Scans of original art are from the Kirby Museum's Original Art Digital Archive.
Scans of pencil art photocopies for the Kirby Museum's Pencil Art Photocopy Archive courtesy of the Kirby Family, with thanks to TwoMorrows Publishing.
Please do not copy any images or content from this site without permission.
One of the better Vinnie inked pieces. Wouldn't you agree, Krackles?
For your info:
I wrote my comment (below) before yours Frank but it wasn't online until I noticed I had to enter a validation code after I returned from lunch.
Honest work from Colletta.
Obviously there wasn't any need for erasing, lucky for Kirby.
That is Colletta at his best, and notice that as usual it's almost all brush. Weird Colletta is associated with pen work, because his crow-quill technique is weak, but when he makes an effort he's quite adept with a brush.
At his best for sure but let's not get carried away in the praise departement!
I mean, how could it be possible to do it wrong when Kirby served you with such a piece of cake to ink?
What manner of professional would ink it without some kind of success?
In my opinion, if he could do it, most decent inkers would have done better.
Even I, on a bad day, could do as good a job, maybe even better than Colletta.
Don't get me wrong I'm a Royer man all the way.
People used to say that Jack Kirby at his worst was better than most other guys at their best.
So I think what Krackles is trying to say here is that Vince Colletta at his best was better than most other guys at their worst.
What did I say to deserve this? What a revolting development…
Vinnie at his best was a rarity and the best would have been to keep him away from Kirby's pencils!
If you read my comment carefully, you'd see that it's not much of a compliment to Colletta, since I'm saying that ONLY Colletta's BEST work was better than most other inkers' WORST work. So even the other inkers' AVERAGE work was as good as, or better than, Colletta's best.
Having said that, let me ask you this: If you could have picked any of the inkers who were active in the sixties to ink Kirby's THOR instead of Colletta, who would you have picked?
GIACOIA of course!
With some guest inking by Klein or Sinnott given Frank tendency to slip behind schedule :-(
Why not Wallace Wood? He would certainly have given Thor a special flavor and set the serie a bit different from other regular Superheroes.
PS: I understood and was going playful!
Somehow, The Shadow KNEW you were gonna pick Giacoia. He would've been one of my choices, too. I also liked Sinnott, considering his special connection to Thor, having inked the very first story (among others) and having even pencilled a few of the early ones -- not to mention his exceptional work on the book in the seventies, over Big John Buscema's layouts and pencils. Wally Wood is a good choice, also; one I wouldn't have immediately thought of. I think if Jack had stayed at DC through the sixties instead of coming back to Marvel, he probably would have done a Thor comic for them as well, and Woody probably would've inked it, considering he was Jack's inker of choice until he (Kirby) left for Marvel. Even Klein probably would've ended up inking a bunch of Kirby's stuff at DC, since he was a mainstay there. My only other choice for THOR inking would've been Syd Shores, since he added some nice Colletta-like, fine-line details to the work without erasing any of Jack's art the way Vinnie did.
Kirby clearly penciled them in. Very odd, isn't it? (Or is it?)
Good eye spotting that.
It points up an oddity about Colletta's work. At the same time he was erasing whole figures, and inking 30's style Brownstones as modern looking glass rectangles he was applying overdone fussy line work to Kirby's penciling.
Blow the image up, and look at the tangle of lines he's used in inking the left cheekbone.
In addition to being lazy at times it would seem Colletta probably considered himself a better artist than Kirby, and thought he could make better decisions about effective images.
Stan often asked for revisions in art and this is a case where I think it helped. Galactus looks more confident, aloof and mysterious without that glassy eyes Jack drew in there. I don't agree with every artistic choice inkers and editors have made over the years but this one was a good call.
Actually, I prefer Galactus without eyes or with the stylized version from his first appearance.
My unrelated comment to this thread is that I LOVED the Galactus / Thor story-arc (to use modern lingo)! Pure Kirby at his finest! The issue with the weird bird aliens and Ego is the absolute hi-point!
And yet based on what we know the Galactus/Thor story arc as published is one of the most badly compromised stories Kirby wrote for Marvel due to Lee's rewrites, and editorial control. Very, very little of what Kirby intended remained in the printed comic book. TJKC #52 makes an attempt to reconstruct the story based on unpublished pages, and photocopies.
Rather than "wrote", let's talk about hijacking and dialogues from Stan Lee.
Whatever Kirby intended, 1% of it coming through would still be far superior than 99% of what Lee could produce on its own.
In fact, I didn't enjoy the Galactus story that much, the Ego part was much better despite Colletta's inking.
They didn't spare Kirby any infamy…
I agree, it's exactly the point I was making in an earlier comment.
Kirby writes in the top margin, "He feels waves of thought present." That's what I get from the stories after they were adulterated by Lee. Kirby's intended story is the "ghost of electricity howling through the bones of Lee's face."
did Vinnie spill a pot of coffee on Galactus's mouth or what?
...Galactus's nose was running!