While Strobl isn't really a favourite of mine he still did some good stories, and considering how prominent he was I do think he deserves at least one book. The same goes for Jack Bradbury. "In the best of worlds" and all that...
I honestly didn't get that. I thought you were serious when you said the idea of a Tony Strobl Disney Masters volume was bad taste.
Oh boy oh boy oh boy, if you misunderstood that, thenyou must have misread so many of the things I have written jokingly in here. I even put a face on that one for (PegLeg)Pete Sake! -->
Even if one has no idea of what kind of person I am, just my few posts in this thread should at very least depict me as somehow who does not think that anthological volumes should be based on anyone personal tastes.
I honestly didn't get that. I thought you were serious when you said the idea of a Tony Strobl Disney Masters volume was bad taste.
Oh boy oh boy oh boy, if you misunderstood that, thenyou must have misread so many of the things I have written jokingly in here. I even put a face on that one for (PegLeg)Pete Sake! -->
Even if one has no idea of what kind of person I am, just my few posts in this thread should at very least depict me as somehow who does not think that anthological volumes should be based on anyone personal tastes.
I don't know, dude... if several persons don't get that your jokes are supposed to be jokes, that could be a sign they're not quite working.
And even if you put a smiley face behind (some of) your jokes, that doesn't necessarily make it clear that you're being sarcastic. It could also signal that you're saying something in a funny fashion, and you're adding the smiley to reflect THAT. (At least I've often seen that smiley used in such a fashion.) For example: in your comment about Strobl, I didn't interpret the smiley to mean that you were being ironic or sarcastic when you said "bad taste"; just that you said it in a way you found funny. My first impression when reading it was that you found it funny that anyone could want a whole book dedicated to Tony Strobl (considering that you find him so bad).
Oh boy oh boy oh boy, if you misunderstood that, thenyou must have misread so many of the things I have written jokingly in here. I even put a face on that one for (PegLeg)Pete Sake! -->
Even if one has no idea of what kind of person I am, just my few posts in this thread should at very least depict me as somehow who does not think that anthological volumes should be based on anyone personal tastes.
I don't know, dude... if several persons don't get that your jokes are supposed to be jokes, that could be a sign they're not quite working.
And even if you put a smiley face behind (some of) your jokes, that doesn't necessarily make it clear that you're being sarcastic. It could also signal that you're saying something in a funny fashion, and you're adding the smiley to reflect THAT. (At least I've often seen that smiley used in such a fashion.) For example: in your comment about Strobl, I didn't interpret the smiley to mean that you were being ironic or sarcastic when you said "bad taste"; just that you said it in a way you found funny. My first impression when reading it was that you found it funny that anyone could want a whole book dedicated to Tony Strobl (considering that you find him so bad).
I would buy a Tony Strobl book, if it would contain only pre-1959 released stories. He drew plenty of stories and pages from 1947-58, with much better inkers than he had from 1959 to the end of his Disney Comics career.
I don't know, dude... if several persons don't get that your jokes are supposed to be jokes, that could be a sign they're not quite working.
And even if you put a smiley face behind (some of) your jokes, that doesn't necessarily make it clear that you're being sarcastic. It could also signal that you're saying something in a funny fashion, and you're adding the smiley to reflect THAT. (At least I've often seen that smiley used in such a fashion.) For example: in your comment about Strobl, I didn't interpret the smiley to mean that you were being ironic or sarcastic when you said "bad taste"; just that you said it in a way you found funny. My first impression when reading it was that you found it funny that anyone could want a whole book dedicated to Tony Strobl (considering that you find him so bad).
I would buy a Tony Strobl book, if it would contain only pre-1959 released stories. He drew plenty of stories and pages from 1947-58, with much better inkers than he had from 1959 to the end of his Disney Comics career.
Does this mean Strobl never inked his stories himself (or that he only did so very early on)?
I would buy a Tony Strobl book, if it would contain only pre-1959 released stories. He drew plenty of stories and pages from 1947-58, with much better inkers than he had from 1959 to the end of his Disney Comics career.
Does this mean Strobl never inked his stories himself (or that he only did so very early on)?
Unfortunately, Strobl's and Barks' index (as are all the indexes of the prolific artists) are down right now. Mine was also, for several weeks. But mine is up now. So, I couldn't check to see. However, from memory, I can't remember ever seeing Strobl listed as an inker on ANY of his stories. He was a much smoother penciler than ANY of the ink jobs done by his inkers. I like a lot of his Donald Duck stories from his earliest 1950 or 1951 or so through 1958, when John Liggera was inking his last for him. I didn't like Steve Steere's as much, but Strobl's art really got boxy and squarish starting in spring 1959 or so, when the drawing paper changed, and THAT would affect the inking much more than the penciling, as the inker had to make shorter strokes, with less curves, to keep the ink from running (bleeding) on the new, cheaper, slick paper. But, in addition, his new inkers, including Kay Wright (and I think, Vic Lockman -but I'm not sure).
Does this mean Strobl never inked his stories himself (or that he only did so very early on)?
Unfortunately, Strobl's and Barks' index (as are all the indexes of the prolific artists) are down right now. Mine was also, for several weeks. But mine is up now. So, I couldn't check to see. However, from memory, I can't remember ever seeing Strobl listed as an inker on ANY of his stories. He was a much smoother penciler than ANY of the ink jobs done by his inkers. I like a lot of his Donald Duck stories from his earliest 1950 or 1951 or so through 1958, when John Liggera was inking his last for him. I didn't like Steve Steere's as much, but Strobl's art really got boxy and squarish starting in spring 1959 or so, when the drawing paper changed, and THAT would affect the inking much more than the penciling, as the inker had to make shorter strokes, with less curves, to keep the ink from running (bleeding) on the new, cheaper, slick paper. But, in addition, his new inkers, including Kay Wright (and I think, Vic Lockman -but I'm not sure).
Hmmm... Strobl's index is working on my end. Anyway, yeah, seems there is usually always someone else credited with inking his stuff.
Actually, though, the switch to the cheaper drawing paper you're describing happened in 1955 (as evidenced from several interviews with Barks, and from the gradual decline in his drawings from sometimes in 1955 onwards).
Unfortunately, Strobl's and Barks' index (as are all the indexes of the prolific artists) are down right now. Mine was also, for several weeks. But mine is up now. So, I couldn't check to see. However, from memory, I can't remember ever seeing Strobl listed as an inker on ANY of his stories. He was a much smoother penciler than ANY of the ink jobs done by his inkers. I like a lot of his Donald Duck stories from his earliest 1950 or 1951 or so through 1958, when John Liggera was inking his last for him. I didn't like Steve Steere's as much, but Strobl's art really got boxy and squarish starting in spring 1959 or so, when the drawing paper changed, and THAT would affect the inking much more than the penciling, as the inker had to make shorter strokes, with less curves, to keep the ink from running (bleeding) on the new, cheaper, slick paper. But, in addition, his new inkers, including Kay Wright (and I think, Vic Lockman -but I'm not sure).
Hmmm... Strobl's index is working on my end. Anyway, yeah, seems there is usually always someone else credited with inking his stuff.
Actually, though, the switch to the cheaper drawing paper you're describing happened in 1955 (as evidenced from several interviews with Barks, and from the gradual decline in his drawings from sometimes in 1955 onwards).
Barks told in several interviews and to me in person, that there were TWO switches to cheaper, more slick paper. And the second switch, in 1959, was much more drastic, and dangerous for ink running (bleeding). That was evidenced in much stronger tightening of the pen and brush strokes of most of the Western Publishing inkers. The artwork in ALL Dell's funny animal series became much poorer, starting in early 1959, a MUCH more drastic change than occurred in 1955 across the board.
I've been checking out Inducks to check, because I've never really noticed Strobl's art evolution. (Any dates mentioned are publication, he could have drawn them up to a year beforehand.) Strobl seems to have started with Disney in 1949, drawing back-up stories for WDC. A lot of these old stories don't have inkers indexed unfortunately. He did a few one-pagers, but only started with the Ducks in earnest in 1954. He first worked with John Liggera in 1954 on a couple of Mickeys, and the two started doing Duck stories together in 1955. The last ones they did together were published in 1971. Strobl also did two stories with John's brother Bill. Strobl worked with Steve Steere from 1956 to 1988 (date of publication) or 1984 (story codes). Lockman inked two Strobl stories in 1955, but never after that.Kay Kay Wright doesn't ever seem to have worked with him, from what I can tell. For the rest, Inducks just doesn't seem to know.
Between 1964 and 1971, Larry Mayer inked some of his work, mainly cover art. More prolific in terms of pages numbers was Ellis Eringer, who did a lot of Strobl stories between 1963 and 1969. A couple of stories were inked by Mike Royer between 1964 and 1972. In 1979, Strobl drew a year of Mickey Sundays, which were inked by Manuel Gonzales then. He also did three months of Donald dailies in 1986-87, which were then inked by Daan Jippes. Joe Prince was a prolific inker between 1985 and 1987. The Jaime Diaz Studio did a few stories in the 1980s. A couple of mid-50s stories by Lee Hooper, a couple of mid-70s stories by Al White, and that's about all we have.
All of this leads me to conclude that Strobl wrote a heckuva lot of stories in his 40 year career, but then of course he didn't write or ink any of them, so must have saved him a lot of time.
EDIT: A second conclusion is that inking is an underappreciated business. Garé Barks is credited as inker on Inducks for a whole three stories, and as letterer for two, which stands in stark contrast to the 13 years she worked on Carl's comics. Of course, she never officially worked for Western, but given how well-known her husband's name is, I do wonder if she doesn't get short shrift. Is there some Inducks rule that prevents Garé from being credited more often? Or is this just an oversight, and is it time for a Garénaissaince?
Last Edit: Apr 29, 2020 20:43:47 GMT by That Duckfan
EDIT: A second conclusion is that inking is an underappreciated business. Garé Barks is credited as inker on Inducks for a whole three stories, and as letterer for two, which stands in stark contrast to the 13 years she worked on Carl's comics. Of course, she never officially worked for Western, but given how well-known her husband's name is, I do wonder if she doesn't get short shrift. Is there some Inducks rule that prevents Garé from being credited more often? Or is this just an oversight, and is it time for a Garénaissaince?
I think one reason Garé is not credited more on Inducks is that she never inked any of Barks' stories in full. Carl was always the primary inker. Here is how Barks decribed their working relationship (presumably in later years):
Then I would letter in the final dialogue, just in blue pencil, and once I had the whole page all constructed that way in rough, then I would go back and ink these characters. I would ink each one starting with the head usually, and going down to all the different details of the body. And then I would hand the page over to my wife, who would do the lettering and ink in all the background details (Barks is talking about his third wife, Garé, here. His second wife, Clara, also helped to a certain degree, but she never worked with lettering and backgrounds - Editor's remark).
She'd ink in all those things. And she would put in the solid blacks in the ducks' jackets, and the eyeballs, and so on (according to Garé herself she could never draw the ducks: I don't know why. I had a lot of difficulties with them - Editor's remark). And she would hand it back to me for whatever finishing was required, like putting the little white dashes in the ducks' eyes, the highlights that showed what direction they were looking.
Of course, you could still make the argument she should be credited more... and she could definitely get sole credit for the lettering from the mid-50s onwards. (But note that in the two examples on Inducks where she's credited as a letterer, she's not mentioned in the listings for the stories themselves -- only in the listings for the specific editions by IDW. So the reason she's listed there is obviously that she's credited in the IDW issues, and Inducks reproduces the credits as they were in those books.)