One of these things is not like the others. One of these things

Is this all they do? meme faces?

>>15845145
Top and bottom left is old Ishikawa, top right is new Ishikawa and bottom right looks like Nagai's, but I could be wrong.

>>15845454
Ding Ding Ding!

>>15845742
I got Nagai right? Funny how people say they can't differentiate between Nagai and Ishikawa when they were worlds apart in the 90s.

>>15845760
Yep, you got it right. Early Ishikawa's art style was pretty similar to Nagai's at the start of his career, but by the time the former came into his own, they became very distinct from one another.

(Not related, but personally, I prefer Ishikawa's art style.)

Dozle Zabi doesn't belong.

Both styles look like shit, though.

File: totes the same.png (1MB, 1796x1480px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1796x1480px

>>15845826
>Early Ishikawa's art style was pretty similar to Nagai's
nah

>>15847370
Are you being sarcastic? Cause if not, it's just plain stupid.

File: 003.png (400KB, 785x1220px) Image search: [Google]

400KB, 785x1220px

>>15849314
>be unable to tell different art styles apart
>insist that you're not the idiot in this situation

>>15846726
You base this off of?

File: 1.jpg (381KB, 834x1200px) Image search: [Google]

381KB, 834x1200px

>>15849314
Read at least one Ken Ishikawa manga and the art style is easy to tell apart.

Pic related, Mitsuru Hiruta.

Just because they have sideburns doesn't mean they're the same.

>>15850074
I think most people are unfamiliar with manga artstyles from before the 80s, so they end up having silly opinions about them.

>>15850300
I only read pre-80s manga and I think Nagai and Ishikawa are the same shit.

>>15850074
This looks nothing like Nagai, though. Unlike Ishikawa.

>>15853065
>>15853073
That's because you're blind.

>>15853065
You're missing out

>>15854913
80s manga for the most part is blatant shounen shit