Thoughts on Authenticity of this John Byrne sketch?

[Artemaria]

Here's the link -

 

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=110289065765&ssPageName=ADME:B:SS:US:1123#ebayphotohosting

 

A couple of questions. There are couple of things in the drawing that look a little weird, not quite JB. Also, I'm not so sure that Byrne was using that particular signature in 1976 (I've seen other more authentic pieces with a different signature) in the early and mid 1970s.

 

Of course, I don't know, but the group's great insights are always appreciated.

 

Thanks.

 

- A

 

 

[Mephisto]

It wasn't done in 1976..

"This is a commissioned recreation of an original sketch done by Mr. Byrne back in 1976. Unfortunately, this particular piece does not have a date (or year) on it and so I do not know when it was actually created"

[NelsonAI]

I guess a lot of people must have been e-mailing the seller with questions about the authenticity. The seller posted an update saying to hold off on bidding until 9/16 as he is trying to get confirmation by the artist.

 

Cheers!

N

 

[tilleycs]

I'd stay away from it. Who wants a RECREATION of a sketch?

[SignatureSelect]

The sig doesn't look right. Plus that sig can be faked with relative ease.

[Mighty Hal]

It's a sketch. Eh.

 

But what is this support-the-Collectors-Society i.d. for the seller? Is this legit?

[comiconxion]

The signature looks like a copy and the shading on the sketch looks like someone was being very meticulous - doesn't look like Byrne's style. It looks like a recreation by someone else. Additionally, Byrne's Wolverine didn't look like that in 1976. Check out Marvel Team-Up #53 and the 1978 Spider-man Calendar. Those are the two earliest published Byrne Wolverine pieces from 1977. He didn't really learn to draw the Wolverine we all have come to love until he took over the regular X-Men series.

[malvin]

It's a sketch. Eh.

 

But what is this support-the-Collectors-Society i.d. for the seller? Is this legit?

 

This site does that to any ebay link, I guess it redirects it to get some sort of benefit?

 

Malvin

[joe_collector]

Although Byrne himself is hedging on whether it's real or not, that is obviously not his work, and looks more like someone trying to copy his style and failing miserably.

[Spider-Variant]

Here's the sketch that it's suppose to be repro from:

 

 

[Spider-Variant]

and the one from the auction:

 

[Spider-Variant]

It appears that whoever did the second sketch tried incredibly hard to match the first sketch in body position. Also in both cases, the pencils for the black in the boots is transparent, as you can see the rest of the leg through it.

 

I guess why would Mr. Bryne go to so much trouble to re-produce this exact pose?

 

 

[Artemaria]

Here's the sketch that it's suppose to be repro from:

 

 

 

I have to say that the members of this board are an encyclopaedic resource. This sketch certainly has a much more Byrne feel to it than the one at auction.

 

On conclusion -- again, I don't know -- but it seems as if the sketch at auction is a recreation of a Byrne sketch by someone other than Byrne himself.

 

A speculative assessment of Byrne's comments is that he probably remembers doing the sketch (or one of millions like it), but really has to hold the paper in his hands before he can tell whether he did it or not.

 

But when the sketch at auction is compared to the actual Byrne sketch, to my eye at least, it becomes rather clear who did what.

 

Thanks again guys!

 

- A

[NelsonAI]

Given JB's penchant for avoiding exact duplications of older works, it's hard to imagine that he would have recreated that drawing without fixing some of the proportions and anatomy.

 

Cheers!

N