Pencils vs. Inks

[Enforcer]

I am curious what other collectors feel about this issue. Should pencil only artwork be valued less than inked artwork? The reason I ask is because I see that several books lately have been published directly from pencils after being computer colored. I am not even talking about when the inks are lightboxed from copies so there are two pieces of original art. In these cases there is only the pencil artwork. I definitely feel that it lowers the value somewhat, but I am curious how much? Your opinions are appreciated.

 

Here is an example of what I mean. These three pages were tightly penciled by Scot Eaton for Marvel to use for their style guide for people who want to license their characters. It features a ton of characters on it and was colored directly from Scot's pencils by Brian Haberlin.

 

 

 

 

[Nexus]

Great question. Should it be valued less? I think so...but the market says otherwise. Pencil only OA goes for as much as its inked counterpart from what I can tell.

 

For me, I can't do pencils only. I need to see the ink. Pencil only OA just look incomplete to me. It's for this reason that I've passed on a lot of OA, mostly modern stuff. I think it's a shame that OA now is getting stripped more and more from the published image. First, word balloons go. Now inking. As OA becomes further digitized, what else is left?

 

For example, I'm really enjoying Leinil Yu's work. But it's all pencils. So I pass. Same with Gary Frank's covers for SUPREME POWER (not that I have a shot at those, they're almost all in the hands of one collector).

 

Having said all that, I will acknowledge that the artist can achieve subtleties with pencils that can't be seen with ink.

 

I'll either have to adapt or just stick with older OA.

[comicartfan]

Felix,

I hear what you're saying. My Hulk 34 cover is all pencils. Sure, I would prefer inks, but I didn't flinch when I found out it was available.

 

Ultimately, pencils don't bother me. Stat work bothers me....

[Thomas]

Personally I avoid pencils only. Look at Mike Wieringo, I love his art and yet won't buy any of his pencilled only pages. I see that his pencil only pages sell for significantly less as well yet I still won't give it a second look.

 

Likewise I also avoid pages without lettering on the page so I may be part of the minority but I don't think so.

[Nexus]

Felix,

I hear what you're saying. My Hulk 34 cover is all pencils. Sure, I would prefer inks, but I didn't flinch when I found out it was available.

 

Ultimately, pencils don't bother me. Stat work bothers me....

 

Funny, I don't mind stats as much! It all comes down to personal preference. There are lots of collectors who don't mind (or even prefer) pencil-only OA.

 

The ideal OA for me is a very clean, inked page with no stats, no pasted-on balloons, no trimming, etc.. The more I want a piece, though, the more forgiving I am. I've got grails, and if they were only available as pencil-only pieces, I'd still go for them in the end.

[mrpunch0]

Likewise I also avoid pages without lettering on the page so I may be part of the minority but I don't think so.

 

I prefer for my pages to have all the lettering on them - unfortunately if I didn't buy any pages that didn't have lettering, I wouldn't be able to buy almost any modern art.

[Kevin76]

I prefer inks over pencils but here's the thing about me with inks...I only want the inks done by either the artist or by "thier own inker"...like Jim Lee and Scott Willams,Byrne and Austin and of course Mcfarlane on Mcfarlane you get the idea...

[Apotheosis]

Pencils only appeal to me for the fact that you can see more depth and detail in them. The problem comes in the fact that I like to hang my art on the wall and pencil works don't show up very well. You have to get rather close just to see the image right. Especially if there is alot going on in the picture.

[KingOfRulers]

I don't mind either one. As long as it looks good. You can have an attractive pencilled or inked piece. Those OA pieces you put on from Eaton look great. I would say those are EXCELLENT pencils. Too bad it all turns to mush with the coloring. I never would have known that his pencils were so good by looking at the finished product. Give me the book in OA pieces. I don't want the colored version.

[mrpunch0]

I've got a couple of pages from the new Jonah Hex series that are pencil only - they are beautiful. Do I miss the inks? Not really. But the word balloons?

[OldGuy]

I definitely feel that it lowers the value somewhat, but I am curious how much?

 

"Lowers the value" from what to what? If it's one of a kind then what is it being compared to?

[jjeanius]

Since OA is one of a kind and each piece is unique, we can talk in generalities to a certain extent, but it's important not to get too caught up in it...since it really does depend on the individual piece. There are inked pieces out there that look much better having been inked...there are inked pieces out there where the inking job does a disservice to the original pencils. There are pencil-only pieces that look "empty" or unfinished...and then there are pencil pieces such as this one, where I'm blown away by the rendering and am GLAD it's not inked.

 

[RaccoonRaccoon]

WOW - where is that from jjeanius? I tend to think that pencils are great when there is a tremendous amount of detail, which may not be able to be captured with inks.

[chrisco37]

WOW - where is that from jjeanius? I tend to think that pencils are great when there is a tremendous amount of detail, which may not be able to be captured with inks.

 

It looks like a Fables cover, by James Jean. Not sure if it was an issue or a TPB cover. Looks like Boy Blue and the Adversary's guardian.

 

Absolutely stunning!

[jjeanius]

Yep, it's a Fables cover...Fables 38, to be exact. You can go here and scroll down to see the published version...

 

http://www.jjeanius.net/FablesMain.html

[Timulty]

Now, if I could just figure out how he does his shading.

[Enforcer]

Thanks for noticing the quality of Eaton's work King of Rulers. I think he is one of the best artists out there that doesn't get the big pub. I agree that digitally coloring the work without inking tends to take away from the pencils. However, the job done on the Heroes vs. Villains pieces looks great compared to the butchery of Eaton's cover to Thor #72. The digitally painted version looks fuzzy and does no justice at all to Eaton's tight pencils. The quality of the linework is a little harder to see on the lower res web pic that I posted, but the art looks much better up close. I am thinking of getting this piece lightboxed so I will have an inked copy as well, but I am still up in the air about it. I hate to spend money on that when there is so much art out there to be had.

 

As an interesting side note, Scot told me that he based that cover with Magni on a Frazetta work which I think was called "The Headsman".

 

 

 

[Enforcer]

I definitely feel that it lowers the value somewhat, but I am curious how much?

 

"Lowers the value" from what to what? If it's one of a kind then what is it being compared to?

 

 

I realize that they are all one of a kind works. I simply mean that a pencil only published piece would typically be worth a little less than an inked piece of comparable quality from the same artist. I'm just unsure how much it affects the value. Maybe it doesn't affect it at all to most collectors. That is why I asked what everyone thought. I'm just trying to get some other opinions on it and I thank everyone who has responded. Personally, it doesn't make that much difference to me because I tend to go by the image on the page. If the art is tight, it can be in crayon for all I care. I don't normally sell any of my art so resale doesn't factor in with me other than the fact that I don't want to pay over fair "market" value for a piece if I can help it.