Champion 8 cover attribution

[Ted Knight]

The mark-making is more similar between Champion 8 and Science 5 than with Red Raven 1. You can generally identify an artist very clearly by how he makes his marks in shading and facial expressions. Compositions and layouts are less telling as they are often copied / influenced by seeing other works. But the mark-making rarely lies unless someone is carefully doing so on purpose. I tend to think it's not Kirby's hand just from what little I know and see here. But it's a very tough call.

If Kirby did loose pencils and Simon finished and inked then the markings aren't necessarily enough of a tell to rule out Kirby involvement.

 

It's an interesting question and not a new one -- I first heard a couple of thoughtful guys discussing it over drinks in San Diego back in '94.

 

That's a good point. And also that it's impossible to prove a negative. I don't think there is anyway to prove that Kirby didn't have a hand in it and I can see all the arguments for his involvement. But I do think that without something very compelling it's shaky to change the current attribution. Especially with what you've said about JBs recreation by Simon.

[adamstrange]

The mark-making is more similar between Champion 8 and Science 5 than with Red Raven 1. You can generally identify an artist very clearly by how he makes his marks in shading and facial expressions. Compositions and layouts are less telling as they are often copied / influenced by seeing other works. But the mark-making rarely lies unless someone is carefully doing so on purpose. I tend to think it's not Kirby's hand just from what little I know and see here. But it's a very tough call.

If Kirby did loose pencils and Simon finished and inked then the markings aren't necessarily enough of a tell to rule out Kirby involvement.

 

It's an interesting question and not a new one -- I first heard a couple of thoughtful guys discussing it over drinks in San Diego back in '94.

 

That's a good point. And also that it's impossible to prove a negative. I don't think there is anyway to prove that Kirby didn't have a hand in it and I can see all the arguments for his involvement. But I do think that without something very compelling it's shaky to change the current attribution. Especially with what you've said about JBs recreation by Simon.

In a separate email to Greg (sadow) I said the same thing -- hard to change the attribution given the weight that must be given to Simon's recollection and the opinion of knowledgeable observers.

 

On the Boards, however, I'm happy to be disputatious.

[sadow]

To me "mark making" means inking, and I'm not questioning Simon's inking of this. But we could go on and on and we'll still arrive at where we began. I think leaving it at least a bit "open to question" is the only solution here, even though of course many knowledgeable observers feel strongly one way or the other. I only brought up this issue because I show the Champion 8 in my upcoming Covers book and I'm trying to figure out the best way to write the credit. I'll try to qualify it in a manner we all can live with.

[Bronty]

my gut feel is there is a kirby hand in there as well

[jbcomicbox]

my gut feel is there is a kirby hand in there as well

 

I had Simon do a cover recreation of this cover years ago. He inscribed it and after his signature put: "Adapted from Simon & Kirby Studio" I am not good on artists but I think this is mainly Simon with a bit of Kirby. Who knows? Still a great cover with the 9 and 10. jb

[Straw-Man]

my gut feel is there is a kirby hand in there as well

 

I had Simon do a cover recreation of this cover years ago. He inscribed it and after his signature put: "Adapted from Simon & Kirby Studio" I am not good on artists but I think this is mainly Simon with a bit of Kirby. Who knows? Still a great cover with the 9 and 10. jb

 

very pretty jon.

[Ted Knight]

my gut feel is there is a kirby hand in there as well

 

I had Simon do a cover recreation of this cover years ago. He inscribed it and after his signature put: "Adapted from Simon & Kirby Studio" I am not good on artists but I think this is mainly Simon with a bit of Kirby. Who knows? Still a great cover with the 9 and 10. jb

 

very pretty jon.

 

Yes.

[sadow]

Thanks a lot for posting the cover recreation, Jon. So does that settle it? There it is in black & white: Simon inscribed it as a Simon & Kirby job. Can we now say with impunity that this was the first Simon & Kirby cover?

[Straw-Man]

Thanks a lot for posting the cover recreation, Jon. So does that settle it? There it is in black & white: Simon inscribed it as a Simon & Kirby job. Can we now say with impunity that this was the first Simon & Kirby cover?

 

not settled; i think i see some crandall in there.

[adamstrange]

Thanks a lot for posting the cover recreation, Jon. So does that settle it? There it is in black & white: Simon inscribed it as a Simon & Kirby job. Can we now say with impunity that this was the first Simon & Kirby cover?

If one were to be picky the statement is a bit ambiguous. I do think it highly probable that he is saying he is not the sole artist and, since the studio at that time only consisted of Simon & Kirby, it is safe to go with it being a S&K collaboration.

[Ted Knight]

Thanks a lot for posting the cover recreation, Jon. So does that settle it? There it is in black & white: Simon inscribed it as a Simon & Kirby job. Can we now say with impunity that this was the first Simon & Kirby cover?

 

not settled; i think i see some crandall in there.

 

Man, that really made me laugh

 

[Ted Knight]

Thanks a lot for posting the cover recreation, Jon. So does that settle it? There it is in black & white: Simon inscribed it as a Simon & Kirby job. Can we now say with impunity that this was the first Simon & Kirby cover?

If one were to be picky the statement is a bit ambiguous. I do think it highly probable that he is saying he is not the sole artist and, since the studio at that time only consisted of Simon & Kirby, it is safe to go with it being a S&K collaboration.

 

Actually, I think you can reasonably go with S&K after that footnote by Joe Simon, and looking at the recreation, there is something missing in it that is definitely in the original. Could be that his style evolved. Still, why not mention in the book that although commonly attributed to Simon only, there are indications stylistically and otherwise that lead one to believe that Kirby worked on it also.

[sadow]

That's the way I had originally written it, but after seeing Simon's corroboration I felt it was safe to label it the first cover by S&K.

[markseifert]

That's the way I had originally written it, but after seeing Simon's corroboration I felt it was safe to label it the first cover by S&K.

 

In the spirit of constructive criticism -- this is a pretty historically important point, and I'm not sure I'd make the call based on this inscription without further evidence. He may simply mean that other studio artists worked on the piece as well (aside from which, he's referencing a piece that he worked on some 60 years prior).

 

Here is an analysis of the cover by Harry Mendryk at kirbymuseum.org:

 

http://kirbymuseum.org/blogs/simonandkirby/archives/261

 

Joe Simon drew the cover for one of Manheimer’s title, Champion Comics #8 (June 1940). Again although Joe made no attempt to mimic Lou Fine, this cover is very different from his previous ones. Inking is finer then Joe’s earlier covers but not nearly as fine as the Fox covers he was doing. Joe uses the brush more often with bolder markings. He also is more concerned with defining forms then before. Forms are suggested by rows of close or touching brush stokes, kind of like the reverse of a highlight.

 

One new inking technique appears on the bottom of the background buildings. Small areas are covered by parallel lines. Nearby areas have similar lines but at a different angle. This provides a similar tone to the entire area while giving it a mottled looked. This technique appears on a few covers that Joe is associated with over the next year or so and then disappears and does not become part of the S&K shop inking. A similar inking was used on some of Al Avison’s work where it appears for a longer time. Did Al learned it from Joe and later Joe abandoned it? Or was this an Avison trait that indicates Al inked this cover? I lean toward the former explanation because the inking of this cover is pretty good. The Fox covers show that Simon had become an accomplished inker while the earliest efforts I have seen by Avison, done even later then this cover, are not all that impressive.

 

By no means am I saying that it's not possible to discover something new or reinterpret something in a new way, but S&K history is relatively well-studied, and if you name a new book the first S&K collaboration, you should probably be pretty sure.

 

That said -- it sure does have a bit of an S&K feel to it, but perhaps that's the changing inking influence described in Mendryk's commentary above.

[adamstrange]

That site was referenced earlier in the thread.

 

The Champion covers were the very first S&K work -- there was no one else in the studio at that time.

[Ted Knight]

Nice post, Mark. I can't be real clear on it either way but I'm certainly not an authority so what does it matter.

 

Greg, you've written a number of great books and in the end I would trust your judgement on what you end up with. It is clearly a debatable issue and this is all good academic discussion.

 

Either way, I'm looking forward to the book.

[markseifert]

That site was referenced earlier in the thread.

 

The Champion covers were the very first S&K work -- there was no one else in the studio at that time.

 

Apologies for that, my oversight and I do take the point about the studio, though still think it possible he had inking help. I guess I'm just saying I think using the inscription on the re-creation as the tipping point should be viewed skeptically.

[adamstrange]

That site was referenced earlier in the thread.

 

The Champion covers were the very first S&K work -- there was no one else in the studio at that time.

 

Apologies for that, my oversight and I do take the point about the studio, though still think it possible he had inking help. I guess I'm just saying I think using the inscription on the re-creation as the tipping point should be viewed skeptically.

 

My earlier note indicated ambiguity, but I also read twice the relevant section from "The Art of Jack Kirby" where it's pretty clear that there was just Simon & Kirby at the start and the Champion covers were their first effort. There is a question whether the cover to 8 or 9 was the first, though the book I referenced was unequivocal that it was Jack's first.

 

If one were to be picky the statement is a bit ambiguous. I do think it highly probable that he is saying he is not the sole artist and, since the studio at that time only consisted of Simon & Kirby, it is safe to go with it being a S&K collaboration.

[markseifert]

My earlier note indicated ambiguity, but I also read twice the relevant section from "The Art of Jack Kirby" where it's pretty clear that there was just Simon & Kirby at the start and the Champion covers were their first effort. There is a question whether the cover to 8 or 9 was the first, though the book I referenced was unequivocal that it was Jack's first.

 

Thanks for the followup. (thumbs u it's been awhile since I've read the Art of Jack book.

[markseifert]

Fwiw, the new Joe Simon autobiography names the Champion 9 cover and Blue Bolt 2 as the first published Simon & Kirby collaborations.