Ink over pencil copies

[miraclemet]

I know there have been threads exposing some CAF sellers who were using copies of others pencils and then inking over them and being somewhat less than transparent about their creation process...

 

What are people's thoughts about even those that are transparent about it, is there really a market for modern ink over classic blueline copies? I see Catskill selling Garcia Lopez blueline copies with modern ink over it, and others as well. Their details on ebay are explicit ("Garcia Lopez Blueline pencil copy") so its no slight on them.

 

Im more curious if there is really a market for this type of art? Obviously its cheaper than trying to own something original (in terms of the artist who actually created the base image in pencil), but considering it could be mass produced (infinite # of inkings of the same blueline pencil copy) is it really an OA collectible? It looks like Catskill has success selling these (just looking at ebay auctions with bids or complete), but are these being bought by OA collectors, or more general comic collectors who arent ready/interested in putting bigger $$ into original OA (yes I know)

 

I guess, personally, I lump it more in the Print/Litho catagory of decorative art. Something I would buy to put on my walls for my Comic Room, but nothing I'd revere as a collectible.

 

Also, as a community how do you like to see these types of creations signed? The Catskill example I gave is just signed "Lopez & Breeding" in ink in Breeding's hand (he doesnt attemt JLG-L's signature style or creator stamp), which helps to differentiate the piece from being an original Lopez creation.

 

I see other pieces (not Catskill) that show the original creators signature as part of the blueline copy which is then "inked" by the inker. This method seems even tougher to discern that it is not by the original creator's hand. Its certainly not an "after ______" situation since its not a piece done in the style of another artist, since it actually uses the original artists blue line.

 

Again, just to be super clear. Im not criticizing Catskill, and yes I know they are on here as a presence/vendor/retailer. They just have good examples of the kind of art Im curiously questioning the hobby response to.

[Gal Schwartz]

Brett Breeding is probably my all-time favorite inker/finisher.

 

I've enjoyed the recent posts on CATSKILLCOMICS but I've yet to buy

any of the "inks over blueline" examples.

 

If I could secure the original pencils to come along as set with the inks,

then I may consider getting the inks over bluelines. But without them,

I feel like I'm missing something.

 

 

 

On another note - I'd LOVE to see Brett Breeding be invited to ink

a DC book again !!

 

I really miss his monthly work.

 

 

 

P.S: still actively looking to get Brett Breeding inked pages !

[Koa]

Depends on the inker and what the piece was for.

[MR SigS]

I have no idea if there is much of a market for it, but it's fun. I've often wondered about the ethics of inking an unfinished piece and then selling it. So far I've only given my drawings away (to family).

 

As far as I'm concerned if the source is unfinished, then it should be considered an original inking. But since I'm a nobody I would be foolish to ask big $$$ for anything I do.

[AKA Rick]

I think anything done in the "aftermarket" to this regard is the proverbial "it is what it is" and has a wildcard side to both its appeal and its value.

 

If the piece is not part of the creative process and actual publication, by the assigned inker, then it's not published and shouldn't be confused or represented that way.

 

If the inker isn't of remarkable note, then from an investor / investment standpoint, it's the same as a pedestrian like myself taking a Picasso pencil sketch and either painting over it, inking it or embellishing the piece. No art historian or collector would recognize that piece by my creation and reinterpretation as a legitimate Picasso, and any efforts to do such would be not well received if not criticized or held to disdain.

 

The only exception to that scenario is when an artist of notable reputation might take a piece and ink over it. So, if you have loose Kirby pencil and then an artist like Neal Adams inked it, or a known Kirby inker like Mike Royer, Joe Sinnott or D. Ayers inked over it, it may have some appeal, but at the end of the day it's tracing over a reproduction and is only worth the artistic value of what a person is wiling to part with it for along with what another person is willing to pay for it. It's not worthless per se, but it's far from being an investment type piece or something that won't be without it's critics and controversy in the future should you decide to sell it.

 

On the legitimate side of "Published Art" there are many pieces now, especially with overseas artists or those pencilers who work with inkers that don't like to mail out (in fear or damage or loss) their originals that send out high res digital files which the inker then prints out and inks on top of, which is ultimately what is used in the production process and is the final published artwork. That's 100% collectible and desired, but in most cases, a lot of collectors prefer the "Pencils" over the "Inks over Blue Lines" even though in truth, the final production piece is the "Inks over Blue Lines" and the "Pencils" can even be seen as a preliminary layout by many eyes since it's not the final product. I think in those cases it's like a salt and pepper shaker, they should be maintained as a "set" and never separated, ideally.

 

[oakman29]

Why would anyone take a Jack Kirby Pencils,and have someone else ink it?

That would just ruin the piece for me.

[AKA Rick]

I think the question was not to ink over original pencils, so the original pencils exist, but to ink over copies (blue line / photocopy) of pencils.

 

So, in that regard, the originals are intact, it's like Puff Daddy / P. Diddy taking an old song and remixing it into a potential hip hop hit... the original still exists, but the reimagined new creation is now up for judgment on its own merits.

 

I think it's okay for inkers in training to do this, but anyone selling art to potentially confuse the buyers and using the original artists name in the advertising, could be false or misleading and if they want to be above board, they'd just list the inkers name and only provide reference to the original penciler with the proper context of the piece not being an original composition by that penciler.

 

Why would anyone take a Jack Kirby Pencils,and have someone else ink it?

That would just ruin the piece for me.

[MR SigS]

I think it's okay for inkers in training to do this... if they want to be above board, they'd just list the inkers name and only provide reference to the original penciler with the proper context of the piece not being an original composition by that penciler.

 

That's pretty much what I'm doing, though just as a hobby (it's too late to think career), except that if my recreations are from a finished piece of art, I sign my name and follow it with "after penciler & inker". If it's from an image of an unfinished piece then it's my name followed by "after penciler". Hopefully that wouldn't confuse anybody interested in paying for my work.

 

As I've heard Mike Royer say many times, "If I were to claim my recreations had Jack's pencils underneath, I'd be asking for a lot more money for them".

[Baron]

I'd like sellers to be specific that the original inks that they're selling are either:

 

Ink over blue line copies (artist scanned their pencils and sent the copy to the inker who then inked over the copy).

 

or

 

Ink over original blueline pencils (that the penciller drew on and then the inker too)

 

There have been many times where I've gotten the OA and what I though was inks over blue line pencils were indeed blue line copies.

[AKA Rick]

...also as an FYI, and it's quite common as a new trend in published art... many pencilers are going digital with their pencil work and then sending them to inkers, and the inkers go digital, so no original art exists, or an inker will print out the digital pencils, and ink them and truly if you're pursuing original art, that is the only format the original art exists in, non-original pencils with original inks.

 

 

 

 

[Webhead1981]

At Mega Con this past weekend I bought a page from Mark Bagley's recent Fantastic Four issue. It was all done in pencils, I asked why it wasn't inked. Mark said he penciled it then scanned it and sent it to be inked so this is the original pencils page but a page exist with inks but it's not over his original pencils. I still bought the page.

 

The inker of that issue was at the convention as well, and he had pages from other books he's done like this. And he had pages that he inked over the original pencils.

 

Myself as a collector of original pages would never buy a page that was inked over a scan or blueline. But to each their own, I just look at the page as a copy or a print rather than original art. Not discounting the inker's talent or work, it's just not something I prefer to own.

[MR SigS]

I'd like sellers to be specific that the original inks that they're selling are either:

 

Ink over blue line copies (artist scanned their pencils and sent the copy to the inker who then inked over the copy).

 

or

 

Ink over original blueline pencils (that the penciller drew on and then the inker too)

 

There have been many times where I've gotten the OA and what I though was inks over blue line pencils were indeed blue line copies.

 

 

I actually use a light box for my recreations. If it's an image of penciled art I'm using, this allows me to lay out the way I will do my inks. If it's finished art then I just trace the art the way it is and go from there. If I ever sell anything, I would charge more for the original inking since more of me went into it.

 

To me this seems more artistic than inking a scan, but this method would never work for publication as it obviously takes longer.