Washtone / Greytone Covers -- All of them in one place. . .time to weigh in

[selegue]

...

 

Wow Jack, I'm interested to see what your criteria are for a washtone. You rejected so many of the "canonical" washtones.

 

 

Gut feeling, mostly. I'll see whether I can put it into words for some of the covers where I'm at odds with common wisdom. I'm probably wrong about some.

 

For sure, a cover that happens so have some shaded colors (airbrush maybe) or charcoal shading on the blacks is not necessarily a washtone. A painted cover is not necessarily a washtone. A cover printed before Adler invented the process is not a washtone.

 

Jack

[JohnT]

Here's another method we might use to clarify the list. The DC index site (Mike's Amazing...) seems to have an authoritative list of credits for most DC books.

 

http://www.mikesamazingworld.com/database/index.php

 

It seems safe to conclude that a book is a washtone if Jack Adler is credited with the inking, no? On the other hand, if a book has another inker listed, it may be safe to conclude that it's not a washtone.

 

Also, it appears that sometimes a book that is clearly a washtone doesn't have an inker given credit in the index. So, the lack of an inker being listed could be a clue that a book may be a washtone, especially if the penciler is an artist that usually has an inker--Kane, for example. Of course many artists usually didn't have inkers (Kubert, Heath, etc.), so the lack of one listed on a particular book wouldn't be a clue.

 

Adler inked (or did color separations on) far more non-washtones than washtones, so I don't think that would be very helpful.

 

I should have phrased it like this: It seems safe to conclude that if we have a book that we think is a washtone and Adler is credited with the inking, the book is a washtone. Obviously not every book that Adler inked is a washtone.

[comick1]

Sidenote:

Big Town 46, a tough to find washtone, is up on ebay right now and about to close. I have no idea who the seller is and don't stand to benefit from this, but thought maybe some of you washtone might like a shot at that one. It's set to end in a few hours.

[adamstrange]

Here's another method we might use to clarify the list. The DC index site (Mike's Amazing...) seems to have an authoritative list of credits for most DC books.

 

http://www.mikesamazingworld.com/database/index.php

 

It seems safe to conclude that a book is a washtone if Jack Adler is credited with the inking, no? On the other hand, if a book has another inker listed, it may be safe to conclude that it's not a washtone.

 

Also, it appears that sometimes a book that is clearly a washtone doesn't have an inker given credit in the index. So, the lack of an inker being listed could be a clue that a book may be a washtone, especially if the penciler is an artist that usually has an inker--Kane, for example. Of course many artists usually didn't have inkers (Kubert, Heath, etc.), so the lack of one listed on a particular book wouldn't be a clue.

 

Adler inked (or did color separations on) far more non-washtones than washtones, so I don't think that would be very helpful.

 

I should have phrased it like this: It seems safe to conclude that if we have a book that we think is a washtone and Adler is credited with the inking, the book is a washtone. Obviously not every book that Adler inked is a washtone.

 

Evidently there are some folks on GCD assigning the "inking" of some washtones to Adler. Here's one example where they don't list Adler for color but do list him for inks on what is a gouache painting by Grandenetti. linky Mike's credits are quite likely from GCD or from some of the same sources.

 

Jack (Selegue) and I had some posts about it previously where he provided some details from GCD contributors. Having seen the art to a number of the original covers I think that there are some seriously misinformed indexers about what the cover artists did vs. what Adler did. I think Pedrin's description of the process is most likely correct and that Adler contributed sophisticated work with color separations but that is all we know or can reasonably conclude that he did.

[JohnT]

Here's another method we might use to clarify the list. The DC index site (Mike's Amazing...) seems to have an authoritative list of credits for most DC books.

 

http://www.mikesamazingworld.com/database/index.php

 

It seems safe to conclude that a book is a washtone if Jack Adler is credited with the inking, no? On the other hand, if a book has another inker listed, it may be safe to conclude that it's not a washtone.

 

Also, it appears that sometimes a book that is clearly a washtone doesn't have an inker given credit in the index. So, the lack of an inker being listed could be a clue that a book may be a washtone, especially if the penciler is an artist that usually has an inker--Kane, for example. Of course many artists usually didn't have inkers (Kubert, Heath, etc.), so the lack of one listed on a particular book wouldn't be a clue.

 

Adler inked (or did color separations on) far more non-washtones than washtones, so I don't think that would be very helpful.

 

I should have phrased it like this: It seems safe to conclude that if we have a book that we think is a washtone and Adler is credited with the inking, the book is a washtone. Obviously not every book that Adler inked is a washtone.

 

Evidently there are some folks on GCD assigning the "inking" of some washtones to Adler. Here's one example where they don't list Adler for color but do list him for inks on what is a gouache painting by Grandenetti. linky Mike's credits are quite likely from GCD or from some of the same sources.

 

Jack (Selegue) and I had some posts about it previously where he provided some details from GCD contributors. Having seen the art to a number of the original covers I think that there are some seriously misinformed indexers about what the cover artists did vs. what Adler did. I think Pedrin's description of the process is most likely correct and that Adler contributed sophisticated work with color separations but that is all we know or can reasonably conclude that he did.

 

You wonder what this means: "Art experts believe Jack Adler did the wash to this cover."

 

So if GCD and/or Mikes says Adler did the "inks," that could just mean that "art experts" believe it's a washtone, and that must mean that Adler worked on it. Not insignificant, but not as conclusive as records showing that Adler actually did work on it.

[adamstrange]

Here's another method we might use to clarify the list. The DC index site (Mike's Amazing...) seems to have an authoritative list of credits for most DC books.

 

http://www.mikesamazingworld.com/database/index.php

 

It seems safe to conclude that a book is a washtone if Jack Adler is credited with the inking, no? On the other hand, if a book has another inker listed, it may be safe to conclude that it's not a washtone.

 

Also, it appears that sometimes a book that is clearly a washtone doesn't have an inker given credit in the index. So, the lack of an inker being listed could be a clue that a book may be a washtone, especially if the penciler is an artist that usually has an inker--Kane, for example. Of course many artists usually didn't have inkers (Kubert, Heath, etc.), so the lack of one listed on a particular book wouldn't be a clue.

 

Adler inked (or did color separations on) far more non-washtones than washtones, so I don't think that would be very helpful.

 

I should have phrased it like this: It seems safe to conclude that if we have a book that we think is a washtone and Adler is credited with the inking, the book is a washtone. Obviously not every book that Adler inked is a washtone.

 

Evidently there are some folks on GCD assigning the "inking" of some washtones to Adler. Here's one example where they don't list Adler for color but do list him for inks on what is a gouache painting by Grandenetti. linky Mike's credits are quite likely from GCD or from some of the same sources.

 

Jack (Selegue) and I had some posts about it previously where he provided some details from GCD contributors. Having seen the art to a number of the original covers I think that there are some seriously misinformed indexers about what the cover artists did vs. what Adler did. I think Pedrin's description of the process is most likely correct and that Adler contributed sophisticated work with color separations but that is all we know or can reasonably conclude that he did.

 

You wonder what this means: "Art experts believe Jack Adler did the wash to this cover."

 

So if GCD and/or Mikes says Adler did the "inks," that could just mean that "art experts" believe it's a washtone, and that must mean that Adler worked on it. Not insignificant, but not as conclusive as records showing that Adler actually did work on it.

 

As I look back at the original remarks from Pedrin I realized that I should have offered some comments.

 

Pedrin: Jack would receive a piece of cover art drawn in pencil only, on either Strathmore paper or coquille board. He would then "ink" over the penciled work by doing wash separations done as separate drawings, making a watercolor blank being extremely careful with the color bleeds. Visualizing each color while doing the wash in diluted black ink (hence the term WASHTONE)

This can only describe part of the process that resulted in greater use of tonal qualities to the covers on the final printed cover. I'm specifically avoiding the use of washtone because, perhaps, it should be limited to a specific process performed by Adler. That does not mean that other types of tonally-printed covers aren't of interest to the collector and can't grouped into their own super-category encompassing all techniques. For example, OFF 20 doesn't appear to fall within the type of process defined by Pedrin.

 

For the OFF20 the art is a gouache painting using only white and shades of grey that was created by Grandenetti -- he did many in that style as did Heath. In order to do a good job with the color separations, Adler would have most likely had to have done a similar painterly job with the color separations. It is incorrect to call this inking but he certainly did more than the usual work on the color separations. This cover has regularly been collected as a "greytone" and that seems quite reasonable to me. Another process used for greytones was inkwash painting whereby the artists used various dilutions of india ink in order create variations in tone. Heath did this on All-American Men of War 112 and, again, Adler may have done some sophisticated color separation work but he did not do any "inking."

[JohnT]

So, if I'm understanding this post right, and some previous posts, we several possible processes on the table:

 

1) The editors decide to make a "washtone," so they give Adler the pencils without anyone inking them. Adler then does his magic on them (whatever that involves).

 

2) A cover artist decides he wants to do a painting for the cover, and this means that someone needs to translate the colors to a printable plate. That someone could have been Adler, since we know he had more skill at that kind of thing. The resulting product was similar to a classic Adler washtone since he likely used similar techniques to separate colors, but the result also retains a painted look to it.

 

3) Artists used regular black ink in various concentrations to create black-and-white drawings (or ink water colorings, or whatever they should be called), which Adler then colored, perhaps using some of his "magic" on the separations.

 

4) Colorists (Adler or others) occasionally used a water color effect for parts of covers (ex. backgrounds, some machinery, the pink cheeks of characters, etc.) that make some covers look similar to washtones.

 

5) Some artists experimented with removing drawn lines from parts of the artwork to create a softer look to parts of a cover, which also looks similar to washtones.

 

Does any of this sound right?

 

The theory that there are a variety of techniques out there rings true.

[adamstrange]

So, if I'm understanding this post right, and some previous posts, we several possible processes on the table:

 

1) The editors decide to make a "washtone," so they give Adler the pencils without anyone inking them. Adler then does his magic on them (whatever that involves).

 

2) A cover artist decides he wants to do a painting for the cover, and this means that someone needs to translate the colors to a printable plate. That someone could have been Adler, since we know he had more skill at that kind of thing. The resulting product was similar to a classic Adler washtone since he likely used similar techniques to separate colors, but the result also retains a painted look to it.

 

3) Artists used regular black ink in various concentrations to create black-and-white drawings (or ink water colorings, or whatever they should be called), which Adler then colored, perhaps using some of his "magic" on the separations.

 

4) Colorists (Adler or others) occasionally used a water color effect for parts of covers (ex. backgrounds, some machinery, the pink cheeks of characters, etc.) that make some covers look similar to washtones.

 

5) Some artists experimented with removing drawn lines from parts of the artwork to create a softer look to parts of a cover, which also looks similar to washtones.

 

Does any of this sound right?

 

The theory that there are a variety of techniques out there rings true.

 

I doubt that Adler got "pencils" as I don't believe they would print well at all. Colan was the first artist that I recall having his pencils printed -- that was in the 80s? on Nathan Dusk when it was specifically mentioned that reproduction had improved enough to allow them to do that. Most likely the drawing was charcoal / pastels on strathmore/textured board.

 

The paintings, so far as I've seen and can conjecture are b&w.

[thirdgreenham]

 

We going anywhere with this, Mick.

[comick1]

Hiya Andy,

We should handle it by providing a clear definition AND examples of washtone covers and then hold some kind of vote. You're the expert on voting threads. Do you have some ideas about how we should do it? I'm thinking it should be a thread where we vote OFF issues that don't fit the criteria. The danger lies with people running out of non-washtones and having to vote for issues that really DO fit the criteria for washtone. Is there a way to address that?

[JohnT]

Another way to approach it would be to start by constructing a list of issues that are unanimously considered washtones. Any issue that anyone has a problem with would then be put in a contingent list.

 

Then, we can take the contingent list and see if we can all agree on any of them. We could discuss, dissect, and vote. Any issue that we can get unanimous agreement on--or maybe 75 % agreement on, or whatever we agree on as a threshold of support--could be added to the final list.

 

[thirdgreenham]

Another way to approach it would be to start by constructing a list of issues that are unanimously considered washtones. Any issue that anyone has a problem with would then be put in a contingent list.

 

Then, we can take the contingent list and see if we can all agree on any of them. We could discuss, dissect, and vote. Any issue that we can get unanimous agreement on--or maybe 75 % agreement on, or whatever we agree on as a threshold of support--could be added to the final list.

 

I agree a lot with the suggestions that JohnT has.

 

Putting this in stages is probably best.

 

• Stage one, get a list of all possibilities.

Done. (I think)

• Stage two, have all members (who are interested) supply their list of books that should not qualify as washtones

We've started to do that but I don't think everyone has weighed in yet.

• Stage three, review all issues that some felt were not washtones

As JohnT mentioned, discuss why not (or why), and if a book has a high enough percentage of votes for it, then it could possibly move back onto the list.

 

There may be more steps or stages, but this is the general beginnings in trying to settle this once and for all. Wouldn't it be nice to be a part of the group that help create the definitive list of washtones? Actually sounds a little scary but I'm game. (thumbs u

 

Andy

[otherworldsj33]

OMG ! I never thought i would see this. Great job guys. A fair number of classic covers in this bunch, and most are compelling. Who drew the Secret hearts #59? I like that cover. The GI Combat run and the Sea Devils run are just unbelivable.

[JohnT]

Andy, do you have the total list that includes all the "maybes", without the scans? That would be a good thing to post.

 

As to part 2 (listing questionables), we have definitely done a lot of that. Have you or anyone compiled a list of books that at least one person listed as questionable? If that hasn't been done yet, I'll volunteer to go through this thread and do that. Just let me know.

 

You mention that not everyone has weighed in yet. How do we get more people to weigh in? Do you have anyone in mind?

 

On the issue of coming up with a clear definition of what a washtone is, while there's been a lot of interesting discussion on this, personally I'd be in favor of scrapping that goal for now since it doesn't seem like we're going to get a handle on it.

[jimjum12]

To me , a true washtone is done without the use of retaining lines, i.e. the black. To me, if it has a black plate for anything more than blurbs, logos, or possibly a black sky, it doesn't qualify in my book. I have dial up and don't know if I'll be able to view them....I didn't see any images on page 1. Wish I could help.GOD BLESS...

 

-jimbo(a friend of jesus) (thumbs u

[JohnT]

The images are on page two, but they're a slow load even on broadband.

 

Not sure what you mean by black plate?

[bigfiver69]

The images are on page two, but they're a slow load even on broadband.

 

Not sure what you mean by black plate?

 

Black plate refers to the printing plate that carries the black ink on a press.

 

For typical comics, they used a simplified 4-color process. There was a cyan (blue) plate, a magenta (red) plate, a yellow plate and a black plate (sometimes called the 'K' plate).

 

What made washtones unusual is that instead of relying on those the little dots printed from those four plates to make up all the colors of the rainbow, the printers used individual 'spot' colours on individually tooled plates, which came off of artwork made typically with wash technique (hence, the term washtone). In a cover like GICombat #83, you can see the blues built up from a couple of blue plates, and at least one black plate (which gives the grays and shades.)

 

In some cases, these 'wash' plates were added to the regular four color process... giving what we sometimes refer to as 'partial washtones'.

 

Hope that helps.

Shep

[thirdgreenham]

The images are on page two, but they're a slow load even on broadband.

 

Not sure what you mean by black plate?

 

Black plate refers to the printing plate that carries the black ink on a press.

 

For typical comics, they used a simplified 4-color process. There was a cyan (blue) plate, a magenta (red) plate, a yellow plate and a black plate (sometimes called the 'K' plate).

 

What made washtones unusual is that instead of relying on those the little dots printed from those four plates to make up all the colors of the rainbow, the printers used individual 'spot' colours on individually tooled plates, which came off of artwork made typically with wash technique (hence, the term washtone). In a cover like GICombat #83, you can see the blues built up from a couple of blue plates, and at least one black plate (which gives the grays and shades.)

 

In some cases, these 'wash' plates were added to the regular four color process... giving what we sometimes refer to as 'partial washtones'.

 

Hope that helps.

Shep

 

Helps a lot. (thumbs u

 

 

[thirdgreenham]

Here's the list, but I'm not sure what I should do with it. Perhaps put it into an excel spreadsheet and use that to track which ones have votes against them? Can I use an excel spreadsheet and make graphs with them? I'm a total newb with compooters.

 

Adventure 42

Adventure 232

Adventures of Rex the Wonderdog 31

Adventures of Rex the Wonderdog 38

Adventures of Rex the Wonderdog 39

Adventures of Rex the Wonderdog 42

All American Men of War 35

All American Men of War 81

All American Men of War 100

All American Men of War 110

All American Men of War 111

All Star Western 96

ASW 102

ASW 103

ASW 109

Aquaman 9

Batman 227

Big Town 46

B&B 18

B&B 21

B&B 22

B&B 23

B&B 44

Capt. Storm 8

Challengers of the Unknown11

Challengers of the Unknown30

Dale Evans 3

Dark Mansion of Forbidden Love 3

Date with Judy 70

Detective 239

Flash 117

GIC 44

GIC 51

GIC 69

GIC 77

GIC 78

GIC 79

GIC 80

GIC 81

GIC 82

GIC 83

GIC 84

GIC 85

GIC 86

GIC 87

GIC 88

GIC 89

GIC 90

GIC 91

GIC 92

GIC 93

GIC 94

GIC 95

GIC 96

GIC 97

GIC 98

GIC 99

GIC 100

GIC 101

GIC 102

GIC 103

GIC 104

GIC 109

GIC 113

GIC 119

Green Lantern 8

Hopalong Cassidy 124

HOM 70

House of Mystery 85

HOS 1

HOS 6

HOS 88

HOS 92

HOS 94

House of Secrets 97

HOS 105

House of Secrets 112

Metal Men 37

My Greatest Adventure 17

My Greatest Adventure 18

My Greatest Adventure 20

MIS 36

MIS 39

MIS 40

MIS 45

MIS 46

MIS 55

New Gods 1

OAAW 49

OAAW 56

OAAW 57

OAAW 60

OAAW 124

OAAW 126

OFF 20

OFF 26

OFF 71

OFF 94

Peter Panda 31

Sea Devils 1

Sea Devils 2

Sea Devils 3

Sea Devils 4

Secret Hearts 59

Secrets of Sinister House 9

Showcase 3

Showcase 25

Showcase 27

Showcase 28

Showcase 29

SSWS 45

SSWS 67

SSWS 80

SSWS 81

SSWS 122

SSWS 130

Strange Adv. 1

Strange Adv. 80

Strange Adv. 93

Strange Adv. 110

Strange Adv. 143

Strange Adv. 150

Tales of the Unexpected 15

Tales of the Unexpected 17

Tales of the Unexpected 43

Three Mouseketeers 6

Three Mouseketeers 9

Three Mouseketeers 13

Tomahawk 65

TV Screen Cartoons 129

Unexpected 133

Western Comics 64

Western Comics 69

Western Comics 71

Western Comics 81

Western Comics 82

The Witching Hour #3

Weird War 28

[JohnT]

Here's the list, but I'm not sure what I should do with it. Perhaps put it into an excel spreadsheet and use that to track which ones have votes against them? Can I use an excel spreadsheet and make graphs with them? I'm a total newb with compooters.

 

Adventure 42

Adventure 232

Adventures of Rex the Wonderdog 31

Adventures of Rex the Wonderdog 38

Adventures of Rex the Wonderdog 39

Adventures of Rex the Wonderdog 42

All American Men of War 35

All American Men of War 81

All American Men of War 100

All American Men of War 110

All American Men of War 111

All Star Western 96

ASW 102

ASW 103

ASW 109

Aquaman 9

Batman 227

Big Town 46

B&B 18

B&B 21

B&B 22

B&B 23

B&B 44

Capt. Storm 8

Challengers of the Unknown11

Challengers of the Unknown30

Dale Evans 3

Dark Mansion of Forbidden Love 3

Date with Judy 70

Detective 239

Flash 117

GIC 44

GIC 51

GIC 69

GIC 77

GIC 78

GIC 79

GIC 80

GIC 81

GIC 82

GIC 83

GIC 84

GIC 85

GIC 86

GIC 87

GIC 88

GIC 89

GIC 90

GIC 91

GIC 92

GIC 93

GIC 94

GIC 95

GIC 96

GIC 97

GIC 98

GIC 99

GIC 100

GIC 101

GIC 102

GIC 103

GIC 104

GIC 109

GIC 113

GIC 119

Green Lantern 8

Hopalong Cassidy 124

HOM 70

House of Mystery 85

HOS 1

HOS 6

HOS 88

HOS 92

HOS 94

House of Secrets 97

HOS 105

House of Secrets 112

Metal Men 37

My Greatest Adventure 17

My Greatest Adventure 18

My Greatest Adventure 20

MIS 36

MIS 39

MIS 40

MIS 45

MIS 46

MIS 55

New Gods 1

OAAW 49

OAAW 56

OAAW 57

OAAW 60

OAAW 124

OAAW 126

OFF 20

OFF 26

OFF 71

OFF 94

Peter Panda 31

Sea Devils 1

Sea Devils 2

Sea Devils 3

Sea Devils 4

Secret Hearts 59

Secrets of Sinister House 9

Showcase 3

Showcase 25

Showcase 27

Showcase 28

Showcase 29

SSWS 45

SSWS 67

SSWS 80

SSWS 81

SSWS 122

SSWS 130

Strange Adv. 1

Strange Adv. 80

Strange Adv. 93

Strange Adv. 110

Strange Adv. 143

Strange Adv. 150

Tales of the Unexpected 15

Tales of the Unexpected 17

Tales of the Unexpected 43

Three Mouseketeers 6

Three Mouseketeers 9

Three Mouseketeers 13

Tomahawk 65

TV Screen Cartoons 129

Unexpected 133

Western Comics 64

Western Comics 69

Western Comics 71

Western Comics 81

Western Comics 82

The Witching Hour #3

Weird War 28

 

You're missing some Sea Devils.