Yeah, this.

I worked as a printer and a print finisher for roughly 10 years in the 1990s, and I can tell you that, for the most part, the colours in those reprints are roughly the same as they were in the originals, but it's the cheap, porous nature of newsprint that makes the colours look more muted in the originals. The question is, I suppose, whether the colours in modern reprints -- which are printed on higher quality paper (and in a lot of instances glossier paper too) -- should accurately reflect the original experience of reading these comics on newsprint?

That's probably very much a personal choice for old, long-term readers like us. But for newer readers, I think the brighter colours of modern reprints look more like the comics that they've been reading since the late '90s or thereabouts. Anyway, one thing is for sure, the colouring of the Marvel reprints since the '90s doesn't seem to have hurt sales, so you have to assume that most readers or collectors like it.

Myself, I'm sort of ambivalent about it all. I grew up with newsprint comics in the late '70s and 1980s, so I naturally really like reading comics like that, with their more muted colours. There's a nostalgia factor in that and I also like the historical authenticity of seeing the way that the colours look in old comics, but that's the armchair historian in me talking. However, I also own a good few Masterworks, Omnibuses, and Epic collections, and I'm perfectly happy to read old comics in those, even with their much brighter colours. I guess it's just not that big an issue for me either way.


EDIT: Edited to say that speaking as someone who makes his living from writing, recording, and playing music, as well as being an avid record collector, analogue "warmth" is absolutely a real thing. I love digital formats like CD too, but there is definitely some music -- almost always pre-digital era music -- that absolutely sounds much better on a decent vinyl pressing played on a decent record player/hi-fi set up. Plus, as supercat points out, if we're talking about guitar amps, it's definitely preferrable to use tube-powered amplifiers, rather than ones with solid-state circuitry. Same goes for tube-driven hi-fi amplifiers, actually.

I would suspect that 99% are unaware of how much the modern reprints spoil the look and mood of the comics until they do a side by side comparison. I spent years thinking that 60s Marvel art just wasn't very good, for example, only to discover I liked it a lot when I bought some originals!

I recall the first eye opening moment I had- the Frank Miller Daredevil reprints, #168-181 most specifically. The colouring looked crappy and flat, and garish and plastic, to me and didn't seem to fit the mood of the story. I compared it to the original comics. The art looked waaaay more somber, and very grown up, especially once Janson began colouring. (Also, Miller's art was frequently designed to match left page to right page, with repeated layouts- in the reprints Marvel shat on that and had it out of synch, further spoiling the storytelling. 😡 )

Ah, yes, I do have the odd nicer looking 80s DC comic, along with many with bad paper/printing. Some Marvel printed really badly, but tended not to have such cheap/poor separations? I don't know how long that issue lasted with the colouring.

I outlasted you by 2 years on the floppies, by the way. 2001 was the year I packed that in.

Taschen is a prestige publishing house, built around collections of cultural art, rather than publishing stories.  They are more concerned with the best visual representation, on the best paper, while still making it accessible to an audience that doesn't earn 6 figures.  Benedikt Taschen started the company to make art and photography books more accessible to middle income enthusiasts; but, while maintaining a standard of quality.  Over the past few decades, they branched out into special gimmick publications, like Helmut Newton's Sumo (a massive coffee table collection of his photography, that came with a metal stand, to hold it, making it a literal coffee table book) and the Ali book, GOAT (also massive).  They also publish books on pop culture topics, both "mainstream" and more specialized, like advertising art or men's magazines and the like (including both adventure material and skin magazines).

Marvel is publishing stories and is more interested in selling the collected stories, in the best format they can, that a micro-audience will support.  Could they have better color?  Sure.  Would it drive the price up more?  Probably.  Could they improve while maintaining economies of scale?  Probably.  Is the audience big enough and demanding enough to force a change?  Not likely.

I see similar arguments about audio products and video products.  To the afficionado, there are significant differences; to a lot of us "civilians," it's perfectly fine and not that noticeably different enough to fork over the higher price.  I grew up with black & white, grainy tv, scratchy records, cassette tapes that got chewed in the player, and VHS with damaged tapes from a video store.   If the story is good and the reproduction is good enough, I am satisfied.  I think you will find that most who buy these omnibus volumes are more happy to have the stories, than carp over the reprint details, unless there is a major divergence.  Also, having worked at a printing company for 8 years, paper does make a difference, at a basic level, but so does the original intent in the creative process.  Comics were made, technically, for newsprint, for generations, with the inherent flaws and methods developed to compensate for them.  As white papers were introduced things changed, including color processes.  I constantly have to explain to art students why their projects look one way on a computer monitor and another on paper, especially mid-grade paper.  It's more than just the image, it's the media for display.  Quality costs money; and, with a niche market, you can only milk your audience for so much of it.

Maybe that's the difference... I don't have alot of silver age originals... I have a few here and there, but for the most part my collection starts in the Bronze age (I didn't start buying comics until I had my own money in the early 90s).

Art is 100% subjective, and you are certainly allowed not to like the colors. I personally find them to be a nice, inexpensive alternative to read stories I wouldn't be able to otherwise have access to.

I have quite a few Essentials/Showcase volumes as well in black and white, which works really well for some things, but for others the color can be missed for sure.


Ultimately, though, what anyone would prefer is irrelevant, it's what do you BUY.   The Epics are pretty good sellers it seems, so while perhaps there are legions of fans out there that would like more muted colors, either a) they are willing to buy what's produced or b) there aren't enough out there to warrant their production.

Price point and ease of reading are more important to me than how bright the colors are.

I'm glad someone mentioned Tomb of Dracula- even though I own the originals I still purchased the Essential B&W trades. I love Colan and Palmer's art- Colan never looked better than inked by the masterful Palmer, and I think he knew this and upped his game because of it. I discovered he disliked Palmer's use of zip-a-tone, but I loved that.

Overall I probably like ToD even better in the original colouring, but still, it had to be seen in original line art form too... now THAT book I'd hate to see in a garish reprint!!

Fully agree Kirby looks better in colour, by the way.

Edit: I should have mentioned they're the only Essential trades I own, as usually I like colour on books intended to be coloured.