• When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Calvin and Hobbes original art on ebay. Fake? You decide.

Started by justin,

36 posts in this topic

justin

justin

Posted
Posted

I came across THIS today and I'm suspecting that this is fake. First, I don't think Bill ever did anything like this. Most of his sketches, I believe, were on envelopes mailed to a few fans or water colors for close friends. Second, these poses seems poorly done and that last scene is straignt from one of Bill's books (maybe traced). Third, I have a signed book from bill (his sig is in my avatar) and it looks different from the one on ebay (it may be hard to tell from such a small picture). What do you guys think?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest

Guest

Posted
Posted

As hard as it is to come by anything original from Watterson, you would think the auction would provide more detail as to the history of this piece. And I agree, it doesn't seem like his style to put together something like this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nexus

Nexus

Posted
Posted

A few red flags:

 

1. Short auction.

 

2. Private bidding.

 

3. The item is listed as a "Watterson". Not "Bill Watterson". Just "Watterson".

 

4. The same seller also sold this "Peanuts" piece:

 

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=8614&item=140154094660

 

The descriptions are carefully worded to avoid any actual credit to Charles Schulz or Bill Watterson as the artists. I'd avoid.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
brasseye

brasseye

Posted
Posted
A few red flags:

 

1. Short auction.

 

2. Private bidding.

 

3. The item is listed as a "Watterson". Not "Bill Watterson". Just "Watterson".

 

4. The same seller also sold this "Peanuts" piece:

 

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=8614&item=140154094660

 

The descriptions are carefully worded to avoid any actual credit to Charles Schulz or Bill Watterson as the artists. I'd avoid.

 

 

Actually the Peanuts piece looks real... but the Watterson piece, a nicely staged fake.

 

 

2c

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
spider9698

spider9698

Posted
Posted

As someone who collects Watterson I can tell you it is a fake. There is no fluidity to the lines (check out the chair) and it lacks the typical energy which is characteristic for his pieces. The images pictured are ones that are frequently put up by people passing fakes. Here is a piece that I own that is an original.

 

CH.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nexus

Nexus

Posted
Posted
Send him a message and ask him to confirm whether it is an authentic Bill Watterson piece or not and see if you get a response. (shrug)

 

I seriously doubt it's real, and it would be interesting to see how the seller responds when asked point blank.

 

I wrote the seller asking him about the provenance of the piece. To his credit, he did reply quickly. Unfortunately, he continued to dance around the answer as to whether or not this piece is authentic. Basically, he claims that the piece was bought at an auction. When I asked him which auction, he simply replied "an estate sale" (aren't they always?). He claimed he didn't know much about the artist (which is strange given how much he knows of other strip artists), but that the piece was "real" because of the "complex ink strokes":doh:

 

He would not come right out and attribute it to Bill Watterson, though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nexus

Nexus

Posted
Posted
A few red flags:

 

1. Short auction.

 

2. Private bidding.

 

3. The item is listed as a "Watterson". Not "Bill Watterson". Just "Watterson".

 

4. The same seller also sold this "Peanuts" piece:

 

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=8614&item=140154094660

 

The descriptions are carefully worded to avoid any actual credit to Charles Schulz or Bill Watterson as the artists. I'd avoid.

 

 

Actually the Peanuts piece looks real... but the Watterson piece, a nicely staged fake.

 

 

2c

 

The Peanuts piece looks just as staged to me, if not more so, for all the reasons I listed above for the Watterson auction. In addition, the auction description reads 99% like a Wiki entry. There's actually very little about the piece itself. What there is, looks fishy. The "certificate" means absolutely nothing. What is it, anyhow? Funny how he could take such a nice clear picture of the drawing, but could only muster a few badly framed, out-of-focus shots of the "certificate". My guess is that it's an auction lot document and not a COA, as the seller is trying to imply.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mr.Diggler

Mr.Diggler

Posted
Posted
As someone who collects Watterson I can tell you it is a fake. There is no fluidity to the lines (check out the chair) and it lacks the typical energy which is characteristic for his pieces. The images pictured are ones that are frequently put up by people passing fakes. Here is a piece that I own that is an original.

 

CH.jpg

 

(worship)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
tth2

tth2

Posted
Posted
The owner of a very nice Sunday strip has turned down my offer of 40K

I've always wondered, for collectors of works where the prices have been driven extraordinarily high due to "artificial" scarcity (in this case, there's a lot of art, but Watterson refuses to sell or release it), do you ever worry about what would happen if he or his heirs suddenly decided to flood the market?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
spider9698

spider9698

Posted
Posted

Yes, I would continue to buy more pages as the prices come down!!

 

 

Although the above comment is a bit tongue in cheek, I do worry. As most know, Watterson has left the vast majority of his art to a University Archive. Since archives have been known to purge material from time to time, I have thought about the possibility of the market being flooded with hundreds of dailies and Sundays.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Sharkey

Sharkey

Posted
Posted
Yes, I would continue to buy more pages as the prices come down!!

 

 

Although the above comment is a bit tongue in cheek, I do worry. As most know, Watterson has left the vast majority of his art to a University Archive. Since archives have been known to purge material from time to time, I have thought about the possibility of the market being flooded with hundreds of dailies and Sundays.

 

Can he stipulate that if he leaves the material to the University that they cannot sell it or otherwise release it to the public? Granted, that's something University libraries are forced to do from time to time to raise funding (that is, sell things in their possession). Library budgets are prime targets for cuts by the University admins. But if I was a famous artist, and I did not want my art out on the public auction block, so I bequeath it to a University, I would want to make sure that it doesn't get released to the public auction block. However, I don't know if Universities make it a stipulation that the works are theirs to do with what the please (or need) which includes selling them if they find themselves in a dire financial situation.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
spider9698

spider9698

Posted
Posted

My understanding is that the Universities do try to honor their requests. However, over the years, libraries are often faced with budget shortfalls and lack of space. I can tell you from personal experience that the university where I work will often "free up space" by selling material that is collecting dust in a warehouse. The individual who donated the material is often dead and no fuss is made.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Go to topic listing