The January 2023 HA auction starting to load up 2 2

[grapeape]

On 11/30/2022 at 4:42 PM, Bill C said:

Another bronze age GOTG related cover is coming, although I don't know if it's this auction or the next

Psh. That's not news. Now if you hear about any Garfield strips coming to auction let us know. Things are harder to find than needles.... in a lasagna pan.

 

[jjonahjameson11]

On 11/30/2022 at 4:53 AM, drdonaldblake1 said:

"Frank Miller and Joe Rubinstein Wolverine #2 Story Page 17 | LotID #171001 | Heritage Auctions" https://comics.ha.com/itm/original-comic-art/frank-miller-and-joe-rubinstein-wolverine-2-story-page-17-original-art-marvel-1982-andlt-/p/7338-171001.s?ic4=ListView-ShortDescription-071515

Here is a very nice prime Miller wolverine action page👍

Cha-Ching!!!

💵💰🧧💴💶

[drdonaldblake1]

https://comics.ha.com/itm/original-comic-art/mark-bagley-and-matt-banning-as-batt-venom-1-166-variant-cover-original-art-marvel-20/p/7338-65003.s?ic4=OtherResults-SampleItem-071515&tab=ArchiveSearchResults-012417

 

did this venom 1 cover recently sell at comiclink auction?

[AlexG_art]

On 11/30/2022 at 8:10 PM, drdonaldblake1 said:

https://comics.ha.com/itm/original-comic-art/mark-bagley-and-matt-banning-as-batt-venom-1-166-variant-cover-original-art-marvel-20/p/7338-65003.s?ic4=OtherResults-SampleItem-071515&tab=ArchiveSearchResults-012417

 

did this venom 1 cover recently sell at comiclink auction?

I won this cover in the previous auction. I cancelled after I found out that the Banning inks we're done after publication. Commissioned inks over original pencils. I'm kind of surprised they didn't list that in the description this time around. It's a great cover. I just couldn't get past the inks weren't done pre-production.   

Edited December 2, 2022 by AlexG_art

[fsumavila]

On 12/1/2022 at 7:29 AM, AlexG_art said:

I won this cover in the previous auction. I cancelled after I found out that the Banning inks we're done after publication. Commissioned inks over original pencils. I'm kind of surprised they didn't list that in the description this time around. It's a great cover. I just couldn't past the inks weren't done pre-production.   

That's a fairly significant oversight on CLink's part. I would've cancelled as well.

[Twanj]

On 12/1/2022 at 7:29 AM, AlexG_art said:

I won this cover in the previous auction. I cancelled after I found out that the Banning inks we're done after publication. Commissioned inks over original pencils. I'm kind of surprised they didn't list that in the description this time around. It's a great cover. I just couldn't past the inks weren't done pre-production.   

They have to fix that. Big mistake doing it once.

[jjonahjameson11]

On 12/1/2022 at 7:29 AM, AlexG_art said:

I won this cover in the previous auction. I cancelled after I found out that the Banning inks we're done after publication. Commissioned inks over original pencils. I'm kind of surprised they didn't list that in the description this time around. It's a great cover. I just couldn't past the inks weren't done pre-production.   

How did you find out the inks were done after publication?

[grapeape]

On 12/1/2022 at 4:29 AM, AlexG_art said:

I won this cover in the previous auction. I cancelled after I found out that the Banning inks we're done after publication. Commissioned inks over original pencils. I'm kind of surprised they didn't list that in the description this time around. It's a great cover. I just couldn't past the inks weren't done pre-production.   

Brutal. I think I remember you sharing this before. Where is the proper description on this art second time around? Transparency should not be a dirty word for consignors and auction houses. Accurate descriptions and credit saves reputations and keeps buyers happy.

[Michael Browning]

I wouldn't buy it. It's no better now than a commission or a recreation because the original, published pencils are destroyed.

[JC25427N]

On 12/1/2022 at 7:55 PM, Michael Browning said:

I wouldn't buy it. It's no better now than a commission or a recreation because the original, published pencils are destroyed.

I agree, but I question that reasoning. Do you always think of any piece getting inked as destroying the pencils?  I'm just interested in what that thought leads to

What if you like a certain artist who usually only does pencils and then gets their work inked by another artist, would you consider any such OA with separate penciler and inker as solely the inker's work because the penciler's art was destroyed? Would you avoid buying any such OA unless it was only the pencils of the artist you like with no inks or inked by the same person?

If it's just because the pencils were what was made pre-production and then the ink was then applied post-production, then I would assume you would still think Published Pencil + Published Inks on the same board to be only Published Ink art, because the pencils are destroyed. In this case, inks over bluelines or inks over graphite would have to be considered the same thing. Just published inks, because either way there either were no pencils to begin with, or they were destroyed and there are no pencils now. 

Sorry if this comes off as aggressive, I don't mean it to be, your comment just made me think and I wanted to type out my thoughts/questions, because I've never thought of inking in this way and it leads to really interesting conclusions.

Edited December 2, 2022 by JC25427N

[Michael Browning]

On 12/1/2022 at 8:32 PM, JC25427N said:

I agree, but I question that reasoning. Do you always think of any piece getting inked as destroying the pencils?  I'm just interested in what that thought leads to

What if you like a certain artist who usually only does pencils and then gets their work inked by another artist, would you consider any such OA with separate penciler and inker as solely the inker's work because the penciler's art was destroyed? Would you avoid buying any such OA unless it was only the pencils of the artist you like with no inks or inked by the same person?

If it's just because the pencils were what was made pre-production and then the ink was then applied post-production, then I would assume you would still think Published Pencil + Published Inks on the same board to be only Published Ink art, because the pencils are destroyed.

Sorry if this comes off as aggressive, I don't mean it to be, your comment just made me think and I wanted to type out my thoughts/questions

No offense taken.

Anything done to a published piece destroys the integrity of the published original art. Once that is published, nothing should be changed on it at all. Even in the cases of fading inks, re-inking destroys the published art.

If you get a commission drawn in 2020 and then have it inked in 2022, that's up to you. But, once it's a published piece, it shouldn't be touched. At all.

 

[JC25427N]

On 12/1/2022 at 9:14 PM, Michael Browning said:

No offense taken.

Anything done to a published piece destroys the integrity of the published original art. Once that is published, nothing should be changed on it at all. Even in the cases of fading inks, re-inking destroys the published art.

If you get a commission drawn in 2020 and then have it inked in 2022, that's up to you. But, once it's a published piece, it shouldn't be touched. At all.

 

100% I agree, once published it should be treated complete as is. It was just the thought of inks destroying the original pencils that made me go on this thought spiral. For instance, if I get my commission drawn in pencil, then inked by someone else, if I think of inking as destroying pencils, then I've destroyed the pencil art that I originally commissioned. Can it really still be considered the original penciler's art still? I've never thought of it that way until now and that thought makes me uncomfortable in some way which is why I suppose I'm thinking about it this deeply lol. 

Edited December 2, 2022 by JC25427N
*forgot a word

[Michael Browning]

On 12/1/2022 at 9:37 PM, JC25427N said:

100% I agree, once published it should be treated complete as is. It was just the thought of inks destroying the original pencils that made me go on this thought spiral. For instance, if I get my commission drawn in pencil, then inked by someone else, if I think of inking as destroying pencils, then I've destroyed the pencil art that I originally commissioned. Can it really still be considered the original penciler's art still? I've never thought of it that way until now and that thought makes me uncomfortable in some way which is why I suppose I'm thinking about it this deeply lol. 

I'm not sure how to explain it to you.

[JC25427N]

On 12/1/2022 at 9:48 PM, Michael Browning said:

I'm not sure how to explain it to you.

Sorry, I think I'm off on a personal tangent at this point. When it comes to this on-topic context of this thread (The Venom 1 cover) I understand and agree, pieces that are published as pencils should be preserved, and inking on top of them ruins the piece's status as published art. It's just trying to apply the same reasoning that makes that true to other kinds of art that bugs me. But I'll just leave myself to my thoughts, don't want to derail the thread any further  

[grapeape]

On 12/1/2022 at 7:01 PM, JC25427N said:

Sorry, I think I'm off on a personal tangent at this point. When it comes to this on-topic context of this thread (The Venom 1 cover) I understand and agree, pieces that are published as pencils should be preserved, and inking on top of them ruins the piece's status as published art. It's just trying to apply the same reasoning that makes that true to other kinds of art that bugs me. But I'll just leave myself to my thoughts, don't want to derail the thread any further  

I believe if you have a commission done in pencil, then add inks even from a different artist that's ok. That's your piece. 

Its just once any piece is published, adding on to it after the fact makes it something "different" from as it was published.

And not disclosing that when it's known to you, is passing on an altered version of a published piece of art.

 

[KirbyCollector]

This entire thread is a wonderful argument for only buying published, inks over original pencils (not blueline) art. There are no guarantees with separated art, period. 

[hmendryk]

On 12/2/2022 at 9:12 AM, KirbyCollector said:

This entire thread is a wonderful argument for only buying published, inks over original pencils (not blueline) art. There are no guarantees with separated art, period. 

Not sure why you make the exception for inks over blueline. I would think that art done inks over blueline can be guaranteed by a close comparison with the published piece. I don't think that even the same inker can ink two blueline copies exactly the same.

[jjonahjameson11]

 Blueline art or pencils and inks on separate boards = avoid like the plague

[batman_fan]

On 12/2/2022 at 7:37 AM, jjonahjameson11 said:

 Blueline art or pencils and inks on separate boards = avoid like the plague

Or only buy Charles Schulz dailies and Sundays 

[Sideshow Bob]

On 12/2/2022 at 9:37 AM, jjonahjameson11 said:

 Blueline art or pencils and inks on separate boards = avoid like the plague

When an inker finishes working on a page with pencils, their last action is to go over the page with an eraser and remove all (most) of the remaining graphite. It's always cracked me up when we talk about inks-over-pencils, like a Kirby/Sinnott, that there are no Kirby pencils left on the page once Sinnott was done. So a published piece that is inks-over-pencils fully guarantees the destruction of all traces of the penciller's work. Inks on separate boards, or even bluelines, provides you with concrete evidence of the work done by the penciller in creating the page that a inks-over-pencils piece doesn't. 

Don't interpret this incorrectly...I'm fully on board for published inks-over-pencils as superior over all other options. Just pointing out one of the quirks of OA collecting that I've had to explain to non-OA people when they look at the framed pieces on my wall, and I have to say, well, the inker actually erased all the pencils...

Edited December 3, 2022 by Sideshow Bob