OA certification and encapsulation is it coming soon?

[Mac Man]

Can anyone point me to the right direction to see fake published art?

 

I always thought it is impossible to fake because of the details, and that there is a published piece to compare the cover to.

 

I have not seen any fakes of published art yet.

 

There was a thread on Bob Kane forgeries not too long ago in this forum. MANY poor hack jobs in that one...

 

 

And regarding COAs, most of my stuff isn't worth all that much, but I have a few pieces that are a little nicer than the rest. I typically ask for the provence of the item in question, just so I can track its history. As mentioned before, COAs are often pretty questionable, and I rarely put a lot of stock in them.

[jick]

Yes I know about fake commissions or pin-ups.

 

But are there fake original pages?

 

Like can you find a fake of a intricate Perez cover with a gazillion characters?

 

Or a fake Romita Spidey cover?

 

It is easy to fake unpublished art, but I don't think published art can be faked in a credible way - even if lightboxed.

[AtlasFan]

How would a "grader" authenticate the artist unless they actually witnessed the artist drawing the art?

 

CGC would have to change its whole business model - from grading/restoration detection to artist authentication.

 

It would be nice if there was a service that would focus on artist authentification and less on grading, but its so diverse that you would need an army of "artist authenticators" to properly id an artist -- and what would THAT cost?

 

Aint gonna happen.

 

 

[malvin]

Yes I know about fake commissions or pin-ups.

 

But are there fake original pages?

 

Like can you find a fake of a intricate Perez cover with a gazillion characters?

 

Or a fake Romita Spidey cover?

 

It is easy to fake unpublished art, but I don't think published art can be faked in a credible way - even if lightboxed.

 

Well, you commissioned 3 recreations, complete with touches of the type of board that would have been used at the time. Your pieces happen to be too high profile (expensive) to pass on, but its easy to use the same method for cheaper pieces and people wouldn't question it. Even though the pieces are cheaper, it would still be profitable.

 

Malvin

[CollectingFool]

Yes I know about fake commissions or pin-ups.

But are there fake original pages?

 

Depends on what you consider a "fake". There are plenty of pages that were really published but are purposely misrepresented as being by artist A when it was actually by artist B. Needless to say in these scenarios artist A commands a higher price.

 

 

[J.Sid]

People fake oil paintings when it's worth their while. I don't see how faking say, a line drawing from a detailed Perez cover would be more difficult.

[J.Sid]

Also, there are a number of professional inkers who are out of work and have seen the industry turn its back on them in favor of digital coloring and shooting from pencils. I'm quite certain many are talented enough (and might have aged company bristol pages) to pull off a good forgery.

[J.Sid]

Not to mention digital prints. I'm not kidding, either. There was a high profile published sale a couple years ago (buyer is on this board) where the paid amount was in the teens of thousands of dollars, and what was sent was a print.

 

The participants of this hobby can be very cavalier in their purchasing. How many of you have ever used a loupe before spending your money? (I know I haven't)

[jick]

 

Well, you commissioned 3 recreations, complete with touches of the type of board that would have been used at the time. Your pieces happen to be too high profile (expensive) to pass on, but its easy to use the same method for cheaper pieces and people wouldn't question it. Even though the pieces are cheaper, it would still be profitable.

 

Malvin

 

I did not commission those recreations. I drew them myself. They are quite amateurish to be honest with you. The type of board was just all printed out new paper, so there is no way those recreations could pass for originals, and it was never the intention and they are not even framed or displayed.

 

Oil paintings can be faked if there is no published work going around. All one needs to do is follow the artist's style and claim it is his. But if that work was already published, it is virtually impossible to forge.

 

In original art pieces, there are also indications like the stamp in the back of the board, which would really be hard to fake too.

 

I mean original art pages can be forged or faked for sure. Anyone can fake anything. But can they make a credible fake for anyone who knows how to look and compare to the published work? It would be hard to fool people with fakes of published work. It would be easy to do that with fakes mimicking the artist's style.

 

Let's say multi-character jams - you think anyone can fake that gaziliion-character JLA Avengers page by Perez? Or what about the Crisis Hardcover cover by Perez and Ross, can it be faked in a decent way?

 

When I mean forgeries/fakes of original art are hard to do credibly, I mean fakes by hand using a paintbrush and inking. Not some print or the actual published page.

 

Even if you check recreations made the the original artist himself to any high-profile cover, it doesn't even look close to any original if you look at it line by line.

[Rukia]

Dear god I hope not.

[Tony S]

People fake oil paintings when it's worth their while. I don't see how faking say, a line drawing from a detailed Perez cover would be more difficult.

 

I agree. I believe that many posters on this thread are being a bit naive or are missing an important point on fakes. There are several guys on ebay that are doing really, really nice recreations of covers for a few hundred bucks. It's not a matter of trying to fool an expert. The page recreations look good enough to fool non-expert potential buyers. Enough buyers to make it worth one's while to try creating and selling fakes. The price of OA is now such that virtually any cover or splash of any title by 100's of artists would be profitible enough to fake. You wouldn't have to fake Kirby or Adams - faking a Rich Buckler or Herb Trimpe cover would be worthwhile.

 

The original post was about authenticating and slabbing art. It's hard to imagine the encapsulation of art catching on and it'd be a bit pricey. But then people pay $32 to get a $50 book encapsulated. So why not pay $200 to get a $2500 page slabbed?

 

I'm rambling - but I think we may see a need for some kind of authentication service in the next decade.

 

The few expensive (for me anyway) art pages (paintings) I own I put a fair amount of effort into establishing the provenance of. With one page I wrote the artist himself, the other the artists rep. Established who owned the pages before me. And then printed all information (emails, web links, etc) and have it with the art.

[CollectingFool]

I'm rambling - but I think we may see a need for some kind of authentication service in the next decade.

 

The few expensive (for me anyway) art pages (paintings) I own I put a fair amount of effort into establishing the provenance of. With one page I wrote the artist himself, the other the artists rep. Established who owned the pages before me. And then printed all information (emails, web links, etc) and have it with the art.

 

If someone is not comfortable spending money in this hobby without slabbing they shouldn't be spending their money on artwork. Two points:

 

1 - I believe this "push" for slabbing and authentication comes from the CGC comic collectors looking for some sort of safety net because they are venturing into a hobby they are unfamiliar with. This surprises me because all I ever remember hearing when CGC started was people complaining the grading wasn't what they expected and the whole cracking/resubmitting thing became a regular occurrence. Lets be honest, CGC was a useful tool to protect people who were getting ripped off through the mail on overgraded pieces. It quickly became a way to turn the comic book hobby into a speculative commodity as grading gave the impression of security. It stopped being about grade or even comics a long long time ago.

 

2 - Authentication is just an opinion by someone that knows a little more than you. If you need someone else to tell you it's OK to spend money on something you should probably avoid it until you can come to that conclusion on your own. As Tony says above, there are plenty of ways to do research yourself. Getting someone else to confirm your opinion may make you feel better but doing the work yourself to come to that conclusion is much more satisfying.

 

This is a new hobby and one I feel pretty confident in. I've seen PLENTY of opinions from supposed experts that I disagree with. Forgeries I know have been passed as authentic. Experts turning a blind eye because it's in their best interest. Have you read what happens in the REAL art market? If multi-million dollar pieces that have been around for way longer than any comic art can be authenticated by multiple experts with advanced degrees and then be proven to be fakes, why depend on someone else for authentication?

 

I just read this. Sorry for the poor grammar, trying to do this while handling some things at work. If I can, I'll go back in and fix it later.

 

 

[Speedy-D]

Yes I know about fake commissions or pin-ups.

 

But are there fake original pages?

 

Like can you find a fake of a intricate Perez cover with a gazillion characters?

 

Or a fake Romita Spidey cover?

 

It is easy to fake unpublished art, but I don't think published art can be faked in a credible way - even if lightboxed.

 

I think a fake panel page from Hulk #3 was discussed here a few months ago. There was also recent talks of Kirby recreation covers being faked/ghosted (not sure if that one fits your criteria)

 

Also, there is a fake of this one out there:

 

http://www.comicartfans.com/GalleryPiece.asp?Piece=746062&GSub=99676

 

I know because I own the original, and when I was tracking it down I almost agreed to purchase the fake. I made a thread about it but removed the pics from the hosting site (tinypic)- now for some strange reason there are pictures of nature and stuff in their place on the thread (pics I never took), which makes me wonder what is up with tinpic (slightly off topic, but it has me curious)

It's back by the way: http://www.ebay.com/itm/FLASH-147-1st-page-CARMINE-INFANTINO-original-art-IT-/310362758054?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item48430fdba6#ht_4017wt_991

 

Such a strange story.

[Weird Paper]

Yes I know about fake commissions or pin-ups.

 

But are there fake original pages?

 

Like can you find a fake of a intricate Perez cover with a gazillion characters?

 

Or a fake Romita Spidey cover?

 

It is easy to fake unpublished art, but I don't think published art can be faked in a credible way - even if lightboxed.

 

I think a fake panel page from Hulk #3 was discussed here a few months ago. There was also recent talks of Kirby recreation covers being faked/ghosted (not sure if that one fits your criteria)

 

Also, there is a fake of this one out there:

 

http://www.comicartfans.com/GalleryPiece.asp?Piece=746062&GSub=99676

 

I know because I own the original, and when I was tracking it down I almost agreed to purchase the fake. I made a thread about it but removed the pics from the hosting site (tinypic)- now for some strange reason there are pictures of nature and stuff in their place on the thread (pics I never took), which makes me wonder what is up with tinpic (slightly off topic, but it has me curious)

It's back by the way: http://www.ebay.com/itm/FLASH-147-1st-page-CARMINE-INFANTINO-original-art-IT-/310362758054?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item48430fdba6#ht_4017wt_991

 

Such a strange story.

Both pages have the same typo... "if" in the top left panel. That alone would tell me that Kalb's (without the CCA stamp) is a copy. Who did the copy could establish its value, but I don't think the original artist would innocently recreate it and not fix it.

[artdealer]

Tom Kalb's splash is not the original. It is a copy/forgery/whatever.

The owner of the real splash contacted me some months ago to ask me my opinion of the 2 splashes.

 

After looking at the 2, I decided that Kalb's was the forged art, as there were too many inconsistencies between the real splash and the forged. Especially in the lettering.

 

Mitch Itkowitz

[artdealer]

De nada.

 

[Speedy-D]

One or two other things-

 

1) I just read the Flash 147 eBay forgery description again, and saw where Kalb says this piece of art was originally bought from the kid who won it in the Flash letters column back in the day

 

This is a flat out lie.

 

Back in March when I was questioning the owner on this piece, he told me some "older guy" sold it to him. He had no other info than that, other than an estimate of which state he bought it in. I'M THE ONE who told him how the piece originally got in the hands of a collector and gave him the name of the kid from the back of Flash magazine. He had no idea or way of knowing if it was the same person- as I asked him, and he said it never came up when buying the piece.

 

2) The eBay description claims that the previous owner had Infantino confirm this was his work, as he signed it at a show. This is another lie. According to our emails, the previous owner had no clue that this piece wasn't legit, until I started questioning it. Therefore, he would have no need to get Infantino to "confirm" if this was his work. Why did Infantino sign it then? Maybe because you've got an 80 plus year old man (known to be grumpy) who just wants to quickly sign things so you get out of line, as he's got a hundred more things to sign. He has stated numerous times that he didn't have any love for the series, so I doubt that he would examine it closely

I (accidentally) got him to sign a Gil Kane Batman cover last year. He barely gave it a second look.

[jick]

Tom Kalb's splash is not the original. It is a copy/forgery/whatever.

The owner of the real splash contacted me some months ago to ask me my opinion of the 2 splashes.

 

After looking at the 2, I decided that Kalb's was the forged art, as there were too many inconsistencies between the real splash and the forged. Especially in the lettering.

 

Mitch Itkowitz

 

This is exactly my point. You don't need an "expert". Just compare the art you are getting to the published art. The inconsistencies itself will prove it is a fake.

 

So to me, when original art is purchased, it should be compared carefully to the published art. A buyer who is spending four figures for art should do his homework. Without need of an expert, it can be easily noticed if the copy is faithful to the published piece or not.

 

Comic art has just way too many lines with varying strokes and thicknesses, that even if you get the exact same art team to replicate/forged their art line by line, it will never be indentical and can easily be spotted by anyone who has the original as basis for comparison.

 

I have to admit, that Flash page is a pretty good forgery/copy.

[Bronty]

well exactly. a lot of people would take that flash page at face value if from a reputable seller, myself probably included.

[alxjhnsn]

I have the front and back covers to All-New Collectors' Edition #C-53 Rudolph the Red- Nosed Reindeer Cover Original Art (DC, 1977). They have all the appropriate stamps though I didn't think to scan those before framing the pieces.

 

It's pretty interesting to compare the published versions with the OA.

 

Here's the published and OA version of the front cover. As you examine the following picture, note some of differences, e.g., the package height which had to be altered to fit the logo.

 

 

The back cover doesn't have as many differences:

 

 

All in all, the OA and the printed piece often differ as odd as that may seem. I think it's especially true for covers. Though as was pointed out lately in a note from A Arntfield on his (NSFW) HTD page even interiors are altered after the fact.