Miller/Janson DD?

3 3

Not even crossed out on most of them.

 

Example

 

Ugh, a Coollines link! That's like getting Rickrolled.

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

Thanks Scott.

Not even crossed out on most of them.

 

Example

 

Ugh, a Coollines link! That's like getting Rickrolled.

With Miller, it's really the totality of his storytelling ability that is prized by collectors and the cognoscenti. If he had never been a writer and had just drawn other peoples' stories, I doubt the art would be even remotely as coveted as it is today - his pre-Ronin art (i.e., the Marvel era) is nowhere near as distinctive as, say, a Sienkiewicz, nor as pretty as, say, a Byrne.

Something to consider: Comic book fans/collectors for as long as I can remember have had DD158 valued at a much higher level than DD168.

My point is simply this: Frank wasn't just the guy drawing Daredevil, he was already a superstar artist before he became a superstar writer/artist. Pages he drew would still be highly coveted.

Yes, I'm one of those who thinks it matters that he touched the boards.

But I have to say I'd value great 181 pages above all other Miller work. I'll pick the death of Elektra page over that $400k Dark Knight splash from a couple years back

 

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.

This is my opinion as well. I believe that #183 forms the core of what was supposed to be #167, along with part of #184, while #182 looks much more like #181. #183, especially, has the classic "uplit little drugged girl" page, and especially the credits page that is Miller through-and-through (clearly from the aborted issue #167):

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 do too, and this whole discussion. It's really filled in a lot of blanks that I have had, questions that have gone unanswered since I first read these books 2+ decades ago, about why the look of the book changed, subtly but noticeably, from the late #170's to #184, and why the styles seemed to go back and forth throughout this period...and the answer is, because they did! I wasn't seeing things; the changes were actually happening in front of my eyes.

I always knew that the Punisher issue slated for #167 was scrapped (the next issue blurb from #166 makes it clear), but I wasn't aware just how much had been salvaged and "re-used" , with some expansion, later on down the line in #183-184. It makes a lot of sense.

Another interesting point (a lot of people already know) is that the -script on the repurposed 167 pages was altered throughout.

Here are a couple of cool panels where you can see some of the word balloon alterations:

Something to consider: Comic book fans/collectors for as long as I can remember have had DD158 valued at a much higher level than DD168.

 

My point is simply this: Frank wasn't just the guy drawing Daredevil, he was already a superstar artist before he became a superstar writer/artist. Pages he drew would still be highly coveted.

I wonder how much of the DD #158 effect is due to Miller becoming the superstar he became after DD #168-onwards, though. Prior to DD #158, Miller had only worked sparingly as a fill-in artist for Marvel, and the intro blurb on page 1 of #158 predicting that Miller would explode like a "bombshell" is widely regarded to have been a bit of fortunate hyperbole. IMO, comic fans are (even) more concerned about 1st appearances and are less discerning about the nuances of the OA than art collectors, so it's not surprising that #158 is more valuable than #168. Also, even though DD sales didn't really take off until after #168, Miller had begun to develop a (good) reputation and fledgling fan base by then, whereas nobody knew that #158, the finale of a McKenzie storyline featuring the Death-Stalker, was going to be anything special. By the publication of #168 in 1981, you also had direct market copies of the title. Bottom line, I think much of the valuation gap between #158 and #168 is just because #158 came earlier (fewer copies preserved, collectors fixated on firsts) more than Miller's drawing talents being so revered on its own.

As such, I don't think that if Miller hadn't become a writer, that his art would be worth nearly what it is worth today. It's because he became such a highly regarded writer and auteur that his OA, even his early, pre-writing OA, is worth what it is. Not that he wasn't well regarded back then as an artist and that his art wouldn't be worth a premium regardless, but I suspect his art would be worth much closer to, say, Bill Sienkiewicz's well-regarded Moon Knight and New Mutants runs than where DD pages are valued today had he not become the superstar writer he became as well.

Updated once again. Added Gene's comment on 182 in this thread to the notes along with a supporting opinion from RockMyAmadeus who provided a link to a scan to support his POV.

------ 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.

  • Gene Park proposed narrowing this down to 183-184. He points out that 182 really looks like 181

    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.

  • Gene’s point was echoed by RockMyAmadaus who provided a sample to support his POV:

    This is my opinion as well. I believe that #183 forms the core of what was supposed to be #167, along with part of #184, while #182 looks much more like #181. #183, especially, has the classic "uplit little drugged girl" page, and especially the credits page that is Miller through-and-through (clearly from the aborted issue #167):

     
    The "uplit little drugged girl" can be seen here.

  [*]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?

Yes, I'm one of those who thinks it matters that he touched the boards.

 

But I have to say I'd value great 181 pages above all other Miller work. I'll pick the death of Elektra page over that $400k Dark Knight splash from a couple years back

I think it would matter more to me whether he touched the boards or not if all the content was more or less equal, but, aside from #168, my favorite issues from the run are all those with loose Miller breakdowns (#174-#176) or what now looks to be separate sheet Miller layouts (#179, #181). For me, the fact that these issues all feature Miller scripts and detailed layouts, as well as featuring his creation (Elektra) (and revamped Bullseye/Kingpin) in forming one of my all-time favorite storylines and #1 favorite single issue (#181)...well, that more than makes up for any lack of direct Miller pencils underneath for me. But, I can understand why some might have more hesitation.

It's been brought up before, but will people now start to care more about Miller's extremely loose breakdowns on the Wolverine Limited Series as well? Again, for me, it doesn't matter - I love that series and I think the art looks great, full stop. But, I've long felt that it's obvious that the look of the book was more Rubinstein than Miller (as confirmed multiple times now by Rubinstein)...will this art also receive more scrutiny as well?

In all fairness to the comments re #182 I would like to hear from people with direct knowledge of the situation (Mitch Itkowitz, Frank Miller, Klaus Janson) before annotating the guidelines of miller dd run art breakdown duties.

Yes I have a self interest, but also since these 3 persons are alive and well I don't see why we are relying on theory.

In all fairness to the comments re #182 I would like to hear from people with direct knowledge of the situation (Mitch Itkowitz, Frank Miller, Klaus Janson) before annotating the guidelines of miller dd run art breakdown duties.

 

Yes I have a self interest, but also since these 3 persons are alive and well I don't see why we are relying on theory.

Well, we've heard from Klaus - #179-up are separate sheet issues. The only reason we're not listing #182-#184 as such is because we know that at least some of the pages were reused from what was supposed to be issue #167. But I'm not sure that the default assumption should be that these are all Miller pencils on the board, as there are 3 issues worth of material here, including pages depicting events directly following #181, so we know for a fact that, at the very least, these issues are a mix of new and old pages.

It's been brought up before, but will people now start to care more about Miller's extremely loose breakdowns on the Wolverine Limited Series as well? Again, for me, it doesn't matter - I love that series and I think the art looks great, full stop. But, I've long felt that it's obvious that the look of the book was more Rubinstein than Miller (as confirmed multiple times now by Rubinstein)...will this art also receive more scrutiny as well?

I always find it fascinating to chronologically take a look at what books an artist was working on at a given time (for instance, check out how many books Byrne was doing in a given month off and on in the 1977-1979 era - unreal). To perhaps state the obvious, but Miller most likely had to move to separate sheet layouts during the post-DD185 time period due to this Wolverine chores at the same time.

I also reviewed the Miller DD TPB's last night and it is amazing the stylistic changes during the run...I have to say however that it is a little perplexing to me that if DD179-190 (except for 183/184) was done with separate layouts then 1) why did the title credits only adjust to "Miller - Storyteller, Janson - Art" as of DD185 and 2) why is there such a distinct stylistic difference between DD182 and postDD185? In other words, if there was no change in artistic approach from DD179-190 between Miller and Janson (meaning layout by Miller on a separate sheet), then why did things visually change as of DD185? As previously mentioned, there is a minor stylistic shift between DD178 and DD179 but not as significant as between DD182 and DD185-190. Some may say this is just my opinion but I believe it has always been widely acknowledged that DD185 onwards just looks more Jason-influenced than DD182 and before.

To be transparent, I do own a page from DD182 so I do have a dog in this fight admittedly.

I think, like in most runs, everyone has a part (or issues) that they like more than others. Doesn't mean the other issues aren't any good. Everyone's got an opinion, and I think that kind of discourse is what these boards are supposed to be about.

I think Miller had a big hand in page layouts from very early on in the series. The noir look, the story board layout didn't show up in other McKenzie books that I'm aware of. I think McKenzie started moving DD toward the darker look (likely from his horror background), and Miller had a pretty open hand with the artwork. I think it was the stories and the new, different look of DD that got people excited about the run.

Personally, for me, it's the Kingpin issues that had the most impact. A hero is defined by their villains. For years, DD had goofy villains. The creation of Elektra was great, and the fact that she still is around and a vital part of the universe is testament to the brilliance in her creation. But, 168 isn't my favorite issue. I think that's ok, right? I really like the Kingpin issues, but does that mean I don't love issue 163 where DD "battled" the Hulk? No. I love that issue too.

Luckily, there are plenty of memories to go around.

Ron

It's been brought up before, but will people now start to care more about Miller's extremely loose breakdowns on the Wolverine Limited Series as well? Again, for me, it doesn't matter - I love that series and I think the art looks great, full stop. But, I've long felt that it's obvious that the look of the book was more Rubinstein than Miller (as confirmed multiple times now by Rubinstein)...will this art also receive more scrutiny as well?

 

I always find it fascinating to chronologically take a look at what books an artist was working on at a given time (for instance, check out how many books Byrne was doing in a given month off and on in the 1977-1979 era - unreal). To perhaps state the obvious, but Miller most likely had to move to separate sheet layouts during the post-DD185 time period due to this Wolverine chores at the same time.

 

I also reviewed the Miller DD TPB's last night and it is amazing the stylistic changes during the run...I have to say however that it is a little perplexing to me that if DD179-190 (except for 183/184) was done with separate layouts then 1) why did the title credits only adjust to "Miller - Storyteller, Janson - Art" as of DD185 and 2) why is there such a distinct stylistic difference between DD182 and postDD185? In other words, if there was no change in artistic approach from DD179-190 between Miller and Janson (meaning layout by Miller on a separate sheet), then why did things visually change as of DD185? As previously mentioned, there is a minor stylistic shift between DD178 and DD179 but not as significant as between DD182 and DD185-190. Some may say this is just my opinion but I believe it has always been widely acknowledged that DD185 onwards just looks more Jason-influenced than DD182 and before.

 

To be transparent, I do own a page from DD182 so I do have a dog in this fight admittedly.

 

Agreed, Would love to hear from Mitch regarding these points.

Luckily, there are plenty of memories to go around

But not enough pages, however they were done.

I think the basic message with all of this and where I completely agree with Gene, is that Frank Miller was integral to this run and if he had penciled and inked everything himself vs loose layouts on separate sheets it shouldn't affect value dramatically because you are buying the run. That being said I can understand why people who may only have room in their collection for a single page of this value/caliber are concerned with the specifics.

That all being said any pages from this run I consider to have especially high collector appeal and Frank Miller had a direct hand in their creation whether his hand directly touched page or not. I would love to see more of those 8 1/2 by 11 rough layouts surface to prove or disprove the issue.

P.S. I wish auction houses put 1/10 of the effort into these things that we do

2) why is there such a distinct stylistic difference between DD182 and postDD185? In other words, if there was no change in artistic approach from DD179-190 between Miller and Janson (meaning layout by Miller on a separate sheet), then why did things visually change as of DD185? As previously mentioned, there is a minor stylistic shift between DD178 and DD179 but not as significant as between DD182 and DD185-190. Some may say this is just my opinion but I believe it has always been widely acknowledged that DD185 onwards just looks more Jason-influenced than DD182 and before.

I honestly don't see it; upon closer inspection over the past week, it looks to me like the same guy who did #185-#190 did #179-181 and most of #182 as well. You've got a great #182 page either way - it could only have come out of the mind of Frank Miller, regardless of whether Klaus was the one who executed that vision.

Something to consider: Comic book fans/collectors for as long as I can remember have had DD158 valued at a much higher level than DD168.

 

My point is simply this: Frank wasn't just the guy drawing Daredevil, he was already a superstar artist before he became a superstar writer/artist. Pages he drew would still be highly coveted.

 

I wonder how much of the DD #158 effect is due to Miller becoming the superstar he became after DD #168-onwards, though. Prior to DD #158, Miller had only worked sparingly as a fill-in artist for Marvel, and the intro blurb on page 1 of #158 predicting that Miller would explode like a "bombshell" is widely regarded to have been a bit of fortunate hyperbole. IMO, comic fans are (even) more concerned about 1st appearances and are less discerning about the nuances of the OA than art collectors, so it's not surprising that #158 is more valuable than #168. Also, even though DD sales didn't really take off until after #168, Miller had begun to develop a (good) reputation and fledgling fan base by then, whereas nobody knew that #158, the finale of a McKenzie storyline featuring the Death-Stalker, was going to be anything special. By the publication of #168 in 1981, you also had direct market copies of the title. Bottom line, I think much of the valuation gap between #158 and #168 is just because #158 came earlier (fewer copies preserved, collectors fixated on firsts) more than Miller's drawing talents being so revered on its own.

 

As such, I don't think that if Miller hadn't become a writer, that his art would be worth nearly what it is worth today. It's because he became such a highly regarded writer and auteur that his OA, even his early, pre-writing OA, is worth what it is. Not that he wasn't well regarded back then as an artist and that his art wouldn't be worth a premium regardless, but I suspect his art would be worth much closer to, say, Bill Sienkiewicz's well-regarded Moon Knight and New Mutants runs than where DD pages are valued today had he not become the superstar writer he became as well.

I agree his work wouldn't be worth what it is today, though without his writing contributions. However I don't necessarily think Sienk is a good comparison (waves of people both detested and protested his work and quit reading things that he got assigned to.)

Currently Frank one of the most expensive artists to collect and he wouldn't be there without the contributions of his writing, but he'd still be a superstar with expensive artwork, and I think the relationship between DD158 and DD168 prices (a "First Appearance" issue) illustrates that people were interested in his art even before Elektra stories began. By contrast, Byrne's X-Men 120-121 were more valuable than X-Men 108, even though 108 was the older comic.