normally ink over pencils for publication, not to reintrpret or dominate over Kirby's work and see how the varied pieces would look like. From the 80's I'd like to see: Austin, Tanghal, Layton, and Janson. (I was absent in the 90's...) From today, I'd like to see Norm Rapmund, D. Miki, S. Williams, J. Weems, and M. Banning. I've seen inking projects where artists primarily known as pencilers have reworked blue line pencils, but it would be nice to see the inking specialists do what they're great at and try their hand at a Kirby piece.

[stinkininkin]

It would be great to see a Jack Kirby penciled piece embellished by today's top inkers the way they'd normally ink over pencils for publication, not to reintrpret or dominate over Kirby's work and see how the varied pieces would look like. From the 80's I'd like to see: Austin, Tanghal, Layton, and Janson. (I was absent in the 90's...) From today, I'd like to see Norm Rapmund, D. Miki, S. Williams, J. Weems, and M. Banning. I've seen inking projects where artists primarily known as pencilers have reworked blue line pencils, but it would be nice to see the inking specialists do what they're great at and try their hand at a Kirby piece.

 

Ask and receive...

 

http://www.comicartfans.com/GalleryPiece.asp?Piece=533655&GSub=22772

 

and here is the original...

 

http://www.comicartfans.com/GalleryPiece.asp?Piece=497197&GSub=50898

 

Scott Williams

[CollectingFool]

It would be great to see a Jack Kirby penciled piece embellished by today's top inkers the way they'd normally ink over pencils for publication

 

I guess you're not familiar with "The Jack Kirby Collector"? It's been a while since I've gotten one but I seem to remember they regularly would take copies of Kirby pencils and ask working inkers to ink them. I know they have some collected volumes, maybe that's a place to start.

 

 

[Aman619]

comics system of penciller AND inker is an odd division of labor. We end up seeing neither mans work alone. Its the inker who gets the last word as he interprets the pencils, then erases them. But the penciller who actually tells the story and shapes the images to his liking.

 

Id lean to the inker, as its his work that remains... but clearly, he's also not completely responsible for his work either.

 

I can see how the industry adopted this division of labor, probably as a trick to increase production (and profit) to meet the demand. But, you have to admit, its kinda weird for artists to be mashed together against their will in the creation of their art.

 

And that the crux of it: NOBODY considered it "art", just business. Til now.

[AKA Rick]

Scott Williams - - Great work, especially, artistically, what you did with the backgrounds.