• 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.

Opinions on inking unpublished covers.

Started by Enforcer,

11 posts in this topic

Enforcer

Enforcer

Posted
Posted

I am curious what my fellow collectors think about this issue. What kind of an effect on value occurs when you have an unpublished pencil image inked? I am not talking about comission pieces, but unpublished covers specifically. I am including a scan of US Agent #3 unpublished cover by MC Wyman. I am thinking about having it inked. My personal opinion on this issue is that if a work was published directly from pencils (such as Thor #72), then you should not have them inked. However, I think that it might enhance a piece such as this unpublished cover. I very rarely sell any of my art, but I wouldn't want to do anything to hurt the value of the art. Thanks in advance for any opinions on the issue.

 

USAgent_3_CoverUnpublished.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Thomas

Thomas

Posted
Posted

This is an easy answer. Create a blueline copy or have the inker create the blueline copy and have that inked. Then you have 2 pieces of art and haven't altered the original at all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Solar

Solar

Posted
Posted
This is an easy answer. Create a blueline copy or have the inker create the blueline copy and have that inked. Then you have 2 pieces of art and haven't altered the original at all.

 

Well said ! thumbsup2.gif

 

Agreed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
KentuckyFried-migration

KentuckyFried-migration

Posted
Posted
If I have the piece inked, it will probably be by Drew Geraci. He is a good guy to work with and does excellent work in my opinion. He has a website at http://drewgeraci.com/

 

Id take Thomas's suggestion considering that you are NOT having the original artist ink the piece. I stand by my original notation, unless you can get the original artist to ink the piece,..Id leave it alone. In some ways, its almost mutilation to have the non-original artist ink the piece. JMHO.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Solar

Solar

Posted
Posted
If I have the piece inked, it will probably be by Drew Geraci. He is a good guy to work with and does excellent work in my opinion. He has a website at http://drewgeraci.com/

 

Id take Thomas's suggestion considering that you are NOT having the original artist ink the piece. I stand by my original notation, unless you can get the original artist to ink the piece,..Id leave it alone. In some ways, its almost mutilation to have the non-original artist ink the piece. JMHO.

 

I agree, but not for EVERY instance. For example, if I had an unpublished Jim Lee pencil piece, I wouldn't feel bad about having Scott Williams ink it...

Link to comment
Share on other sites
pkveronese

pkveronese

Posted
Posted
If I have the piece inked, it will probably be by Drew Geraci. He is a good guy to work with and does excellent work in my opinion. He has a website at http://drewgeraci.com/

 

Id take Thomas's suggestion considering that you are NOT having the original artist ink the piece. I stand by my original notation, unless you can get the original artist to ink the piece,..Id leave it alone. In some ways, its almost mutilation to have the non-original artist ink the piece. JMHO.

 

I agree, but not for EVERY instance. For example, if I had an unpublished Jim Lee pencil piece, I wouldn't feel bad about having Scott Williams ink it...

 

I think this is a superb point - some inkers that are linked to certain pencilers (Williams/Lee, Austin/Byrne, etc) just ink an individual penciler's stuff better than the penciler himself actually would. I would prefer a Williams-inked/Lee-penciled piece to a Lee-inked /Lee-penciled piece almost any day of the week.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Go to topic listing