•••

Technically, Neal Adams “sketched” that one!

Marvel figured out early on that it was the COVER that did most of the selling. Walking into the local drugstore or newsstand, one was not likely to see a new title on the rack and think "That looks well written!"

Of course, in many cases that cover art was a con. Interiors were SO often not by the same artists. ...Didn't stop Marvel doing it.

_________________________

I have, in recent years, bought a large number of SUPERBOY, LOIS LANE, and JIMMY OLSEN comics from the 60's simply because of the beautiful Neal Adams covers, which were MUCH better than the interiors for that era for those series.  I paid about $3 (sometimes $2) for most of these, which I would call good quality "readers copies" (not pristine, but not all wrinkled or torn either).  Hey--at least they went the extra mile with the covers!

It's funny to think that most greeting cards cost the same amount as comic books--and they're JUST "covers"!

Shooter said I wasn't good enough to do the covers.

_________

(This is what led to the quasi-infamous incident in which I was sent what I thought was a dull cover sketch. I fixed it, causing Shooter to order me to redraw it, bellowing at me to NEVER CHANGE THE COVER SKETCH!!

(A few weeks later I was sent another dull sketch, which I dutifully duplicated. Not long after that I visited the Office, where Shooter showed me that Walt Simonson had “really saved your ass” when he inked the cover. On Shooter’s instructions, Walt had made all the changes I would have made.)

______________________

Years and years ago, when I was trying to be a comic book artist and took my portfolio around at Comic-Con, I showed my work to the editors at one of Shooter's companies (It was Broadway Comics at that time, I believe) and they were nice and even admitted they were likely shutting down soon (which they ended up doing) but they confided to me that my work was (reading between the lines) not dull enough!  (And I was, by no means, an Image-style artist--I was more trying to be in the George Perez school then.)

If you look at the artistic direction of Valiant, Defiant, and Broadway (save for the occasional Barry Windsor-Smith or Ditko issue), you might note that the art was more along the lines of the duller (or more restrained) 50's & 60's DC rather than the 60's-80's exciting and dynamic Marvel!

It's fascinating to read (here and in other threads) all these accounts of Shooter being tough on JB for (in this case at least) being too "dull"--one of the most exciting and dynamic comic book artists of all time!--when, when he had total hiring power at his later smaller companies, he gravitated towards duller artists (which I think led to the failure of all those companies).