Should one ever ink pencilled original art?

[malvin]

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

 

So I'm not 100% sure of the time frame and multiples, but you are saying that you were offered 4x more for piece after it was inked, and the time frame was 2003 to 2010? And the subject is Venom?

 

I don't think you can conclude from that info that inking it caused the 4x price increase. OA prices increased tremendously from 2003 to 2010, and Venom was hot. The piece could have gotten a 4x value increased without the inking.

 

Malvin

[Matches_Malone]

There is no definite answer as to why the piece went up in the price.

 

But I will say this. I know how much I paid and how much I've been offered.

 

And when you take this under account. And also this ,you can draw some type of conclusion.

 

They are not early in the run, nor they introduce Venom to Marvel Ultimate universe as mine has with #35.. Venom first appeared in #34.

 

It certainly did not de-value...I know that.

 

Different collectors will draw different conclusions.

 

Thank you for asking.

 

 

 

[AKA Rick]

I think there's no rules, only general trends and then the odds of probability based on trends with exceptions to the rules on a case by case basis. It really depends on the piece and what aftermarket embellishments are done, whether it's to restore or to refine.

 

Generally speaking, the majority will say not to do it, it's like when there's antique items, even if dirty, most of the time it's detrimental to attempt to clean the item or replace broken parts, as the best condition is as close to the original as possible.

 

I think the definition of original with published art is "as it was submitted to the publisher for publication"

 

The happy compromise is inking a blueline. That seems like the best of both worlds where you get to keep the original pencils and you get an really polished inked piece, and none is the wiser really in terms of the difference in quality is non-existent for the inked piece and the pencils whether original or blue lined are beneath the inks and not seen. It's actually aesthetically more awe inspiring to see the 2 side by side, and from a sales perspective now there's 2 pieces to either sell as a pair or split up.

 

In fact, I was chatting with an inker who sells inked bluelined original art, and he's debated with fans who approach him and discuss whether the pencils are original or the inked bluelines are. What does it matter if the pencils beneath are original or copies since ultimately they're covered over and up by the inkers ink.

 

From production process, he's sent a digital file of the pencils, he then prints them out and inks them, then he submits the art to the publisher for publication. One can easily argue, that his piece is indeed the "final" one and closest to the one used for publication, and the pencils are no more than layouts or prelims to the process.

 

However, to the art collecting community, the foreground appeal is artist name, so unless the inker is better known than the penciler, then the penciler's original work is more desired as a collectible.

 

That's also in part why even awesome renderings by unknown artists don't command as much as quick doodles by popular artists (seen a lot in the sketch card and sketched blank comic book cover sector). It's sometimes less about the quality than the brand name.

[mangbus]

There is no definite answer as to why the piece went up in the price.

 

But I will say this. I know how much I paid and how much I've been offered.

 

And when you take this under account. And also this ,you can draw some type of conclusion.

 

They are not early in the run, nor they introduce Venom to Marvel Ultimate universe as mine has with #35.. Venom first appeared in #34.

 

It certainly did not de-value...I know that.

 

Different collectors will draw different conclusions.

 

Thank you for asking.

 

 

 

2012 sales for the #74 (non venom cover) and Hardcover are not comparable pieces.

 

If you paid $600-1000 for the original pencils back in 2003 and were to have sold them recently, as pencils only, you could have gotten $2400 - 4000 and no one would have flinched.

 

[Matches_Malone]

Not like Im interested in selling anyway.

 

I didn't buy it as an investment even though I'll get more for it now ...regardless of the reason

 

I love the cover a lot more now than before it was inked. Call it what you want...OA or not...Its original pencils and original inks. Not a photo-copy. I'm happy with the acquisition and the final result. I,m happy with it, and thats all I care about.

[Danimal]

Matches, I think you misunderstand what people on here are trying to say with the term "original art". What you have now is no longer THE "original art" for the cover. It is still original art, and very nice to look at, and maybe even worth more to a buyer in some part of the world. But it is not the original art used to produce the image as it was published. If it makes you happy to have it inked, then that is great. This is why it is a hobby. You should have fun with it, but be mindful of how you alter what you buy if you ever do decide that you may want to sell the piece.

 

I prefer directly inked-over pencils, too. But I would never alter the original. I am in the hobby because I personally enjoy owning the "authentic" behind-the-scenes original art. If I wanted to own the cover as it is shown as published (with more depth and weight as you have mentioned), which includes coloring and digital effects, then I would just spend the $2.99 for the comic book itself and have it framed. That would save me a ton of money, but that is not why I collect original art...

[Mark 1]

I think it's a bad idea to take an original pencil OA and have someone ink it that wasn't original prior to the publication. The whole enjoyment of owning OA is that it is Original. That's the key point of OA. The originality of it. If it's altered, even for the better, it's not original.

 

I would have had it photocopied and then have the inks on the photocopy. That way you have best of both worlds.

 

I think it's very cool art and you should enjoy it as you aren't selling it. But, just know it's not original anymore,.

 

 

 

 

[Matches_Malone]

“What does it matter if the pencils beneath are original or copies since ultimately they're covered over and up by the inkers ink.”

-Really? Is that where this hobby is going?

 

“One can easily argue, that his piece is indeed the "final" one and closest to the one used for publication, and the pencils are no more than layouts or prelims to the process.”

-Really? Original pencils are simply layouts now?

 

 

“… and from a sales perspective now there's 2 pieces to either sell as a pair or split up.”

-That to me is what de-values the piece. There can be 2, 3, 10…etc.

 

[mangbus]

“What does it matter if the pencils beneath are original or copies since ultimately they're covered over and up by the inkers ink.”

-Really? Is that where this hobby is going?

 

Nope. Pencils will always matter.

 

“One can easily argue, that his piece is indeed the "final" one and closest to the one used for publication, and the pencils are no more than layouts or prelims to the process.”

-Really? Original pencils are simply layouts now?

 

Nope. For anything made prior to 'digital inking' pencils are always going to matter. The issue is now, some art is being roughed out in pencil, scanned in, digitally corrected/inked/colored. The tools are changing for some artists. The process is changing as well.

 

“… and from a sales perspective now there's 2 pieces to either sell as a pair or split up.”

-That to me is what de-values the piece. There can be 2, 3, 10…etc.

 

The original pencils will never drop in value if a commissioned inked blue line exists. The value of the inked copy is debatable since it is technically just a commission at that point.

[Matches_Malone]

“What does it matter if the pencils beneath are original or copies since ultimately they're covered over and up by the inkers ink.”

-Really? Is that where this hobby is going?

 

Nope. Pencils will always matter.

 

“One can easily argue, that his piece is indeed the "final" one and closest to the one used for publication, and the pencils are no more than layouts or prelims to the process.”

-Really? Original pencils are simply layouts now?

 

Nope. For anything made prior to 'digital inking' pencils are always going to matter. The issue is now, some art is being roughed out in pencil, scanned in, digitally corrected/inked/colored. The tools are changing for some artists. The process is changing as well.

 

“… and from a sales perspective now there's 2 pieces to either sell as a pair or split up.”

-That to me is what de-values the piece. There can be 2, 3, 10…etc.

 

The original pencils will never drop in value if a commissioned inked blue line exists. The value of the inked copy is debatable since it is technically just a commission at that point.

 

Commissioned inks over Original Pencils. As you put it...Pencils will always matter.

 

 

[Citizenvain]

“What does it matter if the pencils beneath are original or copies since ultimately they're covered over and up by the inkers ink.”

-Really? Is that where this hobby is going?

 

Nope. Pencils will always matter.

 

“One can easily argue, that his piece is indeed the "final" one and closest to the one used for publication, and the pencils are no more than layouts or prelims to the process.”

-Really? Original pencils are simply layouts now?

 

Nope. For anything made prior to 'digital inking' pencils are always going to matter. The issue is now, some art is being roughed out in pencil, scanned in, digitally corrected/inked/colored. The tools are changing for some artists. The process is changing as well.

 

“… and from a sales perspective now there's 2 pieces to either sell as a pair or split up.”

-That to me is what de-values the piece. There can be 2, 3, 10…etc.

 

The original pencils will never drop in value if a commissioned inked blue line exists. The value of the inked copy is debatable since it is technically just a commission at that point.

 

Commissioned inks over Original Pencils. As you put it...Pencils will always matter.

 

 

Yes, they will, but why blur the line between an original used for publication and commissioned inks?

 

You love the piece, have no desire to sell and that's all that really matters. However, I tend to think most would fall on the other side of this debate.

 

There are pencil pieces I want desperately but haven't pulled the trigger because, like you, I prefer the aesthetic of an inked piece.

 

That said, If I purchased original pencils used for publication I wouldn't dream of having the original inked.

 

[Marwai]

The can of worms this opens up is that down the road, someone else can commission one or multiple inked recreations to that cover from anyone with a brush and lay claim to being the published cover with Bagley pencils underneath.

[Matches_Malone]

The can of worms this opens up is that down the road, someone else can commission one or multiple inked recreations to that cover from anyone with a brush and lay claim to being the published cover with Bagley pencils underneath.

 

Dude really? Thats already occurring with blue line photocopies.

 

Which is the reason why I didn't want a copy of it.

 

In case you missed it on the previous post...see here.

[Marwai]

It is the exact reason you should not have had the pencils inked. You don't have the pencil art anymore to prove that yours is the real thing when this guy starts making recreations.

 

In this thread you told us that the original art is inked over, you can get 4X the money for it, showed us who exactly and where to look for these guys who will create forgeries. Motive and means.

[Matches_Malone]

It is the exact reason you should not have had the pencils inked. You don't have the pencil art anymore to prove that yours is the real thing when this guy starts making recreations.

 

In this thread you told us that the original art is inked over, you can get 4X the money for it, and showed us who exactly where to look for these guys who will create forgeries. Motive and means.

 

There's writing on the edges indicating that the original pencil image was used in the process of publication

 

But thats besides the point...The same goes for most modern OA covers...inks or not...you can still recreate pencils only art.

[Garf]

It is the exact reason you should not have had the pencils inked. You don't have the pencil art anymore to prove that yours is the real thing when this guy starts making recreations.

 

In this thread you told us that the original art is inked over, you can get 4X the money for it, showed us who exactly and where to look for these guys who will create forgeries. Motive and means.

 

(thumbs u

[alxjhnsn]

Let's take a poll, okay?

 

In the 2nd poll, I'm assuming that the pencils were inked on the original pencil page.

[Matches_Malone]

 

 

[Matches_Malone]

It is the exact reason you should not have had the pencils inked. You don't have the pencil art anymore to prove that yours is the real thing when this guy starts making recreations.

 

In this thread you told us that the original art is inked over, you can get 4X the money for it, showed us who exactly and where to look for these guys who will create forgeries. Motive and means.

 

(thumbs u

 

[mangbus]

A poll won't solve anything. The general consensus on this is that originals should stay original.

 

This, at the end of the day, is a hobby and the owner of the piece can do what he likes with it. As long as he manages to keep good records of the work done, he will always be able to sell the piece. He also purchased this piece at a time when OA covers were much more affordable and that will mean, no matter what, he will profit from the sale of this piece.

 

 

My position is this, if you think the Original pencils need to be inked, move on to another piece. Just save your money and buy something that has already been inked. Leave the pencil pieces for those who collect/cherish them.