Nice.

Although, with a title like "Moonlighting", where are Maddie and David?

Sweet! I love this Spider-Villain series! Hope to see more!

I notice that JB's gone with the "zig-zag" cape clasp-chain-thingy, here, as he has in many recent commissions. Is that your preferred version, JB?

I'm partial to the "braided rope" clasp, myself. And a quick glance at ASM # 5 reveals that Ditko did a single-disc clasp, which I believe Kirby was also doing for the not-so-good Doctor at the time.

Doom's suit is an all-time classic design! After the false start of FF # 5, the basic design from FF # 6 has gone pretty much unchanged (barring minor tweaks like the cape clasp, and some poor redesigns in the 90s and 00s).

This 'series' of commissions for Paul Greer focuses upon Spider-Man's villains.

Great Doom, JB.

••

The original announcement:

"Sorry to have to inform you that I will be no longer offering this size as a choice when ordering a commission. Those of you who have orders already on the List (which includes Paul Greer's ongoing Spider-Villains series) can expect to see those orders fulfilled, but after those are done, no more." (Emphasis added)

++

Doctor Doom was a FF villain "moonlighting' in ASM.

••

And that's the THIRD time it's been explained in this thread!

Who wants to go for FOUR?

••

I'd hardly call FF 5"s version a "false start"! Doom there wore a more "realistic" armor -- it looked like something that a human being could actually wear. The later versions reverted to the impossible joints we see most of the time in armored characters.

We can only guess why Doom's armor was different when he retuned in issue 6, but looking just now at the last page from 5, hanging on my Studio wall, I cannot help but notice that Kirby did not draw the original, more detailed armor consistently even from panel to panel! He may well have decided to sacrifice detail and "realism" upon the altar of consistency!

I have long said it was the events in FF 32 that prompted me to finally surrender to my parents and peers pressure, and stop reading comics, but I wonder if that huge gap in my Spider-Man reading also contributed!

••

One of the oddest comments I have read about one of the commission pieces came when someone, fairly early in the game, complimented me on the way I posed the figures, and I replied saying I tried to fill the space as much as I could. The odd comment came when someone asked "Why?" And not just "Why?", but "Why?" in a manner that indicated the questioner thought this was a BAD thing to do!

I have mentioned before how I don't like it when the customers try to "write" the piece, as 99 times out of a hundred they will not really be thinking in fully visual terms, and will describe something that is awkward or even impossible to drawn. (The latter usually happens when, clearly without realizing it, they ask for an image that would involve actual MOVEMENT, of the figures, the camera, or both!)

One of the examples of such "writing" I really don't like is when the customer insists on a head on, standing shot of a character who has a very clean and simple silhouette -- not even a cape to fill space. Invariably, this means a pose shaped more or less like a capital I, with a whole lot of blank paper all 'round.

I can understand why people would ask for such poses -- they want the biggest bang for their buck (as I would!), and "logic" tells them a full length standing figure is going to show the most in terms of costume details and the like. But, ironically, by insisting on these stiff, uninteresting poses, they actually end up getting LESS bang!

This is one of the reasons I don't mind the standing poses of Wolverine. Because of his short stature and wide build, he tends to fill space even when he's in that capital I pose!