• When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Should one ever ink pencilled original art?

Started by Bchin22,

105 posts in this topic

alxjhnsn

alxjhnsn

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

It may not solve anything, but it should tell us what the consensus of opinions is. That is we'll have data on the consensus and not just an opinion on the consensus.

 

It's not completely scientific since you don't have to vote and we aren't surveying a random sampling of OA buyers, but ...

Link to comment
Share on other sites
mangbus

mangbus

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

It may not solve anything, but it should tell us what the consensus of opinions is. That is we'll have data on the consensus and not just an opinion on the consensus.

 

It's not completely scientific since you don't have to vote and we aren't surveying a random sampling of OA buyers, but ...

 

I just read the thread and counted the number of people who stated "keep the pencils as is" or something similar. No opinion there. Sorry if I sounded like I was upset for you starting a poll. Just figured at this point the horse is a puddle of jello.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Garf

Garf

Posted
Posted
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

 

:facepalm:

 

The piece would lose a lot of its identity.

 

There's a line with collectibles that can get crossed and at that point where it's not even close to restoration. Just like with classic cars you have remanufacturing without loss of identity and product overhaul... or antiques can have conservation/restoration/repair work done or at the other end of that scale be stripped and refinished. Even slabbed comics are another example, blue/yellow vs PLOD.

 

Look at other collectors of anything you like, do you get the impression that the majority would prefer what they collect in its original state? Even if it is used or shows some sign of wear, would they mostly like to see it repaired?

 

More to the point why aren't all the original art dealers getting stuff inked (with a flipping commmunity also getting in on the act)?

 

If you turned around and said ... it's no problem I much prefer the piece inked and I would be really happy with it as such... then that's fine. If you still think it would or should improve the value of most pieces then that's what will keep this thread rolling ;) ... and TBH unless someone has a lot of sample data (i.e. more than one or maybe two examples) then your argument of offers received for one piece is pretty meaningless.

 

Unrelated... I enjoyed browsing your CAF. Thanks for sharing :foryou:

Link to comment
Share on other sites
jeBailey

jeBailey

Posted
Posted

I don't claim to be an expert in area. But when I bought this page from Barry Kitson here is what he did as the inking was done digitally. He provided the original pencils as this was the original art. He then Inked a blue-line printout as he preferred to give me both. In the pencil piece you can see the NASA logo that the editors required them remove from artwork prior publishing. I like to compare the originals to the final published piece.

 

For me if the artist didn't just ink over the original pencils then I wouldn't consider having it done after the fact.

 

John B.

 

Hulk614_0506Pencils.jpg

 

 

Hulk614_5_6_inks.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites
MR SigS

MR SigS

Posted
Posted
When I mean authentic , I mean authentic original art. Inking over a copy of blue line pencils is not authentic original art.

 

When you consider Adlar/Gaudiano Walking Dead pieces. The inks are done in a separate board. Two pieces exist. This is something new to the industry. Which one do you consider the original art ,Adlars pencils or Gaudiano inks?

 

 

 

Both. One is an original pencil and the other is an original inking. The inked piece itself is not original, but the inks are (and should be noted during a sale).

 

Mike Royer has been asked to ink over original pencils before- He refuses to do it. Once the pencils are covered, how can they be proven to have ever been there?

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Koa

Koa

Posted
Posted

I pretty much agree that published art should be left alone. I stay away from pencils only stuff for this reason. In the case of Spawn 200 by Jim lee specifically though, wouldn't the value of the pencils already be diminished because the final published version was done digitally?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
SNIKT!-migration

SNIKT!-migration

Posted
Posted
I pretty much agree that published art should be left alone. I stay away from pencils only stuff for this reason. In the case of Spawn 200 by Jim lee specifically though, wouldn't the value of the pencils already be diminished because the final published version was done digitally?

 

Just going to give my 2c as a newer collector. With your example, I don't think the pencils would be diminished for several reasons. 1. It's Jim Lee. People are willing to pay through the roof just for the name alone. 2. Most importantly, since the final version was done digitally, there is no hard copy available, so the closest thing you can get is pencils done by the artist. I think the majority will agree that the original digital files have no value, which only leaves pencils done by the artist. So no, I don't think the value of the pencils would be diminished by any means, even if the artist isn't a superstar like Jim Lee as digital files have no true value.

 

How this applies to the OP, even if a piece of art was done in pencils that weren't used for publication, I still don't think they should be inked. The only exception to the rules that is acceptable to me is if they were inked by the inker attached to the project or the original penciler. Any commission work is perfectly fine to get inked by whoever you desire, but work that was intended to be used for publication (whether actually published or not) should not be altered. Just my opinion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
heartened

heartened

Posted
Posted
I have a two page splash of a terrific fight scene from Invincible. The only issue is, it is in pencil (whereas I always prefer inked original art).

 

I can have Ryan Ottley ink his own pages, but would that devalue their worth? Should I keep them as is?

 

I'm just curious what everyone else would do and why?

j

 

Best to leave it be. As others have suggested, make a copy and have someone ink that if you really want to.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Captain Canuck

Captain Canuck

Posted
Posted

That's what I did, took my original Jack Kirby pencilled images and had Mike Royer ink a copy of them. Even though he was one of Jacks inkers, I wouldn't want him to alter or take away from the originals. Wouldn't mind having Sinnott ink it as well, but currently he isn't taking commissions. I think once your pencils are inked outside of the published piece, it should be considered a commission.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
jjeanius

jjeanius

Posted
Posted

I have seen this with a couple of Ultimate Spider-Man covers by Bagley (which, with the exception of a handful of covers from the last story arc, where all rendered in pencils only). There are a couple of covers out there that have since been inked (and not by Bagley). IMO, this absolutely kills them. The art is no longer "as published", and that is a MAJOR detractor for me. Now they are closer to commissioned pinups...and I would value them as such.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
mister_not_so_nice

mister_not_so_nice

Posted
Posted
Ugh - that's what I get for replying before reading the thread.

 

doh!

 

 

No, you made your point using a very appropriate example :golf clap:

 

When I saw your name in the thread, first thing I thought was. "Would anyone ever consider getting a James Jean pencil piece inked?" Of course they wouldn't. The blanket statement of "inks enhance pencils" is so off the mark.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Go to topic listing