Should one ever ink pencilled original art?

[Matches_Malone]

Unfortunately those pieces were created as a set. I guess original now indicates plural.

 

Im trying to get this right…

 

-The purest collector is ok with having two originals? One pencil version and one ink version. They are both classified as original.

 

-An ink blue line photo copy by itself has actual value as an original.

 

-Inks after publication is considered altering, (not enhancing, nor preserving), because it did not partake on the production process before it was colored digitally.

 

-My piece is no longer desirable because it stop been original the moment it was inked over the original pencils by one of the best inkers in the industry.

 

-By having it ink after the fact, my piece now has less value.

 

I think I got it. Well...OA collecting surely has changed since I started collecting before the digital age.

 

Thank you for confirming that I made the correct decision by having it ink over the originals pencils and that a blue line photo copy will never exist.

 

And now Im also thinking of acquiring this and commissioning Scott Williams to ink over it. Im sure after Mr. Williams is done with it, the piece will de value as well, because nobody will want it.

 

[Koa]

Years ago I thought about trying to commission Gil Kane to re-ink some Super-man pages I have that faded because of the markers he used and i wondered if collectors would have frowned upon that. Also I see artists like BWS who has been adding additional inks to much of his 90's art in recent years. I've been wondering if doing that that de-values the work. I mean I think the pages look much better but as you say, it's no longer as published.

[Koa]

 

And now Im also thinking of acquiring this and commissioning Scott Williams to ink over it. Im sure after Mr. Williams is done with it, the piece will de value as well, because nobody will want it.

 

 

I might be in the minority but things like this should really be on a case by case basis and nothard and fast. A couple of things, Technically the penciled art is not the published version because McFarlane's digital inks altered the pencils considerably in the published version. Also these pencils are much looser than Jim's typical finished pencil art. Short of getting mcfarlane to ink it on commission I think Williams inks would make the piece more desirable than it's current state.It's pretty sad if having Scott Williams ink this would make it less desirable.

 

 

[mister_not_so_nice]

 

And now Im also thinking of acquiring this and commissioning Scott Williams to ink over it. Im sure after Mr. Williams is done with it, the piece will de value as well, because nobody will want it.

 

 

 

Time will tell.

 

Keep us posted

[Matches_Malone]

 

And now Im also thinking of acquiring this and commissioning Scott Williams to ink over it. Im sure after Mr. Williams is done with it, the piece will de value as well, because nobody will want it.

 

 

I might be in the minority but things like this should really be on a case by case basis and nothard and fast. A couple of things, Technically the penciled art is not the published version because McFarlane's digital inks altered the pencils considerably in the published version. Also these pencils are much looser than Jim's typical finished pencil art. Short of getting mcfarlane to ink it on commission I think Williams inks would make the piece more desirable than it's current state.It's pretty sad if having Scott Williams ink this would make it less desirable.

 

 

Somehow people feel that way. I certainly do not get it.

 

Digital inks has changed the way OA is viewed.

[Matches_Malone]

I was offered 4x more than what I paid for the Mark Bagley after it was inked...so yes Time did Tell.

[drdroom]

Years ago I thought about trying to commission Gil Kane to re-ink some Super-man pages I have that faded because of the markers he used and i wondered if collectors would have frowned upon that. Also I see artists like BWS who has been adding additional inks to much of his 90's art in recent years. I've been wondering if doing that that de-values the work. I mean I think the pages look much better but as you say, it's no longer as published.

 

In the first case this would be seen as conservation by most collectors I've been discussing it with lately, PROVIDED the goal of the re-inking is merely to replace the marker line with ink line as accurately as possible. If the artist adds new ink details then you're into the second, Barry Smith, case and the work has clearly been altered post-publication. In the BWS case, my guess is this may be value-neutral, where the prestige of the artist outweighs the historical value of the page. Imagine Herb Trimpe adding some new touches to the first appearance Wolverine page from Hulk 180, and I don't think we get the same result!

 

 

[Citizenvain]

I was offered 4x more than what I paid for the Mark Bagley after it was inked...so yes Time did Tell.

 

Interesting.

 

Did you disclose the piece was inked post publication?

 

How much time passed from the date of purchase to date of sale?

[Danimal]

[easyt63]

I'm sorry, but if I got ahold of a Bagley piece that was pencil's only, I would commission an inker who normally inks his work, like Rand Emberlin.

 

I think leaving a page pencil's only is a little lazy. I personally won't buy a pencil only page. I did that once. I was so excited to get it, then it arrived, and it just looked dull.

 

Did Matt Banning ever ink Bagley in a published work? If not, then having him ink Bagley that cover seems odd. Granted it looks a hell of a lot better than the straight pencils.

[Matches_Malone]

I was offered 4x more than what I paid for the Mark Bagley after it was inked...so yes Time did Tell.

 

Interesting.

 

Did you disclose the piece was inked post publication?

 

How much time passed from the date of purchase to date of sale?

 

Before I had it ink I went over the pros and cons on having the original worked on. I never liked the idea of a blue line photo copy and the other option was inking over the original. And the piece was just asking to be inked. I think Venom literally told me “Ink me”

 

The decision was made with some reservation. I knew the risk that I was taking, but I trusted Matt Banning to inked over the original and doing an amazing job.

I expected to bring it to life by adding depth and weight to the original pencils. And that he did. I certainly never saw it as de-valuing the piece…and still dont…and never will.

 

Why Batt? Because of Silvestri/Batt Darkness. I saw Darkness in Bagleys Venom

 

The piece was purchase in 2003 and sent to Batt for inking in 2008.

 

I actually had it on ebay before making the decision of sending it to be ink. It had a reserve. If I remember correctly the final bid was around $3500 in 2008

 

After I got it back I showed it to a small group of collectors with the pre and post pics to get their opinion of the final outcome as some felt the similar way as some here do when I told them what I had done.

 

But after seeing the final product and comparing it with other Bagley pencil only covers from the USM run there was no argument about it. They like what they saw. Most of Mark Bagleys USM covers are pencils only, and this one stood out. Not many take this risk with OA. And there are no regrets

 

I was made an offer at that time…2010. More than it was going for on Ebay. Posted in Caf last month…and I was made a similar offer again. Few hundred more than the 2010 offer

 

CaF

 

[Garf]

 

And now Im also thinking of acquiring this and commissioning Scott Williams to ink over it. Im sure after Mr. Williams is done with it, the piece will de value as well, because nobody will want it.

 

 

I might be in the minority but things like this should really be on a case by case basis and nothard and fast. A couple of things, Technically the penciled art is not the published version because McFarlane's digital inks altered the pencils considerably in the published version. Also these pencils are much looser than Jim's typical finished pencil art. Short of getting mcfarlane to ink it on commission I think Williams inks would make the piece more desirable than it's current state.It's pretty sad if having Scott Williams ink this would make it less desirable.

 

 

Somehow people feel that way. I certainly do not get it.

Digital inks has changed the way OA is viewed.

 

How have digital inks changed the way that OA is viewed? Does it make anything on paper incomplete? Using the same logic the comic is published with digital colours so you should have it coloured in too... or are you simply applying your own personal preference for black ink?

 

Digital inks aren't tangible, I don't consider digital art to be something I can collect. I appreciate the convenience of the digital format and am impressed by how some people can use it, but if it changes anything then doesn't it make the actual pencils more important if that's the way we are headed?

 

Taking the Spawn #200 cover as an example you would end up with a different piece of art from the digitally finished cover. McFarlane left out what he wanted to leave out, kept most of it and embellished some of the other bits... but that cover "as published" will never exist. Technically to me as a collector the pencils are the cover. Anyone who buys them can do what they like with them, that's their choice and if it makes them happy to do it then who am I to argue with that? I just fall on the side of keeping published work intact and would have to agree to disagree. I wouldn't alter the page because that would be my alteration (commissioned or otherwise), which doesn't feel right seeing as I had no hand at any stage in bringing the book to print. Might as well have it personalised.

 

If you don't get why people feel differently then you are approacing it from the wrong angle, it's not about how a published piece looks if you add inks, for some it might be about having a deeper appreciation of the whole product.

 

You can go back and alter the pencils, but that takes them a step away from how the finished product was made Doc.

 

(the following image may or may not reflect production cost and time)

 

Images of the pencils and published cover for reference...

 

 

 

[Matches_Malone]

When it comes to the process of making it, yes I agree with your point that by having it ink after the fact it takes it one step away from how the finished product was made. That goes for hundreds of pieces of art work hanging in museums. After they have been touched up, they are in fact one step further from how the finished product was made. To me, they are still pretty damn original, others would disagree. The essence of the piece still remains and personally I feel that this is what I have here. I see it as been enhanced and heightened, others as altered and changed.

 

But to say that it has de-valued after inking?... If we take the Spawn 200 cover, which is currently selling for $4000, and have Scott Williams ink it, does that mean the piece is now worth less than $4000? That I strongly disagree with.

 

As for my comment of Digital art has changed the way OA is viewed.

 

I was referring to this this.

[alxjhnsn]

FWIW, I have a Legion piece by Daniel HDR (pencils) and Bob Wiacek (inks over blueline) that I think is interesting.

 

Click on the image to see the CAF page.

 

Read the description to see some of the changes that Bob made to Daniel's work. The inker has final say on the image.

[mangbus]

When it comes to the process of making it, yes I agree with your point that by having it ink after the fact it takes it one step away from how the finished product was made. That goes for hundreds of pieces of art work hanging in museums. After they have been touched up, they are in fact one step further from how the finished product was made. To me, they are still pretty damn original, others would disagree. The essence of the piece still remains and personally I feel that this is what I have here. I see it as been enhanced and heightened, others as altered and changed.

 

But to say that it has de-valued after inking?... If we take the Spawn 200 cover, which is currently selling for $4000, and have Scott Williams ink it, does that mean the piece is now worth less than $4000? That I strongly disagree with.

 

As for my comment of Digital art has changed the way OA is viewed.

 

I was referring to this this.

 

 

Most of what is in museums has been 'touched up' to help preserve / protect the piece. You can't also use them as examples since they were not a part of a production process that yielded comics. They are not 'originals' that were used to create something else.

 

Serious question:

What happens when an inker makes a mistake on the one of a kind pencil page you provided? No matter how good they are or seasoned, they can make mistakes.

 

[The-Collector]

I had it ink over original for authenticity reasons. It is still very genuine with its original pencils.

 

Inks over original - authentic

Inks over blue line photo copy - not authentic

 

Not in my and many others' eyes.

[Matches_Malone]

I had it ink over original for authenticity reasons. It is still very genuine with its original pencils.

 

Inks over original - authentic

Inks over blue line photo copy - not authentic

 

Not in my and many others' eyes.

 

I made the realization of the high value that is placed on Inks over blue line photo copy nowadays

[Matches_Malone]

A blue line photo copy is now consider an original...go figure.

[Murray Clack]

A blue line photo copy is now consider an original...go figure.

 

If it was used in the production of creating the printed comic, then yes, it is.

 

I **get** what you are trying to say, "if the page wasn't in the hands on the pencil artist, then it's NOT the original art"

 

I will say that dollar-for-dollar, an inked blue-line shouldn't command the same amount unless BOTH the pencil artist and inker had their hands on it.

 

And of course, it would depend on WHO was inking the blue-line copy. I'd be willing to bet that if George Perez inked a blue-line copy of a Brian Bolland page, it would get top-dollar.

 

And what about an artist who creates his rough pencil work digitally, and the inker printed off a blue-line copy? That would HAVE to be considered as the original art.

 

I believe once hard-copy pencil pages, and even hard-copy blue-line copy inked pages cease to be used to produce a comic, THEN the term "original art" will no longer be used.

[ashrael]

Unfortunately those pieces were created as a set. I guess original now indicates plural.

 

Im trying to get this right…

 

-The purest collector is ok with having two originals? One pencil version and one ink version. They are both classified as original.

I think many would prefer there be one and only one piece, but that just isn't the reality any more.

 

-An ink blue line photo copy by itself has actual value as an original.

 

-Inks after publication is considered altering, (not enhancing, nor preserving), because it did not partake on the production process before it was colored digitally.

 

-My piece is no longer desirable because it stop been original the moment it was inked over the original pencils by one of the best inkers in the industry.

Less desirable, but it will still be desired and have value. I think the value would be somewhere between the published value and a commission value.

 

-By having it ink after the fact, my piece now has less value.

In general, yes, but the less the desirable the original pencils and the more desirable the inker, will impact the value. On an extreme, if I personally drew a crappy drawing and Scott Williams inked it it would actually go up in value, again somewhere between the pencil and commission value.

 

I think I got it. Well...OA collecting surely has changed since I started collecting before the digital age.

 

Thank you for confirming that I made the correct decision by having it ink over the originals pencils and that a blue line photo copy will never exist.

I must have missed where that was confirmed.

 

And now Im also thinking of acquiring this and commissioning Scott Williams to ink over it. Im sure after Mr. Williams is done with it, the piece will de value as well, because nobody will want it.

 

 

*sigh*