kirbyditko's picture
Posted by: kirbyditko | October 23, 2010

Wow! There's all sorts of

Wow! There's all sorts of details on the Red Skull's face on the original art that does not appear on the printed color version that you've posted along side with it.

Also, It's interesting (if not so good) how Shores always redrew Cap's face so that he looked like his 1940s self.

kirbyditko's picture
Posted by: kirbyditko | October 23, 2010

Whoops! I see in your notes

Whoops! I see in your notes on the sidebar, that you were on to the redo on the Red Skull's face. To bad, the original version is much cooler!

Tom Kraft's picture
Posted by: Tom Kraft | October 23, 2010

To much detail

One thing I noticed is how much detail Shores put into the art, especially The Sleeper and The Red Skull's face. From my experience, Kirby would wouldn't have penciled that detail. His brush strokes are as fine as Colletta's pen lines. But in the end the quality of the printing process couldn't reproduce it.

If you have the Essentials reprint it's even worst since it looks like it came from 2nd or 3rd generation stats.

Mike T's picture
Posted by: Mike T | March 16, 2014

Skull's Face

Tom, how is it that the original rendering of the Skull's face by Syd Shores survived? Do you know? Was the version that appeared on the cover pasted up on the original art and then removed later? Was the cover shot from a stat that was modified (leaving the original art untouched)?

Tom Kraft's picture
Posted by: Tom Kraft | March 16, 2014

Re: Skull's Face

Hi Mike, Hans Kosenkranius of Tri-State Original Art was the owner of this cover. He is on this site so he may respond with more detail but he mentioned there was white-out over the art and it was retouched to what was published because Marvel thought it was to gruesome. When Hans restored the piece with a professional restorer, they removed the white out thus revealing the original intent for the Skull's face.

Mike T's picture
Posted by: Mike T | March 16, 2014

RE: Skull's Face

Wow! I'll bet that doesn't happen too often. You never know what lies under the white-out. In this case it was buried treasure. Well done! Yep, the newly-unearthed Skull is gruesome, and way better-looking too! So it was Marvel and not CCA (THE CODE) that considered it too gruesome?

Ferran Delgado's picture
Posted by: Ferran Delgado | October 24, 2010

Shores

I agree, Shores adds too much detail as it can be seen in this comparation with pencils of page 10:
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_GffQlBTa-y8/SRrWszTws0I/AAAAAAAAFgQ/3v6L9aPreX...

I like that Shores add more shadows to the original drawing because it gives more depth, although his strokes are too much loose for my taste. I think that this is the main difference with Colleta's inks, where I feel that his inking removes part of the strengh of kirby's drawings, and details adds nothing to the drawing.

stephen's picture
Posted by: stephen | October 28, 2010

shores

i really liked shores' inking on captain america... for me it had a golden age look that gave it some continuity with cap's 1940s stories

MRE1957's picture
Posted by: MRE1957 | December 3, 2010

Red Skull's skull

One possible explanation for the Red Skull's head being changed may have been due to the Comics Code restrictions at that time.

A similar example of this was when the Cap/Red Skull story from Captain America Comics #7 was reprinted in Fantasy Masterpieces #6 all of the Red Skull heads were re-drawn. Both of these happened around 1967-68. Also, if you look at the drawing of the Red Skull from the splash page of that 1941 story you'll see that it bears a remarkable similarity to Syd's version on this cover. Which should not be a surprise since he is credited with inking both!

Comment viewing options