[JVJ]

And you're absolutely right that you have more experience identifying artist than I do.

While this may be true, bchat, what I was trying to convey is that I have more experience LOOKING at old comics that most folks. My comic collection is boxed. It's not bagged and boarded, nor, gasp, slabbed. I look at my comics all the time as I'm constantly answering some question for somebody somewhere. Currently I'm:
1. Working with Hames Ware and Michael Vassallo on a Timely artist project
2. Working with John Benson on some Horror Comic credits
3. Working with Greg Sadowski on a couple of reprint books
4. Working with you on this thread
5. Anxiously awaiting the return of the GCD to enter some data on single-digit issues of Jumbo Comics.

In all instances, it involves opening up the comics and LOOKING at them. It is something that just doesn't happen all that much any more. Most people don't have the books or the access. Comics are seen as artifact not art. All the more NEED for GAC, IMHO. The more people that can look at the books, the more people that will notice different things, have different theories, recognize different artists, and make different connections. It can ONLY help to deepen our knowledge of comics. There is SO much that is unknown.

My personal theory is that there are as many UNKNOWN artists in pre-1960s comic books as there are known artists. Of course, the known artists are responsible for over 90% of the work, but the number of artists whom we don't know the names of is staggering. We need more eyes reviewing the stories. GAC is ESSENTIAL for the furtherance of comics history.

As you might be able to tell, the history of comics fascinates me. There's an absolute aspect of it that is like a science. The characters are of little interest to me. What's neat or interesting about one can be negated and refuted the next month by a different writer and what was sweet about a costume can disappear with a change of artist. There are no "facts" in the content of the medium. It is, after all, pure fiction. But the HISTORY of the medium is still to be fully written, and there IS an absolute TRUTH there somewhere. We simply have to discover it somehow. The more researchers on the team and on the trail of that truth, the better chance we have of finding it.

Keep reading and questioning. There is MUCH to be uncovered, recovered and discovered.

Peace, Jim (|:{>

[bchat]

And you're absolutely right that you have more experience identifying artist than I do.

While this may be true, bchat, what I was trying to convey is that I have more experience LOOKING at old comics that most folks.

I understood that you meant "looking at comics", but I would imagine that the by-product of all that "looking" is having a better feel for the various styles of many, many Golden Age artists.  That's the "experience & expertise" I was referring to that I lack. 

My comic collection is boxed. It's not bagged and boarded, nor, gasp, slabbed.

In defense of slabbed comics (which I personally want nothing to do with), I feel they have a place in the world, especially in regards to online sales.  A buyer can feel a bit more confident that the comic they're purchasing isn't being misrepresented by a greedy seller.

Not that it's overly important to the topic at hand, but at least one-half to three-quarters of my collection is unbagged or in a bag that isn't taped closed.  Most are in boxes, but there's usually a pile or two floating around my bedroom of stuff I'm reading or just flipping through.  Comics printed on newsprint are kept in bags since I've seen first-hand how quickly an unbagged book can age.  I like to enjoy my collection but I can't do that if they start falling apart.  For better or worse, my current home is much less humid than the previous two environments my collection was exposed to.

Comics are seen as artifact not art.

I really want to pretend that that statement isn't true, and I would like to think that people who are buying "slabbed" comics are popping the cases open and reading the books. 

All the more NEED for GAC, IMHO. The more people that can look at the books, the more people that will notice different things, have different theories, recognize different artists, and make different connections. It can ONLY help to deepen our knowledge of comics. There is SO much that is unknown. ... We need more eyes reviewing the stories. GAC is ESSENTIAL for the furtherance of comics history.

I agree that GAC is a tremendously important resource, basically putting thousands of books at someone's fingertips, whether they're working on a comic-related history project, using the books for reference to create their own comic stories, putting together a collection of their favorite character's appearances, researching the career of a certain creator or just a fan looking for something fun to read.  I can't imagine how difficult it would be to gather all these books that someone would want to look at, especially if all they want to do is view a Statement of Ownership or the Indicia.

I also think it's important to preserve the books before they all fall apart.  As I've said before somewhere else, my copy of Blue Bolt v2 n4 was falling apart in my hands as I was scanning it.  If these books aren't available in digital form somewhere, they might disappear altogether and then nobody gets to enjoy them.

As you might be able to tell, the history of comics fascinates me. There's an absolute aspect of it that is like a science. The characters are of little interest to me. What's neat or interesting about one can be negated and refuted the next month by a different writer and what was sweet about a costume can disappear with a change of artist. There are no "facts" in the content of the medium. It is, after all, pure fiction. But the HISTORY of the medium is still to be fully written, and there IS an absolute TRUTH there somewhere. We simply have to discover it somehow. The more researchers on the team and on the trail of that truth, the better chance we have of finding it.

Keep reading and questioning. There is MUCH to be uncovered, recovered and discovered.

Peace, Jim (|:{>

I certainly understand the fascination you have regarding the history of comics.  I have an idea for a "project" that I want to devote some time to completing.  Totallly unrelated to Golden Age Comics, it does involve a specific line of comics from nearly 20 years ago, asking people questions and doing some fact-gathering for whoever might be interested in reading the finished product.  Since the line of comics this involves was produced before the internet was what it is today, there is seriously very little information to discover online that I haven't gotten from the comics themselves, so I have to do some hunting, and I look forward to doing that.  It's not the same level as "The History of Comics", but I can relate to the thrill of discovery involved in investigating something that isn't widely known and uncovering facts most people aren't aware of.

[Yoc]

Just a quick question - Jim, could you look at this crime mag cover and give me your thoughts?
It has a vague Matt Baker feel to me in the woman's pose.

True Cases of Women in Crime 1953-01:
http://i38.tinypic.com/9ljpr6.jpg

From Darwination's great blog - http://tinyurl.com/yjxzq48

-Yoc

[JVJ]

Just a quick question - Jim, could you look at this crime mag cover and give me your thoughts?
It has a vague Matt Baker feel to me in the woman's pose.

True Cases of Women in Crime 1953-01:
http://i38.tinypic.com/9ljpr6.jpg

From Darwination's great blog - http://tinyurl.com/yjxzq48

-Yoc

It's possible (even likely), Yoc,
given the year of publication. Now if the publisher was St. John, that would just about clinch it. There's some Baker feels to the men's faces, too, but a painting brings different characteristics to the forefront, and I'm not that proficient at ID'ing Baker's paintings - he's done so few that I know of.

Peace, Jim (|:{>

[Yoc]

Thanks for checking it Jim. 
The year is right but without anymore info it's only a gut feeling.  I'll ask Darwin if he has anymore scans from it.

-Yoc

[Yoc]

Just heard back from Darwin and here's what he says about this particular magazine title -

I like that one too! The girl does look a little Baker-ish, but I think this is an artist by the name of Howell Dodd who was doing some painted covers around this time for some of the crime mags:

http://www.americanartarchives.com/dodd.htm

The Women in Crime title is kind of funky, it started as Women in Crime but sometimes appears as True Cases of Women in Crime or True Stories of Women in Crime.  The only 2 issues scanned so far are here:http://tinyurl.com/ybhtcw6

Nice for Darwin to get back to us so fast.
-Yoc

[JVJ]

Just heard back from Darwin and here's what he says about this particular magazine title -

I like that one too! The girl does look a little Baker-ish, but I think this is an artist by the name of Howell Dodd who was doing some painted covers around this time for some of the crime mags:

http://www.americanartarchives.com/dodd.htm

The Women in Crime title is kind of funky, it started as Women in Crime but sometimes appears as True Cases of Women in Crime or True Stories of Women in Crime.  The only 2 issues scanned so far are here:http://tinyurl.com/ybhtcw6

Nice for Darwin to get back to us so fast.
-Yoc

Well, there you go, Yoc,
I'm unfamiliar with Howell Dodd's work, but it wouldn't surprise me if he had been looking at Matt Baker when he painted SOME of those covers. Both his drawing and painting styles seem pretty "fluid" - as if he drew on various inspirational sources depending on the assignment.

Learn something new every day...

Peace, Jim (|:{>

[Yoc]

Dodd certainly had some risqu

[JVJ]

Dodd certainly had some risqu

[bchat]

Just throwing this out there:   Perhaps both Baker & Dodd's styles were influenced by the same artist?  Sort of like how Jack Kirby has influenced many artists who, in some cases, got their start in comics a decade or two apart.  I've seen a lot of similarities between Walt Simonson and Erik Larsen's work, and neither is shy about telling the world how much they loved Kirby's style.  Did Larsen draw an artistic influence from Simonson?  I don't know since I never read an interview where Larsen said as much, but "drawing" from Kirby would certainly lead him in that direction.  Maybe that's the case with Dodd and Baker, in that they were both fans of an earlier artist that most people aren't aware of enough to make a connection.

[JVJ]

Just throwing this out there:   Perhaps both Baker & Dodd's styles were influenced by the same artist?  Sort of like how Jack Kirby has influenced many artists who, in some cases, got their start in comics a decade or two apart.  I've seen a lot of similarities between Walt Simonson and Erik Larsen's work, and neither is shy about telling the world how much they loved Kirby's style.  Did Larsen draw an artistic influence from Simonson?  I don't know since I never read an interview where Larsen said as much, but "drawing" from Kirby would certainly lead him in that direction.  Maybe that's the case with Dodd and Baker, in that they were both fans of an earlier artist that most people aren't aware of enough to make a connection.

No, bchat, Baker is a true original. There isn't another artist available in the pantheon that he might have copied. Having studied illustration art as it developed since 1870, take my word for it that Baker is Baker and not a diluted or modified someone else. That's one of the things that makes him so great.

The problem with Dodd's "style" is that is all over the place. It's not consistent. He's a very good artist, but he doesn't seem to have developed a truly personal style. One job looks sorta like Baker, one sorta like Sandy Kossin, one a bit like Norm Saunders, etc.

I'll stick by my interpretation of the influence. What you suggest is possible, but it would have to have been a really good artist (better that the ones he's influencing) and yet has not turned up on my (or anyone else's) radar. No such artist appears in Walt Reed's The Illustrator in America - in any of its three editions. It's extremely unlikely.

(|:{>

[Yoc]

It's not on topic but I thought this eBay listing would interest many that have posted in here.

Frank Motler posted it on a Yahoo list:
It's a two-page letter dated,  Mar 26, 1973 from Allen Ulmer (2nd page not on view) to Jerry De Fuccio, which has interesting info on his career.  Fox, Holyoke, Fawcett, Dell, etc.  I'll attach the page at the bottom.  Click the thumbnail to see the full sized version.

Here's the listing for those interested - http://tinyurl.com/yf5l8py

-Yoc

[Drusilla lives!]

I just happened to download a couple of Fox jungle titles looking for some good examples of Baker art.  In particular All Top issues 8 and 11... well I guess those two aren't strictly "jungle" titles... and I happened to notice JVJ's comment regarding All Top #11.  Definitely not Baker, but I did notice that the penciling on the Blue Beetle story looked very familiar in a few panels... could it be Al (Al Feldstein that is)!  Ditto for the Beetle story in issue 8.  I tried looking for art credits on the GCD for those and found nada. 

I think he was freelancing for Fox (among others) at the time.

Btw, I was also trolling around the GCD for other nice looking "jungle-themed" covers and couldn't help but notice what a really wonderful artist Maurice Whitman was... didn't recall knowing much about him at the time, but (IMO) his work really stood out, especially his painted covers for titles like Wambi.  I also noticed that there were a lot of (later dated) covers for Jumbo and Jungle Comics that look like they might be by him as well.

[Drusilla lives!]

And while I'm at it... I was rereading the last few issues of The Vault of Horror and noticed this curiosity in the next to last panel of the last page of "Take Care" (VofH #37).  Here's the Al Williamson panel in full...



... and here is a close up of the corner of the painting on the wall...



... could that be Torres' signature in the painting? 

I think he did ink a few of Williamson's EC pieces... if it is, the GCD has the wrong inking credit (they credit Williamson as both penciler and inker).

I've also noticed that a few other issues are lacking credits for certain items.  For instance, I'll go out on a limb here and state that I think these text illustrations, the first for "Cooler" (VofH #36), the other for "Pinch!" (VofH #38)...



... are done by Severin. 

If anyone out there is an indexer for GCD I think it would be nice to update some of those entries... that is of course only if I'm right in the matters. 

[JVJ]

I'd say you're right on the Torres (good eyes!), dl,
but wrong on the Severin. JS is more controlled that these two text drawings, which are not particularly refined - probably quickies by Kamen (my best guess) or Feldstein.

Peace, Jim (|:{>

[JVJ]

I just happened to download a couple of Fox jungle titles looking for some good examples of Baker art.  In particular All Top issues 8 and 11... well I guess those two aren't strictly "jungle" titles... and I happened to notice JVJ's comment regarding All Top #11.  Definitely not Baker, but I did notice that the penciling on the Blue Beetle story looked very familiar in a few panels... could it be Al (Al Feldstein that is)!  Ditto for the Beetle story in issue 8.  I tried looking for art credits on the GCD for those and found nada. 

I think he was freelancing for Fox (among others) at the time.

The problem with these stories, dl, is that the Iger Shop artists were VERY CONSCIOUSLY imitating Baker and Feldstein and a panel here or there is much more indicative of a swipe than of actual participation. When trying to ID the artist on a story, it's often more informative to ask "could Baker have drawn this badly?" than it is to ask "could Baker have drawn this one panel?" If the answer to the first question is "no" than you can pretty much eliminate Baker (or whoever) from the list of potential artists. It's VERY difficult to conjure up a scenario where a good artist who is working outside of the shop will somehow only draw one or two panels in a shop-produced job.

(|:{>

[narfstar]

Inker credit changed on GCD. Thanks Drusilla lives! if you would like credit there for the find you can send me the name you would like credited. Better yet you are welcome to become an indexer and make any changes needed yourself. New system is easy to use and you can now do as little or as much as you want no longer need to do whole books. Find an error or addition and just add it yourself. This goes for everyone reading this all are welcome to contribute to the GCD in its desire to be the premier site for comic research.

[JonTheScanner]

Williamson collaborated with Torres (and Krenkel and Frazetta) on several stories.  Torres could have inked the story or drawn backgrounds or any number of things.  On the other hand he might not have done any more than this one panel.  I suppose it's even possible that if Torres did any paintings or water colors, that Williamson put one of his paintings into the story and signed it himself as a kind of joke.

[JVJ]

Williamson collaborated with Torres (and Krenkel and Frazetta) on several stories.  Torres could have inked the story or drawn backgrounds or any number of things.  On the other hand he might not have done any more than this one panel.  I suppose it's even possible that if Torres did any paintings or water colors, that Williamson put one of his paintings into the story and signed it himself as a kind of joke.

I went and looked at the story again, Jon, and it has Torres inking sporadically throughout. I missed that aspect of it when I did my Williamson checklist 39 (sh*t!) YEARS ago. I guess I've learned a few thinks since then... (One would ONLY hope.)

(|:{>

[Drusilla lives!]

You have a point JonTheScanner, I too had my doubts... afterall, it doesn't even appear to be a complete and proper spelling of his name (for one, it looks like it's missing an "r").  But now that I think about it, it's not just the scribble in the painting but the whole look of the art throughout the story.  Compare this full page (page 5)...



... to this full page (page 7) from "A Sound of Thunder" (WSF #25)...



... the inking technique is the same IMHO, and this last page is from a known Williamson-Torres collaboration.  

Heck, it was probably done around the same time (since the two comics were published within months of each other).  I was sceptical before, but not now... I agree with Jim's assessment.  Anyhow, just the fact that that scribble is there raises a flag IMO (in light of the proximity in time to the other work, and the inking style) and at the very least, I don't think you can leave the GCD inking entry solely to Williamson alone.

[Drusilla lives!]

Williamson collaborated with Torres (and Krenkel and Frazetta) on several stories.  Torres could have inked the story or drawn backgrounds or any number of things.  On the other hand he might not have done any more than this one panel.  I suppose it's even possible that if Torres did any paintings or water colors, that Williamson put one of his paintings into the story and signed it himself as a kind of joke.

I went and looked at the story again, Jon, and it has Torres inking sporadically throughout. I missed that aspect of it when I did my Williamson checklist 39 (sh*t!) YEARS ago. I guess I've learned a few thinks since then... (One would ONLY hope.)

(|:{>

Once you add Torres into the Williamson-Frazetta mix, I don't think anyone can tell really (with any complete certainty) who inked what... Torres was known to be able to "ape" just about anyone (esp. Frazetta).

And interestingly, that also has baring on what you were talking about earlier Jim... guys like Torres just add another layer to the onion when trying to id art.  Especially from some of the early "sweatshop-like" studios.  It's not just all the artists who try to copy another artist's style... and do so badly.  IMO there's also the problem of those who can do it well... as Torres could.

Edit: And (in a somewhat unrelated note) I'd add that even some of the best artists to ever work in comics also varied the quality of their work when freelancing to fit the compensation.  In this regard Wood comes to mind... most of his work at EC was of the highest quality, at Avon very good, and overall good everywhere else IMO.  Although he was such a unique genius that it never effected the process of identifying his work IMO. 

In a roundabout way, I think this last point adds weight to the argument that the Williamson VofH piece is inked by Torres (that is, if it was inked by anyone besides Williamson himself).  It was done for the same company, within the same time period and presumably for the same amount of money... and they would probably use the same working method for both. And if it (as I feel it does) resembles the WSF work, which gives Torres the inking credit, then IMO it cannot be ruled out that he did indeed ink the VofH piece as well.

[Drusilla lives!]

Inker credit changed on GCD. Thanks Drusilla lives! if you would like credit there for the find you can send me the name you would like credited. ...

Thanks narfstar but it wasn't anything really... perhaps you can just cite the GAC site and its discussion groups with the credit. 

[Drusilla lives!]

... but wrong on the Severin. JS is more controlled that these two text drawings, which are not particularly refined - probably quickies by Kamen (my best guess) or Feldstein.

Peace, Jim (|:{>

For some reason those little doodles seem to remind me of some of the "looser" drawings he did on some of those envelopes and personal correspondences whose images accompanied your Severin "Checklist" in Squa Tront #11... but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt here Jim. 

Btw, I didn't know you were the same JVJ that did all those articles in Squa Tront (I only picked up issues 10, 11 and 12 recently... honestly).  My complements on a job (or more accurately, several jobs) well done!

[JVJ]

The inks on most Williamson EC stories can probably never be isolated to only ONE person, guys. And, yes, dl, I'm the same JVJ (hopefully the one and only) as in those Squa Tront issues - and thank you for the kudos. To be frank, I actually CAN figure out if Torres is present on a story - probably 9 times out of 10 (though not, as you say, to ID every component artist on each and every panel). He's a decent mimic, but he also has his own distinct style that tends to come through up until about 1960. Hard to mistake him for Frazetta - though the common roots are certainly there. The VofH story is definitely inked by Williamson, Torres and quite likely Roy Krenkel - you can read my bio of him HERE. http://www.bpib.com/illustra2/krenkel.htm

You're certainly right about artist work varying over time, and some, like Wood, are more recognizable than others - though WW's very earliest work is VERY difficult to isolate and the work towards the end of his life even more so - as he left more and more to assistants and copyists. You can read my bio of him HERE. http://www.bpib.com/illustrat/wood.htm

I think some of the variation was, as you say, to match the compensation, but quite a bit of the change over time is, I believe, just an example of repetition and familiarity and the need to speed up to make a living in a competitive business. Some few, like John Severin (and John Buscema when he was inking his own work) hit their stride early on and maintained high and consistent standards throughout their careers. Others, like Wood, took every shortcut he could after about 1960.

Regarding the guess on the EC sketches: it's more the construction of the figures/faces that makes me discard JPS as a likely candidate. It's just not how he would draw it - inking notwithstanding.

Peace, Jim (|:{>

[narfstar]

So I should change the VofH #37 inker to add Krenkel?
I do not care for Wood's art on Daredevil but love his work with Ditko on Heroes Inc