>>7688035 (OP)
There were the Nathan Dusk comics by DC. They had a colourist, but the artist opted to skip having his work inked.
It's a good looking comic too.
I think the biggest issue is that many artists, while good draftsmen, are really all that competent in pencils as a medium and end up with drawings that look too sketchy or sloppy. Be sure to clean those pencils up, if they're the final product.
I will say that it's probably not as much of a time saver as you probably think - if you have to clean up anyway, and ensure your pencils are tight, clean, and readable, you may find that you end up putting as much work into doing that as you would have if you had simply gone over the drawing with inks.
>>7688104
>I get the impression that ink is mostly just a convention from when details needed to be bold and crisp for printing reasons.
You're almost certainly right, but I'd say we've already stepped away for the most part of using 'ink' when inking and instead just do it digitally. Solid strong lines, that copy classic comic inking, is just the easiest way to ensure your lines are readable - no need to reinvent the wheel.
You can point out that trad comics are almost always inked with india ink, but first they've got to clean up the lines anyway (so why not ink it?), and secondly, it's probably worth more to use ink. Why even do trad comics if you're not planning to also sell the physical original pages at some point and profit off them for a second time?