Hope you keep everybody posted on life at Dark Horse and what happens there.

That said, when actually reading the story, I find the inclusion of misplaced colors, yellowed paper and overleaf show-through distracting, so I would be more likely to go through an Archive edition than an entire book reproduced Spiegelman-style. I’d say the two approaches have different strengths based on the effect that each project is going for, and I’m happy that both are available.

As for the different panels, I would have preferred to be able to contrast the way the same panel looks in each project. However, I only had immediate access to an Archive sampler, which only includes one Plastic Man story, and it’s not one included in Spiegelman’s book, so I had to make do. If I come across the actual Archives at the library in the future, I may correct this.

Thanks for reading and responding!

This is a subject that I, too, have given much thought to over the past few years. I have two observations on your piece. First, I believe that if you had compared the exact same panel from the two separate sources for the Plastic Man reprint projects you would have a fairer, apple-to-apples comparison. (Personally, I disagree with your assertion that the Spiegelman reprint is the “better” of the two, and I think this would be even clearer if you could have reprinted the exact same planel from the DC reprint.) Second, I would venture that if the artists from those time periods were alive to ask for their preference, most would be closer to Neal Adams in desiring some intervention or updating to not only the coloring, but probably also to the fidelity of the line as it was put on the page. Seeing original comic art from before the 1980s compared to the printed reproductions reveals all sorts of ways the artist’s intentions were poorly served by the limitations of the day’s technology (e.g., in the form of line drop out, line congealing, etc.)

Thanks again!