• 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.

Bad auction etiquette to cast doubt on a piece?

Started by Kevn,

20 posts in this topic

bluechip

bluechip

Posted
Posted
Is it bad form to call bullsh*t on a seller's info on an auction listing? There's a piece in the CLink auction that is clearly not what it's represented as being.

 

Make sure it's a fact and not just opinion. I have held my tongue when I saw pieces appear that I had some knowledge that might lower the value, because 100% certainty is more rare then people think. But I had a deal for a piece killed because some guy took it upon himself to put in the comics database that he thinks a piece is not the way it's described either in the credits or the memory of the artist himself. It's the sort of thing that makes you think about sending a cease-and-desist.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Kevn

Kevn

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Here's the thing: it's an unpublished piece, the artist is long dead, and the only proof that the piece is what it's claimed to be is the provenance letter that the art was originally sold with. The auction description from Comic Link is vague. I'm not sure there is a way to prove with 100% certainty that the piece is bogus. Really, I think it's the provenance letter that's bogus. The art itself is what it is. I think it has absolutely zero collectable value, without the letter, but it is a piece of art. I am personally certain of that.

 

I know there is a tiny chance that I am wrong, and that I risk on someone's legitimate sale. I'll take that chance. If I'm wrong, the seller should have little trouble verifying the provenance letter. If the seller can't, and they bought the piece originally without doing their due diligence, then I feel bad for them, but I don't think it's right for them to pass that bad decision along to another collector.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
bluechip

bluechip

Posted
Posted

Reading between the lines you sound like a guy who just feels some responsibility to convey the knowledge you have. So I give you the benefit of the doubt for your intentions.

 

But it's a tricky road. Several times I've had people question something I own(ed);

 

Once was a Bob Kane sketch I bought from a boardie only to hear from a second boardie that it was fake. I knew the guy calling a heads up to me was not trying to eff with me. And I knew the seller was being honest in his opinion. I did not demand the seller take it back but will feel obliged to pass along the doubts cast by the advisor if I go to sell it.

 

Another time, the Schulz family called fake on a piece I had bought from Heritage -- but, significally not when I bought it from Heritage. Only when I was reselling it. Now, I had known they watched all the Heritage auctions like Snoopy pretending to be a vulture, so I figured their non-alert was a good sign and placed the high bid. However, they were apparently not paying attention this time and were paying attention when it showed up for auction on Comiclink. So, at best the family is inconsistent, But again I don't think they are trying to mess with me.

 

Another time, however the intentions of the "advisor" were clear -- and clearly malicious. I saw this desirable silver age Marvel piece off ebay and the piece was riddled with questions which pointed to its listing on grand comics database in which some guy just opined that the face of a character was off in a way that meant it was "definitely not (most desirable artist)." The suppositions were ill-supported and the tone and choice of words made it clear that some person or persons had less than reasonable intentions. Translation: they were trying to drive the value down during the auction. And they did. It went too low, when I bid a reasonable amount and got it for much less than I knew it to be worth. (for the record, I told the buyer I thought his auction was being effed with and he didn't want to trouble with trying to make it stop). After I got it I emailed the original artist who verified it and I notified the GCD, which corrected the info (but only temporarily). Years later when I've made a deal to sell it and learn that somebody had got GCD to change it yet again, saying he thinks the (well known artist) "misremembered" what he did. Without going into too many details, I know that his advisory was not well supported by research or by truly careful comparison with the (well known artist)'s work. I know that it's just a guy trying to eff with the sale. And though I am not sure I want to get lawyers involved I do feel that the person deliberately interfering with the item's value would, as they say, "have it coming."

 

You gotta do what you gotta do, and live with whatever consequences occur if that "small chance (you) are wrong" turns into 100% and the seller turns out to be litigious. Or worse, you learn after the fact the guy selling it was honest and trying to buy medicine for his daughter.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Kevn

Kevn

Posted
  • Author
Posted

The story about the Schulz piece really stinks. I think it might be a similar situation here -- someone bought something that should have been contested, and is now reselling it with the original information, and now someone is coming forward to raise the red flag.

 

The difference here is that it's not a matter of interpreting the quality of a drawing. The information provided as provenance is, in large measure, readily checked. And it doesn't check out. Someone didn't do their due diligence. Plus the drawing doesn't remotely pass the smell test.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
AKA Rick

AKA Rick

Posted
Posted

My general opinion is... Caveat Emptor

 

So, the onus is on the buyer to protect their own best interests and casting doubt if there's not 100% iron clad evidence to a claim could be seen as being a busy body and self proclaimed police which will be admired by 50% and held to disdain by the other 50% who will tell you to mind your own business.

 

With that, there's really no "Good Samaritan" laws and unfortunately most people would not get involved if it doesn't impact them directly.

 

If you don't have concrete evidence that would hold up in a court of law, you're best off not potentially hanging innocent victims, and raising the ire of a community if you end up being wrong, so that what was a kind gesture of good intentions ends up backfiring.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
punisher1919

punisher1919

Posted
Posted

This situation doesn't only apply to auctions but to dealers as well. In one particular instance, 2 dealers both had Death Of Wolverine pages for sale, while one Dealer (Spencer Beck) made it clear which pages were inked over pencils and which pages were inked over bluelines (hence decreasing the value and selling price of the blueline pages) while the other dealer (which will remain nameless) failed to mention that some(most) of the pages were inked over bluelines, and was still asking for a premium. This particular business practice angered me to no end, and although he wasn't lying, there was a blatant attempt to mislead prospective buyers.

 

I didn't call him out in this instance, mostly because I just wanted to avoid any additional drama, but looking back, I wish I would have. Scenarios like this are bad for everyone!

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Kevn

Kevn

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Here are the two CLink pieces that I think are misrepresented by their provenance letters:

 

Snow White Drawing

 

Mickey Mouse drawing

 

I want to make clear that I don’t think CLink is doing anything fraudulent, and the pieces in question are, strictly speaking, what the CLink titles say they are. Put bluntly, it is not ComicLink that is misrepresenting anything, though I do think as one of the top auction houses of this kind of material, they owe it to their buyers to do a better job of vetting the pieces that go to auction.

 

Anyway, here’s how the first piece is listed by CLink: “SNOW WHITE – VINTAGE DISNEY PENCIL ILLUSTRATION”

 

All true, if you take it piece by piece. Snow White is in the drawing; it is vintage, in the sense that it was done at least a few decades ago; it is of Disney characters, and by a former Disney employee. And it’s a pencil illustration. What it clearly is not is a vintage illustration made at Disney in some capacity for the film, Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs.

 

I don’t have any issue with the second provenance letter, from the Disney archivist. However, I think by reprinting this letter with the letter from the original seller in the same teletype-like font gives the appearance that all the information is equally legit. But all Disney verified is that Frank Follmer worked at Disney from April 12, 1937 to Nov. 28, 1940. This letter from the Disney archive was NOT written with reference to any specific piece of art.

 

The real problem is the claims made in the first letter, which is identical for both pieces. It is, simply put, a bunch of nonsense and gross exaggerations. Frank Follmer was an effects animator. He was not a character animator, nor a designer, and he apparently did not work on Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs. Similar drawings have been sold that have claimed Follmer was an assistant director and a story artist. No one has ever mentioned him in conjunction with the Nine Old Men. The Nine Old Men weren't even a 'thing' until a decade after Follmer left Disney.

 

Here is Follmer's IMDB page. Here are the drafts from Disney that show exactly what he worked on during his 3 years there. These drawings do not square with the records from Disney.

 

This has come up before regarding the famous Disneyland orgy drawing by Wally Wood. But ultimately the drawings speak for themselves. Follmer was a Disney effects animator, and I don't doubt he did these drawings. But that provenance letter is a huge pile of manure.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
dgillock

dgillock

Posted
Posted

Just wanted to make everyone aware that we are investigating these pieces further before the auction goes live. Obviously it is important to us that things are accurately identified and attributed.

 

-Douglas

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Kevn

Kevn

Posted
  • Author
Posted

I appreciate that, Douglas, and I'm sorry to have stirred things up. I work in the animation industry, and few things as reviled in this industry as people claiming credit for things they didn't do (not that Frank Follmer is claiming anything -- he apparently died in 2000, and I can't find any record of his drawings being sold while he was alive).

 

The link I posted above, which goes to Hans Perk's site and contains the 'drafts' of most every Disney animated production, is good place to go to see what films and scenes various Disney animators actually worked on. And of course there are a lot of deeply researched books written about the early days at the Disney studio.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Aronstg

Aronstg

Posted
Posted
This situation doesn't only apply to auctions but to dealers as well. In one particular instance, 2 dealers both had Death Of Wolverine pages for sale, while one Dealer (Spencer Beck) made it clear which pages were inked over pencils and which pages were inked over bluelines (hence decreasing the value and selling price of the blueline pages) while the other dealer (which will remain nameless) failed to mention that some(most) of the pages were inked over bluelines, and was still asking for a premium. This particular business practice angered me to no end, and although he wasn't lying, there was a blatant attempt to mislead prospective buyers.

 

I didn't call him out in this instance, mostly because I just wanted to avoid any additional drama, but looking back, I wish I would have. Scenarios like this are bad for everyone!

 

This just happened to me only it was a little worse. I specifically asked if a piece was original pencils or bluelines. I was told flat out it was inks over original pencils. I even tried to haggle the price and the dealer stood rather firm on a higher price because he stated that the original pencils were more rare.

 

When I received the piece it was bluelines of course. I contacted the original inker and he was great in response. The dealer chalked up to error and I'm not going to place blame but it really left a bad taste in my mouth.

 

FYI... all Death of Wolverine #1 is pencils and inks... #2-#4 is inks over blueline

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Go to topic listing