Owning CGC grade comic vs original art...

[delekkerste]

I'm glad we're having this discussion, as I do think it's interesting to understand the production process. I'll admit I've never fully thought it through. For better or worse, most collectors prefer the B/W pen and ink art, which has fueled prices. I don't see the bulk of collectors switching to color guides at this point, but I do agree that color guide prices will rise as OA prices are now much higher than many folks can afford, and awareness of other parts of the production process is increasing.

 

Me, I prefer the originals that have been "Oliffed". Truly the "best of both worlds" - original pen & ink dripping with beautiful, gorgeous colors, just as God (and the publisher) intended!!

 

But, seriously, here's my take on it. As Johnnie Cochran might have said, "line art is not fine art". It was never meant to be fine art, as evidenced by the fact that line art is not the final step in the production process. Except for pages meant to be viewed in black & white (like in the old Warren mags, where the OA has plenty of ink wash, etc.), there is nothing to indicate color, tone, etc. Color is added later and is an integral part of the finished product. I don't know about you guys, but I wouldn't want to live in a world where all I saw was black and white, with no color or even shades of grey. If the line art was the end-all, be-all, comics would be published as such. But, most aren't, because art without color or shading is incomplete and inferior, has always been incomplete and inferior and will always be incomplete and inferior aesthetically. Nobody goes to a museum to look at lines - art of the highest order has color. Art of the next highest order has different tones and shades. Zapping out all the shading and color from art renders it 2-D and lifeless by comparison.

 

Line art is a *collectible* piece of the comic book production process, as are color guides. Despite their lack of color, I believe (as does almost everyone) line art to be higher up on the OA food chain than color guides (despite looking less like the finished product) since the penciller & inker both worked directly on it (whereas their work is copied for the color guide). Most original line art is also larger than the color guide and devoid of all those horrible markings written in to indicate what color goes where. Now, not all color guides are like that - that Batman 232 cover is justifiably gorgeous and I'm sure most of the general public would deem it superior aesthetically than if it were compared with the original line art. But, the line art will always be the more valuable collectible by far and justifably so.

 

Aesthetically, no one will ever convince me that art without color or even tones/shading is superior to art with color - I've been to enough museums to know that the B&W art gets shunted to the dark recesses of the building (and the squiggly lines without any tonal differentiation doesn't even make it inside the front door). From a collectible standpoint, though, the original line art will always be the most important and valuable part of the production process.

[scourge456789-migration]

I'm glad we're having this discussion, as I do think it's interesting to understand the production process. I'll admit I've never fully thought it through. For better or worse, most collectors prefer the B/W pen and ink art, which has fueled prices. I don't see the bulk of collectors switching to color guides at this point, but I do agree that color guide prices will rise as OA prices are now much higher than many folks can afford, and awareness of other parts of the production process is increasing.

 

Me, I prefer the originals that have been "Oliffed". Truly the "best of both worlds" - original pen & ink dripping with beautiful, gorgeous colors, just as God (and the publisher) intended!!

 

But, seriously, here's my take on it. As Johnnie Cochran might have said, "line art is not fine art". It was never meant to be fine art, as evidenced by the fact that line art is not the final step in the production process. Except for pages meant to be viewed in black & white (like in the old Warren mags, where the OA has plenty of ink wash, etc.), there is nothing to indicate color, tone, etc. Color is added later and is an integral part of the finished product. I don't know about you guys, but I wouldn't want to live in a world where all I saw was black and white, with no color or even shades of grey. If the line art was the end-all, be-all, comics would be published as such. But, most aren't, because art without color or shading is incomplete and inferior, has always been incomplete and inferior and will always be incomplete and inferior aesthetically. Nobody goes to a museum to look at lines - art of the highest order has color. Art of the next highest order has different tones and shades. Zapping out all the shading and color from art renders it 2-D and lifeless by comparison.

 

Line art is a *collectible* piece of the comic book production process, as are color guides. Despite their lack of color, I believe (as does almost everyone) line art to be higher up on the OA food chain than color guides (despite looking less like the finished product) since the penciller & inker both worked directly on it (whereas their work is copied for the color guide). Most original line art is also larger than the color guide and devoid of all those horrible markings written in to indicate what color goes where. Now, not all color guides are like that - that Batman 232 cover is justifiably gorgeous and I'm sure most of the general public would deem it superior aesthetically than if it were compared with the original line art. But, the line art will always be the more valuable collectible by far and justifably so.

 

Aesthetically, no one will ever convince me that art without color or even tones/shading is superior to art with color - I've been to enough museums to know that the B&W art gets shunted to the dark recesses of the building (and the squiggly lines without any tonal differentiation doesn't even make it inside the front door). From a collectible standpoint, though, the original line art will always be the most important and valuable part of the production process.

 

Pomposity on top of pomposity. How clever.

 

Call OA whatever you want. It is going up, up, up in value (btw, I call it fine art as do most people)

[delekkerste]

*** You are ignoring this shill ***

[blowout]

Call OA whatever you want. It is going up, up, up in value (btw, I call it fine art as do most people)

 

You (under your various guises) are the only person that I have EVER heard refer to comic book line art as fine art.

[TLC55555]

I'm glad we're having this discussion, as I do think it's interesting to understand the production process. I'll admit I've never fully thought it through. For better or worse, most collectors prefer the B/W pen and ink art, which has fueled prices. I don't see the bulk of collectors switching to color guides at this point, but I do agree that color guide prices will rise as OA prices are now much higher than many folks can afford, and awareness of other parts of the production process is increasing.

 

Me, I prefer the originals that have been "Oliffed". Truly the "best of both worlds" - original pen & ink dripping with beautiful, gorgeous colors, just as God (and the publisher) intended!!

 

But, seriously, here's my take on it. As Johnnie Cochran might have said, "line art is not fine art". It was never meant to be fine art, as evidenced by the fact that line art is not the final step in the production process. Except for pages meant to be viewed in black & white (like in the old Warren mags, where the OA has plenty of ink wash, etc.), there is nothing to indicate color, tone, etc. Color is added later and is an integral part of the finished product. I don't know about you guys, but I wouldn't want to live in a world where all I saw was black and white, with no color or even shades of grey. If the line art was the end-all, be-all, comics would be published as such. But, most aren't, because art without color or shading is incomplete and inferior, has always been incomplete and inferior and will always be incomplete and inferior aesthetically. Nobody goes to a museum to look at lines - art of the highest order has color. Art of the next highest order has different tones and shades. Zapping out all the shading and color from art renders it 2-D and lifeless by comparison.

 

Line art is a *collectible* piece of the comic book production process, as are color guides. Despite their lack of color, I believe (as does almost everyone) line art to be higher up on the OA food chain than color guides (despite looking less like the finished product) since the penciller & inker both worked directly on it (whereas their work is copied for the color guide). Most original line art is also larger than the color guide and devoid of all those horrible markings written in to indicate what color goes where. Now, not all color guides are like that - that Batman 232 cover is justifiably gorgeous and I'm sure most of the general public would deem it superior aesthetically than if it were compared with the original line art. But, the line art will always be the more valuable collectible by far and justifably so.

 

Aesthetically, no one will ever convince me that art without color or even tones/shading is superior to art with color - I've been to enough museums to know that the B&W art gets shunted to the dark recesses of the building (and the squiggly lines without any tonal differentiation doesn't even make it inside the front door). From a collectible standpoint, though, the original line art will always be the most important and valuable part of the production process.

 

Pomposity on top of pomposity. How clever.

 

Call OA whatever you want. It is going up, up, up in value (btw, I call it fine art as do most people)

 

There's that broken record again KK. You just never seem to get a clue do you. You're the insufficiently_thoughtful_person savant of the OA world.

[*paull*]

Stupid Brad just can't resist the bait.