is it just me that thinks dan parents work looks signifigantly different with jon d'agonstino or rudy lapick than with jim amash or rich koslowski?
On the same note-
Goldberg and Lapick, or early d'agostino looks different than goldberg and smith or goldberg and amash?
Is there a reason?

Yeah, inkers have different styles. For instance, I can tell when D'Agostino inked a comic because he has pretty thick lines and the characters really stick out. It's hard to explain but if you compare his inking with, say, Rudy Lapick's, there's a big difference there.

I like nearly everyone's style of inking though. I'm just now beginning to recognize who inks which strips.

I have noticed though, ever since buying that haul of digests a few days ago, that Joe Edwards's style for me especially is very hard to tell apart from others when inked by other Archie artists (the tell-tale sign that it's him who drew the strip is usually the facial expressions). I have no idea why this only happens with his strips for me, but I'll just be reading and then realize that he's the one who did some of them.

Yeah I've heard of more than one Marvel penciller complain about an inker ruining his stuff. And some guys' stuff looked MUCH better under certain inkers- John Byrne's stuff looks by far it's best when Terry Austin is inking (I think that's the name).

D'Agostino had to be one of the most distinctive inkers ever. To the end of his life, any story he inked by any artist had that distinctive look to it. I once even saw a Samm Schwartz story he inked where he made Schwartz's Jughead look positively handsome.

One artist who looked less different from inker to inker was Dan DeCarlo. In the '60s he sometimes switched from Rudy Lapick to his brother Vince (before Vince died tragically young) and it's hard to tell the difference. I remember reading that DeCarlo's pencilling was very "tight" at the time and didn't give the inker as much leeway as he might have had with other pencillers.