Got it, bebe, and just replied so that I could get Nic into the email stream. That's his work addy, though, and he's presently sitting at his home computer, so he won't get back to you until later, because he can't access his work mail from here.

Bottom line? No problem.

So, guess what Pete got us for his birthday?

A SF2F graphic designed specifically for mugs!

DAYUM.

That is one honkin' pretty graphic, there.

Holy crap, Pete. That art is friggin' GORGEOUS.

packs Sharpie marker

I'm having mine SIGNED.

packs Sharpie marker

I'm having mine SIGNED.

Bwah-ha-ha-ha!

Holy crap, Pete. That art is friggin' GORGEOUS.

Not bad for thirty minutes of painting, eh? I'd tell you how I did it but THEN I'D HAVE TO KILL YOU. Or not, your choice.

I'm having mine SIGNED.

Oh blimey.

Anyway, a quick question - a request for fresh eyes, really. The point on the right of the image, at the level of the bridge, where the strokes get smaller, is anyone bothered by those smaller strokes? Do they seem cluttered and would benefit from the same clean sweeping effect that the rest of the image has? Anyone? Bueller?

The whole thing is so ridiculously friggin' beautiful that I for one could not possibly care less about small strokes on one side. I had to go back and look at it again to even see what you were talking about, and even then I was too overwhelmed with the pretty.

Felicitations on your natal day!

I never would have noticed if you hadn't pointed it out. Personally, it doesn't bother me -- I think the variations make it look more hand-painted, if that makes sense.

Doesn't bother me. In fact, I think the variety in stroke sizes is a good thing. Great job, Pete!