• 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.

Shuster expert?

Started by bluechip,

18 posts in this topic

bluechip

bluechip

Posted
  • Author
Posted
That line work, and especially the signature, look like the hand of the same forger who got Shuster work into Sotheby's a few years ago. FWIW, his Bushmiller is more convincing.

 

And what do you think of this one? The style of it is not like the profile pic above but does look like other Shuster drawings I have seen (in books, anyway).

 

s-l1600_zpso9wyshja.jpg

 

 

 

If it's a forgery it's of Shuster's work in a narrow period.

 

So hard to tell with this artist. I have seen so many different styles in work that is labelled as his. The profile pics all look similar, as do the colored recreations he did late in life. But the stuff from the late 30s through 60s seems to vary greatly depending on the year.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
bluechip

bluechip

Posted
  • Author
Posted
Compare this to the one Burkey just put up:

 

http://www.romitaman.com/GalleryPiece.asp?Piece=19672&ArtistId=1395

 

All those profile pics look very similar, but many of them have enough differences that I would not have the certainty to contradict anyone who said this or that stoke of the pencil or pen is proof it isn't Shuster. So very hard for me to feel assured either way.

 

As for the non-profile sketches, they seem to be all over the place, style-wise. I'll see a piece listed at Heritage, for example, that looks to me like it has to be one of the studio artists, only to see it's accompanied by several pieces of provenance saying it was absolutely Shuster and he drew it on a precise day in this precise place, in full view of a dozen people.

 

The piece in the prior post looks right to me in several ways and was described as having "great provenance," but when I saw the provenance it was not even a little reassuring.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
glendgold

glendgold

Posted
Posted

I'm suspicious. And spending way too much time on this. But I think the piece the OP brought up is a copy of this one, which I think is real:

 

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-1qezopZgGIk/VMJWs9PsT0I/AAAAAAAAaFA/C4R6fz7yoRE/s1600/joe%2Bshuster%2Bsuperman2.jpeg

 

To reiterate: it's not just the lines in the art, but in the signature. I'm not a Shuster guy, and I could well be wrong, so this is just an opinion, and apologies if it's wrong. (It's not.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
pinupcartoonguy

pinupcartoonguy

Posted
Posted
Compare this to the one Burkey just put up:

 

http://www.romitaman.com/GalleryPiece.asp?Piece=19672&ArtistId=1395

 

All those profile pics look very similar, but many of them have enough differences that I would not have the certainty to contradict anyone who said this or that stoke of the pencil or pen is proof it isn't Shuster. So very hard for me to feel assured either way.

 

As for the non-profile sketches, they seem to be all over the place, style-wise. I'll see a piece listed at Heritage, for example, that looks to me like it has to be one of the studio artists, only to see it's accompanied by several pieces of provenance saying it was absolutely Shuster and he drew it on a precise day in this precise place, in full view of a dozen people.

 

The piece in the prior post looks right to me in several ways and was described as having "great provenance," but when I saw the provenance it was not even a little reassuring.

 

If you're not assured either way, pass. You'll never feel assured and you're never feel good about the piece.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
bluechip

bluechip

Posted
  • Author
Posted
What do you think about this auction?

 

 

The art in this pice looks very much like other pieces I've seen atttibuted to Shuster (and better than some I've seen which were considered authenticated) with two interesting differences.

 

1) The lines in his hair.... in some pieces the lines go in one direction, and in other pieces the lines go in another direction. In this piece the lines go in BOTH directions, overlapping each other. I don't know why a forger would meticulously recreate the rest of the art, and then do one obvious thing that Shuster didn't do in any other drawing. Of course you could say he might have hoped somebody would draw that same conclusion, but that seems less likely than the possibility that Shuster would simply duplicate his efforts.

 

 

2) the DC Comics note. From 1948 to 1978, Shuster was anything but happy with, or welcome at, DC Comics. He had just sued them, with mixed success -- getting some money and getting kicked out of the company. If I was told it didn't belong there, I might suppose a forger would be more likely to add make that mistake than the "mistake" (if it is one) of the work on the hair. But the same question arises as to why a careful forger would do it that way if it's not common on other pieces. And I see that in the verified 1985 sketch it does say DC comics. So it could be that the piece falls between 1948 and 1978 -- OR that he added it to sketches even before then because DC lawyers told him that he had to?) That wouldn't explain all the sketches that don't have it (but then people don't always do things exactly the same every time)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
bluechip

bluechip

Posted
  • Author
Posted

full disclosure I am in contact with the seller on the non-profile piece and he said he is sending additional materials. The profile piece had originally been listed by him at 2500 and now it's up again with no reserve.

 

Of course if the profile piece is genuine I would love to get it for a pittance --- but it would not be fair to him to overstate my concerns if I might bid, so I am trying not to do that.

 

He said he acquired a bunch of items from an old-time collector and if so then perhaps he just didn't have all his ducks in a row prior to listing on ebay. If anybody has info one way or the other, it would be helpful and fair to share it, now that it got the attention of some on the board.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
drdroom

drdroom

Posted
Posted

A collector friend (who I can definitely vouch for) who reads the boards but is not registered to leave comments has told me that eBay seller ivory-hunter, who has the profile piece under discussion here, is already notorious for selling a number of fake Frazettas.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
kav

kav

Posted
Posted
I'd ask to see that hand written letter, and find out who the previous owner was.

 

:gossip: Just don't bid on any auctions by this guy

 

 

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Bob-Kane-original-vintage-Batman-cartoon-drawing-Personally-signed-with-coa/141809540722

That guy is notorious for ripping a blank page out of an old book then using it for the artwork so it looks old. Like all these different artists were doing their sketches on pages ripped out of books....

Link to comment
Share on other sites
bluechip

bluechip

Posted
  • Author
Posted
I'd ask to see that hand written letter, and find out who the previous owner was.

 

:gossip: Just don't bid on any auctions by this guy

 

 

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Bob-Kane-original-vintage-Batman-cartoon-drawing-Personally-signed-with-coa/141809540722

That guy is notorious for ripping a blank page out of an old book then using it for the artwork so it looks old. Like all these different artists were doing their sketches on pages ripped out of books....

 

This Batman drawing is from some guy in the Netherlands; not the one who had the Shuster pieces. Why would he fake old paper to fake one the 1989 Batman and Me book inserts, Those were not on old paper.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Catwoman_Fan

Catwoman_Fan

Posted
Posted

This Batman drawing is from some guy in the Netherlands; not the one who had the Shuster pieces. Why would he fake old paper to fake one the 1989 Batman and Me book inserts, Those were not on old paper.

 

Because he googled Bob Kane for references, and the Batman & Me sketches looked easy to copy. And all his fakes are on 'old paper' to make the sketches look vintage, and fool uninformed fans looking for a bargain on ebay. (tsk)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Go to topic listing