Tough question to answer, Pat. Personal opinion plays a major factor in comparing the screenings, LOL. In my opinion, MiKelman's screenings were more dramatic. He has always gone in for a fairly heavy "made up"(like in make up, not fantasy) look in the eyes of his creations. Ken, on the other hand, paints dolls more like they are real women.
Ken's approach actually was a slight problem for mass production. To create a mask for the dolls the lines have to be clean and strong from what I have been told and blending of colors for eyes can't be done. Consequently, the Christmas dolls that were produced were not identical to his prototypes.
Suzanne
In a message dated 2/7/2002 2:36:58 PM Central Standard Time, nqsqurtz@staffnet.com writes:
<< Okay, I am behind in my CAndi history. Then how would most of you compare the style of screening used by MiKelman vs. Bartram? As I've never seen the 1998 Christmas Candis (didn't even remember there were any, that's how behind I am), I can't definitely comment on the distinction in their styles, but would it be safe to say that Ken's style of screening is a bit more conservative in colorization? I'm recollecting that MiKelman's style was to use a larger area of eye shadow on the brow bone. What do the rest of you think? Pat >>