Fin Fang Foom wrote:
I think it's due to the source material -- maybe a slightly underexposed photostat or dupe negaitive. You can see it in the way that the emphasized words (in bold italics) and other very fine detail tends to run together a bit and close up. It's subtle, but it's noticeable, particularly by comparison.

If you were to compare it to an original printed page, even with the spread of the ink on newsprint, you'd probably see a difference.

I haven't looked at my scans of those issues yet to compare because they are on a hard drive in my closet.  Yes, even in the digital world I still have to dig around in the closet for a comic!!

In any case, I think you are correct and it's not solely George Bell.  For example the Buscema pages don't look that great either and I know that Buscema's inks are typically perfect.  For example two the lettering bleeds in a number of instances as you've mentioned.

I'm still enjoying this book, it just wasn't as crisp as I'd hope.