I think some people can't differentiate between an artists style and what is actually drawn on the page. So they end up saying that faces or hands, whatever, look similar drawn by Artist A. When really they are seeing a solid style. I've been amazed by the attention to "looks" John gives comics, right down to the "morphing" [or mutation, whatever you thinks more apt;-) ] of his own style to best fit the feel of the title.

Of course JB's faces do not all look the same. However JB's faces all look like they are drawn by John Byrne!

The fact that JB's faces are so recognisable as his style is probably the reason for the ignorant idea that they all look the same.

IMO that is JB's best trick as an artist, all his faces look like real people with real personalities behind them. (What John refers to as 'Verisimilitude'.)

My only problem with JB's faces is when they are inked by other people and that effect is lost.

That's one of the great problems with inking. One errant line or poor line choice from the inker can change purturbed to seathing. I took the decision on the back of reading a thread on the old Magnus board with JB that when it comes to inking faces (not hair, ears but the actual "mask") I'd follow the artists lines including tapering more absolutely than anywhere else. Also an inker doesn't need to read the plot to ink the pencils and as much as you might think you'd "read" it from the pencils you can sink in the pencils so much so that the story is not on your horizon. That's why it's important to put some faith in the pencillers ability to tell a story and that most pencillers are precious about the faces they draw because the face communicates a large percentage of the story as it unfolds.

I would accept as argument that JB has changed quite a bit from what he did in the past, especially with the human face, and that someone who liked the older Byrne faces no longer likes what he is doing. My brother is in this list of people. He believes that JB is still great and kicking but he doesn;t like his approach to faces and figures anymore. To state however, that he draws one face, especially currently, is plain stupid.

JB's art is at its best for a long, long time, if you ask me....

Bottom line -- sure, I should obviously just ignore this twaddle, since it is so self-evidently untrue -- but how often in a week (or a day) do you encounter somebody running thru the litany of falsehoods about myself and/or my work? Byrne never draws backgrounds. All Byrne's faces look the same. DC won't let Byrne ink his own work. Byrne is a racist. Byrne hates the fans. Etc, etc. Sometimes, I feel distinctly as though I am a "voice crying in the wilderness" when I try to combat these lies, but if I let them slide -- as once I did with "Byrne's stuff doesn't sell anymore" -- they quickly become canonical. Especially by the time they reach the twenty-third or -fourth hand iteration on the internet.

I'd like to have been a gremlin sitting upon Matt's shoulder at that store as that conversation occurred.  I would have encouraged him to thank the store owner/employee by making the following statement:

"It's better to remain silent and let your customers think that you are stupid and foolish, rather than speak and thus remove all doubt!"

John Byrne has a remarkable range of facial types and expressions.  It's one of his many strengths and makes his comics efforts endlessly fun.  As fans of his work we all know this, and if we are in the minority, at least we are in good company.

Ditto.

John Byrne wrote: All the more so when we factor in how many inkers have learned to ink without ever having learned to pencil!

I would have thought any artist who could ink professionally would have at least the basic survival skills in pencilling.  Without dissing any current inkers, are there any from the past that we might be surprised to learn couldn't pencil their way out of a wet paper bag?  Besides Vince Colletta.