• 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.

Chris Wozniak inks over Lightbox
0

26 posts in this topic

Hello folks,

 

A similar piece gained a little attention over on Yahoo. I was the winner of THIS auction:

 

http://www.ebay.com/itm/ROM-SPACE-KNIGHT-pin-up-John-Byrne-and-Chris-Wozniak-/252055335529?hash=item3aafab3269

 

A little brain tickle was warning me I'd seen it before somewhere, but, unfortunately I was LITERALLY in a funeral in the middle of South Dakota when I had to make a decision.

 

Well, of course, I HAD seen it before:

 

http://www.comicartfans.com/GalleryPiece.asp?Piece=18276&GSub=2245

 

...a Byrne doodle on the back of an Alpha Flight page.

 

So, 99% sure this piece is a lightbox job by Wozniak, confirming with JB now. If I hadn't been in such a low-bandwidth, high-pressure place, I might've had the time to research the image properly. At least the financial lesson wasn't worse. It IS skillfully inked, by the look of the pics.

 

This piece will not be staying in my collection, I'll be passing it on at the Charity Art Auction at my next local show. (Properly, permanently accredited, of course)

 

Does anyone have any suggestions as to what sort of Ebay Feedback I should leave? I've never had to leave negative feedback before (touch wood) but I wonder if Neutral Feedback is warranted here. The item IS as described in the auction, but the description is carefully worded to sidestep the fact that Byrne never touched the piece.

 

Andrew

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The item IS as described in the auction, but the description is carefully worded to sidestep the fact that Byrne never touched the piece.

 

"An original piece of comic art." People can always quibble (I suppose), but in my book NOT an original. A recreation. Big difference to most, and a price difference too. Not $315, more like $150. Tops. And only because he's worked for Marvel, a pro, not a pure amateur. That would be more like $50-70.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Does anyone have any suggestions as to what sort of Ebay Feedback I should leave? I've never had to leave negative feedback before (touch wood) but I wonder if Neutral Feedback is warranted here.

 

In my opinion, leaving a Neutral isn't an option, it's either you're satisfied with a Positive or you're disgruntled with a Negative in this case. All neutral does is create more grey haziness to the piece and the seller. Neutrals has little to no impact on the seller nor the community of buyers looking for fair warnings.

 

At $300+ you paid, it seems you're clearly aren't happy about the purchase, relegating it to a future donation, you might want to contact the seller to see if you can get a refund. Your request and the basis of that is reasonable.

 

You seem very honorable and forthright as a person to the point of eating the costs as a lesson learned. I understand why you're wavering on neutral or negative based on the kindness of your demeanor.

 

I don't think you're doing the seller any favors nor the community of future buyers by leaving a neutral. Either have your voice heard with a Negative, or chalk it up as a bad experience and do nothing, but first give the seller the opportunity to right size the transaction. The seller might be able to provide a partial refund so you don't feel gauged on the price, and that may then warrant Positive feedback.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow, you are being extremely gracious IMO. I would let the seller know that I felt his auction was deceptive and very misleading and that I am very unhappy with the transaction and would seek a full refund. I would offer the auction for charity as an option or he could pay for you to ship it back to him (I would not want to be out one cent on the transaction). If he agrees, I would move along. I would have to think about what type of feedback to leave (not sure how that works on a return and it would probably depend on how he reacted). If he does not agree, I would leave a very strong negative comment, turn the auction into eBay, and go the charity route (this is a great idea).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, I'm surprised this is even up for debate. The seller is intentionally trying to be deceptive in that listing.

File a return/item not as described with eBay. They'll make the seller pay return shipping. And at the very least leave a neutral saying item was a reproduction, otherwise less experienced buyers are going to get fleeced in the future.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, I'm surprised this is even up for debate. The seller is intentionally trying to be deceptive in that listing.

File a return/item not as described with eBay. They'll make the seller pay return shipping. And at the very least leave a neutral saying item was a reproduction, otherwise less experienced buyers are going to get fleeced in the future.

 

^^

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've kind of been sitting in the back of the room following this guy's BS for a couple weeks now. Listening to the conversations here and on Comicart-L, etc.

 

My .02¢...

 

CLEARLY Wozniak is trying to obfuscate exactly what he is selling for financial gain. And the problem as I see it is terminology and semantics. Both for buyers and for eBay.

 

So lets say you make a claim that the item is a "reproduction". Seller says it is not a reproduction (copy, print, etc) it is original inks on paper. He is in the right. But it's all in the terminology. And I doubt eBay has any interest in educating their people in the nuances of original comic art and what constitutes what, re what is "original". Especially when a decent portion of experienced collectors themselves don't do due diligence before buying that work.

 

If I was making a claim and leaving negative feedback, I'd tell eBay the guy is making tracings of drawings (sending an example of one of the the original pieces Wozniak is lightboxing) and then listing his tracings as original because he put ink to paper.

 

That isn't to denigrate the work of inkers by the by. I have the utmost respect for their contributions. Clearly for the Rom piece in the OP, Wozniak did more than just ink the pencils. But it is the passing off of the original penciller's participation by including their name in the sales pitch that tosses the whole thing into a morass of terminology.

 

Not unlike the whole Mike Royer inks via lightbox being Kirby "originals" via that BS mess with Richard Rae. Same deal.

 

But telling eBay that the dude is selling tracings of other artist's work and selling as if they were involved in what he is auctioning via their site should clear that vocabulary hurdle up for them at least.

 

Whether they give a mess... who knows?

 

-e.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well,

 

Thank you all for your input. It's a tough one.

 

I decided to go ahead with my original intent, keep the piece long enough to donate it to my local convention this fall. There's a Silent Auction format, and someone in my district will be thrilled to own this (now properly-marked 'AFTER Byrne') piece.

 

I DID leave Neutral Feedback. Personally, I think some of you downplay Neutral's significance, as I always read Neutral as well as Negative Feedback. IMO.

 

Here's my feedback phrase. Hard to condense what to say when you have only 80 characters (even less than a standard 'tweet') but I think this touches on the important bits:

 

Skillfull inker RECREATION only, NOT 'original' art. Misleading description.

 

I think that's more than fair. Hardest was trying to get across Byrne's NON-involvement, but a last-second inclusion of the word 'inker' makes that point, I hope. If he has a fit over that I'll let you all know.

 

Thanks again for your interest and concern!

Edited by thethedew
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, but at least he left a more accurate descriptor of what the seller's shoveling out there into the world, so others checking his feedback will see it. Better than nothing. I'd have contacted the seller and voiced my displeasure first. If he told me to pound sand, I'd have contacted eBay. I don't really think they'd do much without the proper communication, because eBay has long been more interested in making and keeping sales than accuracy in listings. Though if they are anything, they tend to be more on a buyer's side than a sellers, so some hope there.

 

At any rate, if I contacted the guy and he fobbed me off, I'd hit him with the neg for sure. But I'd at least have given him a chance at a refund and saving his rep. Though in retrospect, that wouldn't have done as much for the greater good, as the Neutral and the note does others more service than if he'd sent the money back.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah it looks like he's been getting away with this for a while and other buyers may not be aware of what they got-definitely good that you spelled it out with your FB

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just came across this so I thought I'd chime in.

Yes, I ink on a lightbox...since 1985. Just to clarify that, the Justice League of America #259 cover attached here is the very first thing I ever did in comics back in 1986. It's Inked on a lightbox. Luke McDonnell never touched that cover but it's listed on Romitaman for $1,250 as Luke McDonnell art...and there's nothing wrong with that. He's the Penciler. I'm the Inker. The method I use to Ink was shown to me by Giordano and it's how I've done all my Inks for Marvel and DC over the years ever since. Honestly, it's a bit late to start complaining about it now. Back then original Pencils for pages that were Inked on a lightbox, the "real" art as some of you would prefer to call it, were thrown away after the Inked versions were turned in. Penciled pages were deemed essentially worthless because they were not the "real" art. That's what I was taught in the DC Comics office at least.

I cannot begin to tell you how much classic original comic art has been made on a lightbox; virtually all of Jack Kirby's later DC work is Inked on a lightbox. To give a better example, tons of John Romita Inked covers are, especially over my personal favorite Gil Kane. My favorite Amazing Spider-Man cover from 1973 is clearly Inked on a lightbox. Gil would often "Pencil" in ball point pen, markers, whatever happened to be lying around a coffee shop it seemed. Romita slapped it all on a lightbox, Inked it, signed Kane's name to it and called it good. Finishing art in the most expedient manner possible was part of Romita's daily routine. Kane never touched those pages and no one cared. It was still considered Gil's artwork and is on sale today for a fortune without a word about Gil never touching those boards. 

Comic companies and artists have always been fine with making original art on lightboxes, it's been done for a hundred years and is nothing unusual. Never in all that time did any artist ever feel the need to "disclose" how those pages were made, nor have I ever seen any Comic Book Editor tell any Inker that any method for finishing comic art was out of bounds. My particular method that you are complaining about I have seen done by industry greats like Bill Sienkiewicz and other big names a hundred times over. 

How original art is finished is up to the Inker. It's his sole discretion. On every occasion when Pencilers get pages they never touched back from the office, they sell that art as their own every single time and not a word is ever said about method to anyone. It's been that way for ages.

Does lightbox Inking make original art worth less? That's up to the buyer. Romita recreated Amazing Spider-Man #49 cover on a lightbox and that just sold for $167,300. Plenty of lightboxed covers have sold for thousands and are considered very iconic pieces. No one talks about how they were made and certainly those pieces are not considered counterfeits or forgeries.

Art is worth what you're willing to pay for it. How the artist made it is his business. Certainly the comic companies never cared and I'm not going to change the way I work after all these years so it is what it is. With all comic art, any original Pencils on the board have to be completely removed by the Inker anyway so you're only left with the Inker's work, not the Pencilers. That's all comic art ever is; the Inker's interpretation of the Pencils. But if you want to complain about it that's your right and I won't argue. Just know that lightboxing comic art has been going on since before you were born. Sometimes it's done out of necessity, sometimes people like me just work that way because they like it. Horses for courses.

Those are my thoughts on the matter. Feel free to share my comments with anyone you care to. 



  

jla259cov.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Chris Wozniak said:

I just came across this so I thought I'd chime in.

Yes, I ink on a lightbox...since 1985. Just to clarify that, the Justice League of America #259 cover attached here is the very first thing I ever did in comics back in 1986. It's Inked on a lightbox. Luke McDonnell never touched that cover but it's listed on Romitaman for $1,250 as Luke McDonnell art...and there's nothing wrong with that. He's the Penciler. I'm the Inker. The method I use to Ink was shown to me by Giordano and it's how I've done all my Inks for Marvel and DC over the years ever since. Honestly, it's a bit late to start complaining about it now. Back then original Pencils for pages that were Inked on a lightbox, the "real" art as some of you would prefer to call it, were thrown away after the Inked versions were turned in. Penciled pages were deemed essentially worthless because they were not the "real" art. That's what I was taught in the DC Comics office at least.

I cannot begin to tell you how much classic original comic art has been made on a lightbox; virtually all of Jack Kirby's later DC work is Inked on a lightbox. To give a better example, tons of John Romita Inked covers are, especially over my personal favorite Gil Kane. My favorite Amazing Spider-Man cover from 1973 is clearly Inked on a lightbox. Gil would often "Pencil" in ball point pen, markers, whatever happened to be lying around a coffee shop it seemed. Romita slapped it all on a lightbox, Inked it, signed Kane's name to it and called it good. Finishing art in the most expedient manner possible was part of Romita's daily routine. Kane never touched those pages and no one cared. It was still considered Gil's artwork and is on sale today for a fortune without a word about Gil never touching those boards. 

Comic companies and artists have always been fine with making original art on lightboxes, it's been done for a hundred years and is nothing unusual. Never in all that time did any artist ever feel the need to "disclose" how those pages were made, nor have I ever seen any Comic Book Editor tell any Inker that any method for finishing comic art was out of bounds. My particular method that you are complaining about I have seen done by industry greats like Bill Sienkiewicz and other big names a hundred times over. 

How original art is finished is up to the Inker. It's his sole discretion. On every occasion when Pencilers get pages they never touched back from the office, they sell that art as their own every single time and not a word is ever said about method to anyone. It's been that way for ages.

Does lightbox Inking make original art worth less? That's up to the buyer. Romita recreated Amazing Spider-Man #49 cover on a lightbox and that just sold for $167,300. Plenty of lightboxed covers have sold for thousands and are considered very iconic pieces. No one talks about how they were made and certainly those pieces are not considered counterfeits or forgeries.

Art is worth what you're willing to pay for it. How the artist made it is his business. Certainly the comic companies never cared and I'm not going to change the way I work after all these years so it is what it is. With all comic art, any original Pencils on the board have to be completely removed by the Inker anyway so you're only left with the Inker's work, not the Pencilers. That's all comic art ever is; the Inker's interpretation of the Pencils. But if you want to complain about it that's your right and I won't argue. Just know that lightboxing comic art has been going on since before you were born. Sometimes it's done out of necessity, sometimes people like me just work that way because they like it. Horses for courses.

Those are my thoughts on the matter. Feel free to share my comments with anyone you care to. 



  

jla259cov.jpg

I think the issue isn't with the Lightbox itself, it's with the description that was attached to the Rom piece that started this thread.

 

From the eBay listing: "Iconic ROM SPACE KNIGHT pin-up drawn by X-Men Artist John Byrne with nice finishing Inks by Marvel and DC Artist Chris Wozniak. Not a print or "blue line" Inks. An original piece of comic art."

The light boxed pieces you mention, like the one by Romita, sold for what they did because (as in the case of the the Romita) they were inked by Romita and sold as Romita and the Romita market set the value freely and with knowledge of the piece's origin.

The Rom piece in question, the tangible, physical piece of art being sold,  listed as "drawn by John Byrne" and "an original piece of comic art" was never touched by Byrne. It should have been listed as all Wozniak inks over light boxed Byrne pencils. 

That's how accurate attribution gives a piece the full measure of disclosure necessary and provides that buyers and sellers stand on equal footing, with all the facts available, before finalizing the deal. 

Anything short of full and accurate disclosure is going to be viewed as deceptive regardless of intent to do so. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Exactly. No one's questioning the method of production. Just the cynically strategic wording of the auction description. Which goes out of its way to state "not a print or blue line inks". But makes no mention of a light box.

Which, if light boxing is no big deal, then why leave that rather important detail out?

Ironically, if the pieces were more accurately described, I believe they'd be better received by collectors and sell better as a result. Collectors just need to know what these are (and aren't) from the start. No surprises later. As it stands now, they carry a stigma. Not because the quality is poor, but because nobody wants to be viewed as a sucker. Really no way to see how these half-truth auction descriptions don't treat a potential buyer as anything other than a sucker.

Edited by Nexus
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Aside from the description, what does John Byrne think about it? 

There may indeed be a market for professional lightboxed inks of a Byrne pencil piece. I think people just want a clear and accurate description of it. 

Its perfectly fair to advertise your bona fides as a professional Marvel & DC artist & inker. Your description here might be a nice thing to post on all of your pieces, modified somewhat to be more educational for the buyer.

 

Edited by PhilipB2k17
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Another one. Frank miller.

 

http://www.ebay.com/itm/DAREDEVIL-AND-BLACK-WIDOW-PIN-UP-Frank-Miller-Chris-Wozniak-Original-Art-/253170836485?hash=item3af2286405:g:-r4AAOSwak5Zxq-e

 

Seller sent me this response when I asked about lightbox art?

 

This was Inked on a lightbox which is one of several traditional methods for making comic art. The pencil art is taped under a clean board an the Inker works on that. But even if Miller's pencils were on the top page they would have to be removed in order to finish inking it. You would still only be left with the inker's lines on the page so the end result is the same. Hope that helps.

 

Edited by Panelfan1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
0