Miller/Janson DD?

3 3

This is just an observation, but with all this talking up on DD 181 in this thread and on the Clink Featured auction thread, there has been some very strong statements by people with deep pockets.

 

Those people have said:

 

1. Miller's writing is as important as his art

 

2. DD 181 is arguably the best Bronze Age story (or even among the best single issue story ever!)

 

3. That it doesn't matter that Miller's pencil didn't touch the art board for DD 181 because of reasons 1 and 2 above.

 

So I'm just pointing out the fact that the piece did not sell for the reserve price during auction. Also, it has been available for $11K on Clink since the auction ended.

 

So perhaps, just perhaps, Miller's pencils really do matter

Or perhaps the fact that it is a non action page with no DD matters more. (I do like the page though, don't get me wrong. Just not five figure kind of like).

Scott

This is just an observation, but with all this talking up on DD 181 in this thread and on the Clink Featured auction thread, there has been some very strong statements by people with deep pockets.

 

Those people have said:

 

1. Miller's writing is as important as his art

 

2. DD 181 is arguably the best Bronze Age story (or even among the best single issue story ever!)

 

3. That it doesn't matter that Miller's pencil didn't touch the art board for DD 181 because of reasons 1 and 2 above.

 

So I'm just pointing out the fact that the piece did not sell for the reserve price during auction. Also, it has been available for $11K on Clink since the auction ended.

 

So perhaps, just perhaps, Miller's pencils really do matter

Some people might have been scared off, sure. But, then again, this is a non-action page with no DD on it. I thought from the outset that $9K was always going to be an iffy proposition, as did Hari, who stated that he thought this was a $7-9K piece (and he's someone who's flat-out stated that who did what shouldn't matter with this run).

Do you think the spectacular #179 DD/Elektra or the #181 Elektra/Bullseye sequences have been "devalued" by this separate sheet layout "revelation"? I don't.

This is just an observation, but with all this talking up on DD 181 in this thread and on the Clink Featured auction thread, there has been some very strong statements by people with deep pockets.

 

Those people have said:

 

1. Miller's writing is as important as his art

 

2. DD 181 is arguably the best Bronze Age story (or even among the best single issue story ever!)

 

3. That it doesn't matter that Miller's pencil didn't touch the art board for DD 181 because of reasons 1 and 2 above.

 

So I'm just pointing out the fact that the piece did not sell for the reserve price during auction. Also, it has been available for $11K on Clink since the auction ended.

 

So perhaps, just perhaps, Miller's pencils really do matter

 

Some people might have been scared off, sure. But, then again, this is a non-action page with no DD on it. I thought from the outset that $9K was always going to be an iffy proposition, as did Hari, who stated that he thought this was a $7-9K piece (and he's someone who's flat-out stated that who did what shouldn't matter with this run).

 

Do you think the spectacular #179 DD/Elektra or the #181 Elektra/Bullseye sequences have been "devalued" by this separate sheet layout "revelation"? I don't.

That's a tough question to answer with a simple "yes" or "no" response to your question and if I earned the same amount as you and Hari, perhaps I'd be less price sensitive.

BUT, I don't earn as much, and these purchases at this level do have an impact on my wallet. So, if I was to pay those kind of prices, Miller better have put his sweat on those pages.

This is just an observation, but with all this talking up on DD 181 in this thread and on the Clink Featured auction thread, there has been some very strong statements by people with deep pockets.

 

Those people have said:

 

1. Miller's writing is as important as his art

 

2. DD 181 is arguably the best Bronze Age story (or even among the best single issue story ever!)

 

3. That it doesn't matter that Miller's pencil didn't touch the art board for DD 181 because of reasons 1 and 2 above.

 

So I'm just pointing out the fact that the piece did not sell for the reserve price during auction. Also, it has been available for $11K on Clink since the auction ended.

 

So perhaps, just perhaps, Miller's pencils really do matter

 

Some people might have been scared off, sure. But, then again, this is a non-action page with no DD on it. I thought from the outset that $9K was always going to be an iffy proposition, as did Hari, who stated that he thought this was a $7-9K piece (and he's someone who's flat-out stated that who did what shouldn't matter with this run).

 

Do you think the spectacular #179 DD/Elektra or the #181 Elektra/Bullseye sequences have been "devalued" by this separate sheet layout "revelation"? I don't.

If that's true, it a pretty big anomaly and a real testament to the love for this DD run. Usually who touched the page makes all the difference in value.

When I look at #182-184...especially #183....I see Miller lines throughout, which would make sense, as this was the story originally slated for #167 (aside...I love the original unpublished cover art to #167.)

When I look at #181, I see Miller, Janson. and Miller/Janson. For example (sorry, I don't have pages annotated)...the page with Castle, where he's doing chin-ups in prison...that looks like Miller's linework (as opposed to Klaus' mimicry.)

But, when you turn to the page with Bullseye shoving Elektra's sai into her....that looks like Klaus the whole page, even in the faces, even though they retain a Miller-style. The possible exception I see is the last panel on the page, but again, it could be skilled mimicry.

I recognize the stylistic difference in #179-up, and this has bothered me for literally decades, trying to decipher what was Miller, and what was Janson, and who did what. Even not knowing what I know now, I still saw differences in the linework that weren't entirely explainable.

By #185, the lack of Miller input on the boards is obvious, but there was a clear transition going on earlier, as has been discussed already.

It is very interesting to do a forensic analysis, page by page, and try and ascertain what is Miller's hand, what is Janson's hand, and what looks like Miller, but is really only Janson's (admittedly skilled) mimicry.

As an aside...I had the interesting fortune of being seated next to Rubinsten on the flight from B'More to Philly last Sunday, and the same flight from Philly to LA...and since we were delayed, he asked me if I could give him a ride to his car at the flyaway in Van Nuys, which I did.

We had the opportunity to discuss the Wolverine mini-series, among other things. It was great getting his view on how things worked, how long it took him to finish the issues, etc. I came away with a better appreciation for his work on Wolvie, which, while certainly Miller's vision, was as much Rubinstein's work, if not more.

I generally agree with this Gene, but comic nerd that I am, I'm going to disagree that DD 173-180 is DEFINITELY better than DD 168-172. Rather than talk down some of the 173-180 issues (of which there were some far more memorable than others), I prefer to sing the praises for DD 168-172, which brought us Electra for the first time in such memorable fashion, but also gave us the GANG WAR storyline, which is what really brought the whole organized crime slant to the book, and what made Kingpin the lynchpin of the whole Miller DD saga, right on up to and including the Born Again storyline. Most people remember Electra and Bullseye as being the key side characters in the Miller DD universe, but I'd argue that Kingpin is just as vital. Frankly, Kingpin had been a bit of a nothing character to me until Miller fleshed him out, making him both evil and human, and eventually (Born Again), ruthlessly cunning. And from my perspective, the GANG WAR story is kind of where I felt like the whole series began to really mature and gain it's momentum.

Again, I doubt we disagree very much here Gene, but DD 168-172 taken as a whole is just too good to be even marginally slighted.

 

Scott

Fair enough, Scott - I've been having an extensive off-line discussion with another collector who also prefers #168-#172. That said, #173-#180 features the bulk of the Elektra appearances in the series, and Miller created Elektra whereas he didn't create Kingpin or Bullseye (even if he did make them relevant). At the end of the day, it's the pages featuring Miller's creation (Elektra) that are most in-demand. Also, if it hasn't been mentioned yet, #168-#172 feature a lot of marker use by Janson, so in many peoples' eyes, that offsets some of the appeal of the full Miller pencils. If everything was equal, of course full Miller pencils > Miller breakdowns on board > Miller separate sheet layouts. But, content is the great equalizer, and marker use/non-use is a secondary consideration as well.

We had the opportunity to discuss the Wolverine mini-series, among other things. It was great getting his view on how things worked, how long it took him to finish the issues, etc. I came away with a better appreciation for his work on Wolvie, which, while certainly Miller's vision, was as much Rubinstein's work, if not more.

I've always believed this to be true, ever since Rubinstein first made the claim that Miller only provided "loose squiggles" for the Wolvie LS. The art simply looks so much more polished and different from any of Miller's other work from that era, and the obvious explanation is that the inker put more of his stamp on it than just about any other Miller project.

That said, it was brought to my attention that the Grand Comics Database lists Miller and Rubinstein as penciller for #1-3 (Miller breakdowns, Rubinstein finishes) and Rubinstein as the sole inker. For issue #4, though, it lists Miller as being the only penciller and Rubinstein being the inker. Did he happen to mention whether #4 was created with a different process than #1-3? Even if it was, I'm not sure how much it would matter, especially since many of the best pages from #4 were colored in a long time ago which obviously has negatively impacted their value (even though I think they look super-cool, personally!)

I'm sure about the rest of you guys but once I finally saw the physical breakdown of who did what in the latter part of the Miller/Janson DD collaboration in the last Heritage auction (see link below), any concerns I may have had about Miller not touching the board were put to rest. It is funny that more of these 8.5x11 layout sheets haven't made it to market.

 

http://comics.ha.com/itm/original-comic-art/frank-miller-and-klaus-janson-daredevil-185-page-15-original-art-plus-sheet-of-miller-pencil-breakdowns-marv-total-2-original-art-/a/7097-92222.s

 

Mike Davis

That's a really great example of how Janson kept a lot of the contour hatching (see DD's back in panel 4) and other stylistic linework of Miller, but then ventured off on his own in other ways (for example, the lack of the "shaggy" piling top, a Miller trademark, in the first panel of the completed page, but present in the layout.)

We had the opportunity to discuss the Wolverine mini-series, among other things. It was great getting his view on how things worked, how long it took him to finish the issues, etc. I came away with a better appreciation for his work on Wolvie, which, while certainly Miller's vision, was as much Rubinstein's work, if not more.

 

I've always believed this to be true, ever since Rubinstein first made the claim that Miller only provided "loose squiggles" for the Wolvie LS. The art simply looks so much more polished and different from any of Miller's other work from that era, and the obvious explanation is that the inker put more of his stamp on it than just about any other Miller project.

 

That said, it was brought to my attention that the Grand Comics Database lists Miller and Rubinstein as penciller for #1-3 (Miller breakdowns, Rubinstein finishes) and Rubinstein as the sole inker. For issue #4, though, it lists Miller as being the only penciller and Rubinstein being the inker. Did he happen to mention whether #4 was created with a different process than #1-3? Even if it was, I'm not sure how much it would matter, especially since many of the best pages from #4 were colored in a long time ago which obviously has negatively impacted their value (even though I think they look super-cool, personally!)

The only difference he mentioned was that it took him about 6-8 weeks to finish the first issue, then less time to do each succeeding issue, finishing #4i in about 4 weeks. He was quite adamant about the fact that he did the bulk of the work on all the issues, and considering all four issues, I have no doubt that that is true of all of them. It was a collaboration that worked very well.

He said that Miller was trying to do a "Kirby", and do each issue in a week's time (which he did....but, of course, leaving out a lot that Rubinstein filled in.)

Updated once again. Thanks to Gene Park and Michael O'Halloran (MikeyO) for the additional thoughts and references.

------ My Standard Answer starts here ---------

On the comicart-l and the CGC OA board, we had a long conversation on the topic of the work split on the Miller DD run. This write-up is based on e-mails and posting from many people. Foremost among them are: Mitch Itkowitz, Ferran Delgado, Gene Park (notes on 158, 162, 163, 179-180), and Mike O'Halloran (Theory on 182-184). I took notes and created this summary. I believe it represents the best understanding available to us, but it may not be perfect. Other comments are welcome and especially if they come with evidence that I can cite.

• DD #158-161,163-172: Full pencils by Miller, inks by Janson.
  Notes:
  
  • Rubinstein was the cover inker for #158
    
  • Ditko did all the art for #162
    
  • Rubinstein was the co-inker (with Janson) for #163
    
  • Issue 168 - GCD lists Miller as breakdown artist on issue 168 while the credits on the issue itself list Miller as artist but Janson as Inker and Embellisher.
    Note:

    [Regarding credits on 168 - ed], I would be hesitant to describe this as the same relationship when it comes to the division of labour where art is concerned in issues 173 on. I think, by looking at the art that what might be described as Miller "breakdowns" are closer to a finished product when it comes to 168, but given the public notations, I thought it was worth mentioning.

  [*]DD #173-178: Layouts by Miller on the same sheet, embellishment by Janson

  [*]DD #179-181: Layouts by Miller on a DIFFERENT smaller sheet, embellishment by Janson. Miller didn't touch the published original art.

  Note:

  • Separate smaller layouts started with 179 per Jansen in the comments on a post about DD 172 on Comics Should Be Good on CBR.
    

    Let me say that I’m grateful and happy that anyone has any interest in any work that I’ve done whether it’s recent or, in the case of some of the material referred to this week, older. So thanks for the attention and comments everyone. Let me make a point about something that The Third Man said in his LOC: “…but he was never really more than an inker”. The work I did on DD has always been very meaningful to me for a variety of reasons, too many to get into here, but I’d like to point out a few things: Frank did an amazing job on the series and I would never take anything away from his writing or drawing. Just to set the record straight, though, Frank went to 8 and a half inch by 11 inch breakdowns on issue #179, not #185. And he was doing breakdowns on the boards for a handful of issues before that. It is absolutely true that the overriding characteristic of Frank’s art is his amazing storytelling, and it is absolutely true that my approach to laying out a story differs from Frank’s. But I feel strongly that my contribution as both inker (or finisher or whatever the particular credit was on any given book), combined with my coloring, made my contribution a bit more than “just an inker”. It is the synthesis of pencils, inks and colors that I believe provided some of the best looking books in the run, and indeed, gave the book it’s very distinct look. Check the credits, Third Man, take a look at the issues that I colored and the ones that I didn’t and I would think that you might agree with me on that point. And if you need further proof on this, please refer to Greg’s earlier column from this week where he talks about the first page from World War Hulk. I think that, for whatever reason, and it may have been a case of over saturation as this was still a period of time when the industry had not yet reached a level of expertise in coordinating digital coloring with the actual look of the book in print, but you can’t even see the inks under the colors. The ability to fulfill a specific, particular vision instead of having three or four disparate ideas conflicting with each other, was a rare opportunity on DD. The chance to control the art to the degree that we did provided a very specific look to the book that was unique. I’m really proud of the work that Frank and I did on DD. It stands as one of my favorite runs on a character that I loved since I bought DD #1 as a kid. It means a lot to me. Try to understand that the opportunity I had to make the contributions that I did, rises a tiny bit above being “just an inker”. There’s a reason why the material holds up 30 years later, you know.
     
    Thanks for your time and really, thanks for your interest, I appreciate it enormously!

  [*]DD #182-184: Layouts by Miller in the same sheet, embellishment by Janson.

  Notes:

  • Theory: Issues 182-184 (Punisher arc) were originally intended for an earlier publication and probably have a mix of (Miller pencils/Janson inks) and all Jansen pages from Miller layouts. It might be difficult to know who actually did what as the story was altered for the revised publication and changed situation.
    
  • MikeyO, the proposer of the theory in the note above, later wrote:
    

    My theory is logical but needs support from other sources. Some one could counter and say the previous art drawn by Miller a year and a half or so ago may have been used as a complete issue (perhaps issue 183?). My guess is that other pages were inserted but I still think verification is necessary.
     
    Mitch [itkowitz - ed] had responded that your previous supposition was correct (that Miller went to breakdowns and Janson finished on the same page for 182 to 184), but if you think about the possible rationalization that Mitch is using to assume this you can determine he may be coming to an erroneous conclusion. As Mitch said he got the whole issue of 181 from Janson to sell because he essentially drew the issue, so Mitch would assume any issue he received the complete book would be done in this method and any book where Mitch received only partial pages to an issue would indicate that Miller did breakdowns on the page and Janson finished. The problem with that logic is that as we have discussed that some pages to issues 182-4 would have been done by Miller more than a year ago and obviously returned to him and Janson could still be working the procedure of following Miller layouts on 8 by 11 paper that was instituted with issue 181 on the pages that were added to issues 182-4. Therefore, Mitch would not get a complete book as Miller would get his pages back even though they were done many months ago but Janson could still be the only person that added anything new.
     
    Others have said that the Punisher storyline was meant for issue 167 as a one part story. As said, my rationale is that they added pages to make up a two part story. Evidence to lend credence to my theory is given by Grand Comic Book Database that credits Roger McKenzie as the co writer for issue 183 and 184. Roger's last story on DD was issue 167 and after that he was done with the title, so they are obviously crediting him with both issues as they broke up the one issue and expanded into two. Now, the question is was the new art done by the process started in 181 or did Miller work on the same sheet as Janson? It's bending a little towards the former, but not a dunk yet.

  [*]DD #185-190: Layouts by Miller on a DIFFERENT smaller sheet, embellishment by Janson. Miller didn't touch the published original art.

  [*]DD #191: Full pencils by Miller, inks by Austin

--------------------- End of standard answer ----------------------

[Yes, this might make my head explode. All I know is it was great reading off the stands way back when. ]

Should I revise this or annotate it differently?

I just looked closely at my DD 180 page. It clearly has pencils beneath the ink.

Would Klaus have light boxed the separate Miller sheet in pencil before he inked it? Or do inkers usually apply the ink directly without pencils when light boxing?

I generally agree with this Gene, but comic nerd that I am, I'm going to disagree that DD 173-180 is DEFINITELY better than DD 168-172. Rather than talk down some of the 173-180 issues (of which there were some far more memorable than others), I prefer to sing the praises for DD 168-172, which brought us Electra for the first time in such memorable fashion, but also gave us the GANG WAR storyline, which is what really brought the whole organized crime slant to the book, and what made Kingpin the lynchpin of the whole Miller DD saga, right on up to and including the Born Again storyline. Most people remember Electra and Bullseye as being the key side characters in the Miller DD universe, but I'd argue that Kingpin is just as vital. Frankly, Kingpin had been a bit of a nothing character to me until Miller fleshed him out, making him both evil and human, and eventually (Born Again), ruthlessly cunning. And from my perspective, the GANG WAR story is kind of where I felt like the whole series began to really mature and gain it's momentum.

Again, I doubt we disagree very much here Gene, but DD 168-172 taken as a whole is just too good to be even marginally slighted.

 

Scott

 

Fair enough, Scott - I've been having an extensive off-line discussion with another collector who also prefers #168-#172. That said, #173-#180 features the bulk of the Elektra appearances in the series, and Miller created Elektra whereas he didn't create Kingpin or Bullseye (even if he did make them relevant). At the end of the day, it's the pages featuring Miller's creation (Elektra) that are most in-demand. Also, if it hasn't been mentioned yet, #168-#172 feature a lot of marker use by Janson, so in many peoples' eyes, that offsets some of the appeal of the full Miller pencils. If everything was equal, of course full Miller pencils > Miller breakdowns on board > Miller separate sheet layouts. But, content is the great equalizer, and marker use/non-use is a secondary consideration as well.

Don't mean to split hairs, but I never said I preferred DD 168-172. I was simply responding and disagreeing with you about your designation of DD 173-180 being definitely better in terms of content and story (and not valuation necessarily). I know we are in general agreement otherwise, but since this has become a thread about all things Miller DD, I didn't want to be misquoted or misunderstood!

Scott

I just looked closely at my DD 180 page. It clearly has pencils beneath the ink.

Would Klaus have light boxed the separate Miller sheet in pencil before he inked it? Or do inkers usually apply the ink directly without pencils when light boxing?

It can go either way. And I have pages from later all Janson issues (DD 187), and there are unerased pencils there too.

Scott

Ok. So who's gonna call Albert and tell him to change the credits on the 181 pages in his CAF?

Not I.

 

Hey Mitch, you made a point about the art sales for DD 181, saying that Klause got back ALL the art for 181, a strong indicator that Miller never touched the boards on that particular issue. Do you happen to remember if this was also true of DD 179-180 as well? That would be another strong indicator that Klaus's recollection was accurate of when the separation of duties took place as per Gene's post above.

 

Scott

 

Figured I would bump this question, as it never got answered

Updated once again. Added Mitch's comment on 181 in this thread to the notes.

------ My Standard Answer starts here ---------

On the comicart-l and the CGC OA board, we had a long conversation on the topic of the work split on the Miller DD run. This write-up is based on e-mails and posting from many people. Foremost among them are: Mitch Itkowitz, Ferran Delgado, Gene Park (notes on 158, 162, 163, 179-180), and Mike O'Halloran (Theory on 182-184). I took notes and created this summary. I believe it represents the best understanding available to us, but it may not be perfect. Other comments are welcome and especially if they come with evidence that I can cite.

• DD #158-161,163-172: Full pencils by Miller, inks by Janson.
  Notes:
  
  • Rubinstein was the cover inker for #158
    
  • Ditko did all the art for #162
    
  • Rubinstein was the co-inker (with Janson) for #163
    
  • Issue 168 - GCD lists Miller as breakdown artist on issue 168 while the credits on the issue itself list Miller as artist but Janson as Inker and Embellisher.
    Note:

    [Regarding credits on 168 - ed], I would be hesitant to describe this as the same relationship when it comes to the division of labour where art is concerned in issues 173 on. I think, by looking at the art that what might be described as Miller "breakdowns" are closer to a finished product when it comes to 168, but given the public notations, I thought it was worth mentioning.

  [*]DD #173-178: Layouts by Miller on the same sheet, embellishment by Janson

  [*]DD #179-181: Layouts by Miller on a DIFFERENT smaller sheet, embellishment by Janson. Miller didn't touch the published original art.

  Note:

  • Separate smaller layouts started with 179 per Jansen in the comments on a post about DD 172 on Comics Should Be Good on CBR.
    

    Let me say that I’m grateful and happy that anyone has any interest in any work that I’ve done whether it’s recent or, in the case of some of the material referred to this week, older. So thanks for the attention and comments everyone. Let me make a point about something that The Third Man said in his LOC: “…but he was never really more than an inker”. The work I did on DD has always been very meaningful to me for a variety of reasons, too many to get into here, but I’d like to point out a few things: Frank did an amazing job on the series and I would never take anything away from his writing or drawing. Just to set the record straight, though, Frank went to 8 and a half inch by 11 inch breakdowns on issue #179, not #185. And he was doing breakdowns on the boards for a handful of issues before that. It is absolutely true that the overriding characteristic of Frank’s art is his amazing storytelling, and it is absolutely true that my approach to laying out a story differs from Frank’s. But I feel strongly that my contribution as both inker (or finisher or whatever the particular credit was on any given book), combined with my coloring, made my contribution a bit more than “just an inker”. It is the synthesis of pencils, inks and colors that I believe provided some of the best looking books in the run, and indeed, gave the book it’s very distinct look. Check the credits, Third Man, take a look at the issues that I colored and the ones that I didn’t and I would think that you might agree with me on that point. And if you need further proof on this, please refer to Greg’s earlier column from this week where he talks about the first page from World War Hulk. I think that, for whatever reason, and it may have been a case of over saturation as this was still a period of time when the industry had not yet reached a level of expertise in coordinating digital coloring with the actual look of the book in print, but you can’t even see the inks under the colors. The ability to fulfill a specific, particular vision instead of having three or four disparate ideas conflicting with each other, was a rare opportunity on DD. The chance to control the art to the degree that we did provided a very specific look to the book that was unique. I’m really proud of the work that Frank and I did on DD. It stands as one of my favorite runs on a character that I loved since I bought DD #1 as a kid. It means a lot to me. Try to understand that the opportunity I had to make the contributions that I did, rises a tiny bit above being “just an inker”. There’s a reason why the material holds up 30 years later, you know.
     
    Thanks for your time and really, thanks for your interest, I appreciate it enormously!

  • Regarding issue 181, Mitch wrote:

    Miller layouts on 8 1/2 x 11 paper.
    Janson light box the layouts to comic art board and inks said comic art board
    I had sold this entire issue for Janson back in the day.
    Since Miller did not actually put pencils to the board, Janson got all the art.

  [*]DD #182-184: Layouts by Miller in the same sheet, embellishment by Janson.

  Notes:

  • Theory: Issues 182-184 (Punisher arc) were originally intended for an earlier publication and probably have a mix of (Miller pencils/Janson inks) and all Jansen pages from Miller layouts. It might be difficult to know who actually did what as the story was altered for the revised publication and changed situation.
    
  • MikeyO, the proposer of the theory in the note above, later wrote:
    

    My theory is logical but needs support from other sources. Some one could counter and say the previous art drawn by Miller a year and a half or so ago may have been used as a complete issue (perhaps issue 183?). My guess is that other pages were inserted but I still think verification is necessary.
     
    Mitch [itkowitz - ed] had responded that your previous supposition was correct (that Miller went to breakdowns and Janson finished on the same page for 182 to 184), but if you think about the possible rationalization that Mitch is using to assume this you can determine he may be coming to an erroneous conclusion. As Mitch said he got the whole issue of 181 from Janson to sell because he essentially drew the issue, so Mitch would assume any issue he received the complete book would be done in this method and any book where Mitch received only partial pages to an issue would indicate that Miller did breakdowns on the page and Janson finished. The problem with that logic is that as we have discussed that some pages to issues 182-4 would have been done by Miller more than a year ago and obviously returned to him and Janson could still be working the procedure of following Miller layouts on 8 by 11 paper that was instituted with issue 181 on the pages that were added to issues 182-4. Therefore, Mitch would not get a complete book as Miller would get his pages back even though they were done many months ago but Janson could still be the only person that added anything new.
     
    Others have said that the Punisher storyline was meant for issue 167 as a one part story. As said, my rationale is that they added pages to make up a two part story. Evidence to lend credence to my theory is given by Grand Comic Book Database that credits Roger McKenzie as the co writer for issue 183 and 184. Roger's last story on DD was issue 167 and after that he was done with the title, so they are obviously crediting him with both issues as they broke up the one issue and expanded into two. Now, the question is was the new art done by the process started in 181 or did Miller work on the same sheet as Janson? It's bending a little towards the former, but not a dunk yet.

  [*]DD #185-190: Layouts by Miller on a DIFFERENT smaller sheet, embellishment by Janson. Miller didn't touch the published original art.

  [*]DD #191: Full pencils by Miller, inks by Austin

--------------------- End of standard answer ----------------------

[Yes, this might make my head explode. All I know is it was great reading off the stands way back when. ]

Should I revise this or annotate it differently?

[*]DD #182-184: Layouts by Miller in the same sheet, embellishment by Janson.

Notes:

• [*]Theory: Issues 182-184 (Punisher arc) were originally intended for an earlier publication and probably have a mix of (Miller pencils/Janson inks) and all Jansen pages from Miller layouts. It might be difficult to know who actually did what as the story was altered for the revised publication and changed situation.

Surely given how much of #182 carries over from #181, much/most of it was not created around the same time as the mid-#160s, no? To me, the style and panel layout for #183-#184 look more reminiscent of the #160s period (not that there might not be newer pages added in those issues as well), but most of #182 looks more contemporaneous to the other #180s issues to me.

Also, do we know how many of the #182-#184 pages out there have the crossed out "#167" notation at the top? Is there any way to tell from the art itself which pages may have been done earlier and which may have been done later? I hope Klaus is at the NYCC again; I'd like to track him down again (I asked him a few questions last year about some unrelated stuff) as maybe he can shed some additional light on #182-#184 and also confirm once and for all that #179 was the start of the separate sheet layouts.

Not even crossed out on most of them.

Example

I'm sure about the rest of you guys but once I finally saw the physical breakdown of who did what in the latter part of the Miller/Janson DD collaboration in the last Heritage auction (see link below), any concerns I may have had about Miller not touching the board were put to rest. It is funny that more of these 8.5x11 layout sheets haven't made it to market.

 

http://comics.ha.com/itm/original-comic-art/frank-miller-and-klaus-janson-daredevil-185-page-15-original-art-plus-sheet-of-miller-pencil-breakdowns-marv-total-2-original-art-/a/7097-92222.s

 

Mike Davis

I love this thread. As a Miller (and Janson) fan, this whole topic is

I think from the above pages from DD 185, it's pretty clear that Miller's art direction, his visual storytelling, goes way beyond the thumbnail/squiggle stage. It doesn't matter to me that the OA might not be rendered by Miller when it's basically a translation of his 8.5" x 11" layout sheet. At that point it becomes Miller's brain, his vision, with someone else's wrists doing the final art and ink (not at knock on Janson, whom I love).

Miller is the visual storyteller, like Spielberg. The inker is the cinematographer--they bring their own special, technical expertise, but it's Miller's vision which gets remembered.

Jamie