Bob Kane - Fake or Real?

[Larryw7]

The lithograph was more than likely done by a ghost. The sketch's could be real. ciorac showed me a documentary with Kane being interviewed by Stan Lee, and he sketched Batman and the Joker right on camera, and they looked pretty close to the sketch's in this thread.

[Maccai3]

http://dialbforblog.com/archives/391/

nice little piece on Kane and his tracing

 

The lithograph was more than likely done by a ghost. The sketch's could be real. ciorac showed me a documentary with Kane being interviewed by Stan Lee, and he sketched Batman and the Joker right on camera, and they looked pretty close to the sketch's in this thread.

 

that was Stan Lee's Comic Boook Greats

 

the part where he draws is later on

 

worst Spiderman ever

 

also Stan's Popeye > Bob's

[Larryw7]

If he actually traced the pictures and Stan just sat there and let him do it, that's pretty bad.

[Maccai3]

If he actually traced the pictures and Stan just sat there and let him do it, that's pretty bad.

 

those are parts 1 and 3, in part 4 he draws Joker

 

in part 2 he claims he created Joker

[Junkdrawer]

I bought this from a friend. I will throw it into this thread for comparative sake. Jim Hambrick says its real.

[romanheart]

Based on the niceness of those sketches, and the lack of details Bob puts into his sketches as seen in those videos I am even more skeptical now. He's a simplicity man, he said so himself.

 

Safer to by from a respected autograph dealer source.

[MedicAR]

I bought this from a friend. I will throw it into this thread for comparative sake. Jim Hambrick says its real.

 

I've seen more than a few of these, I imagine they are legit.

 

[MedicAR]

Back to the original post, those are as authentic as you can find. There has been no hard evidence that Mr. Kane did not draw them and it is unlikely that there ever will be unless the publisher comes forward. The original book with the Batman sketch was in the $500 range new. The solicitation is in the OPG #19 (I think, I don't have mine handy) so you can look there, it will be in the 1988-1990 edition for sure as they were set to release with the Tim Burton movie. The Joker edition came out years later and was solicited in Previews for $750-1000 as I recall. I do not know if the Joker edition included a slipcase but don't think it did.

 

The Batman and Me books, for my money, are as close to iron clad guarantees as one can get for Kane art. There are a handful of sketches that were witnessed by the owners, but with those it comes down to trusting them and their story. These books were written by Kane with help from Tom Andrae and were solicited as a trade paperback, a hardback, a limited signed hardback, and a slipcased limited sketched/signed hardback. No limitations on the TPB and HB, but the signed edition was limited to 2500 copies and the sketched was limited to 1000.

 

I cannot remember a single sketch from those books that had batman in anything other than a profile (most, if not all, facing the left) or facing straight on. All have the zig zag lines on the sides. To be fair, though, this is a casual observation. I have not cataloged every picture I have seen, it's from my admittedly faulty memory.

[Jeffreykli]

One sold on Heritage back in August of 2011, and looks consistent with the level of detail in the first Batman post.

[kav]

that's the problem with Kane-the fake stuff has made the real stuff not worth much-people say, maybe it's real-I'm just not willing to take the chance.

[VintageComics]

I got this sketch from a painter named Mark who painted Kane's residence back in the day. The sketch is personalized to the owner of the painting company. I'm pretty sure it's authentic.

 

OK, so completely OT but this is a freakish story and it just happened today in regards to this piece.

 

Earlier today I posted this little bit above about my Bob Kane sketch. While I did that I went to Google to refresh my memory as to the previous owner of this sketch (I remember his company name). So I'm randomly Googling and I see some of his adverts online and reacquaint myself with his professional info.

 

In the mean time, I'm clearing out my email inbox and there is a LinkedIn request from a few days ago (Feb 12th) from someone with a female name. It was "Holly something-or-other". The real name doesn't matter but I didn't recognize it.

 

Now, I rarely look at my LinkenIn invitations unless it's someone I know well so I generally just dump 'em all in the trash bin but it's been a busy week so it was just left in my inbox from Wednesday. I do an email search in case we interacted before before I dump it. We didn't. Now I'm curious - and keep in mind that I have no idea who it is, and that I just posted the above quoted post along with the Batman sketch...

 

So I click on the LinkedIn invitation to see if it provides any more info and it happens to be sent by the guy who previously owned this sketch.

 

Is that weird or what?

 

 

 

[kav]

that is weird and what is also weird is how bob kane created the batman when from all information he doesnt know how to draw any better than a 14 year old kid....i guess his inker did all the actual work?

[Captain Canuck]

I watched Bob draw an image of the Joker in his interview with Stan Lee and can honestly see some similarities between that and The Batman and Me book. The question is did he actually sit down and take his time with each one to provide the extra detail. The extra shading is a great way for him to reduce how much he has to draw or limit the detail. I'm not sure I can say the same between his Batman and the one in the book, but it is hard to tell because his drawing was face forward. Let me know your thoughts regarding these 2 pictures.

 

 

[Captain Canuck]

Here is a comparison of the 2 Batman drawings. The 2nd one is an authentic drawing by Kane. I can see Bob's signature circles under the eyes on both drawings.

 

 

[underthebigw]

I don't think there's any reason to assume there was a ghost artist. Either it's a legit S&S Bob Kane book or it's a forgery. I don't think forgery is terribly likely, but possible. You'd think with something that valuable (I assume Bob Kane OA is valuable?) you could get an art expert to authenticate it. Don't they have real fine art authenticated all the time? Probably not as cheap as simply having the sketch witnessed, but I imagine possible. If people who spend seven figures on Picasso's trust their verification method, why isn't it good enough for funnybook art?

 

Actually there is plenty of reason....

 

There's NO WAY those are real. Nothing like the stock compositions he did draw, and too much detail, dimensionality, and style to be his.

 

It amazes me how many people are still oblivious about Kane's willingness to sign off on other people's work, and his complete sense of unjustified arrogance (which was legendary even among other great creators).

[Captain Canuck]

I'm thinking of one of 2 things, he inked over someone's light pencils in the books or he did a rough pencil and someone sharpied over it. Both examples aren't clear compared to the captured images, but I do see some similarities between the images and potential artistically to produce that level of work. Again, Kane's reputation has been tarnished and proceeds him. As mentioned previously, since it's an official biography and no one has come forward to state it is not his drawings the public is forced to accept them for what they are (authenticated Kane drawings). It's a Grey area!