• 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.

Can any Charles Schulz experts tell me if this piece is real Schulz art?
2 2

Started by romitaman,

22 posts in this topic

romitaman

romitaman

Posted
Posted (edited)

This piece is drawn on 11.5 by 15.5 inch strathmore type art board.

The frame looks very old this art was in.....but that doesnt mean anything  obviously.

There is a nice Christmas  Peanuts framed scene also with this piece and i'm going to scan it shortly and send to the list also.

another  question is.. this linework is so thin compared to peanuts strip work.... and schulz always had that thick line.....

its suspect to me for sure......... but wanted to know if anyone has ever possibly seen this scene published before?

thanks

mike

schulzbaseball1.jpg

Edited by romitaman
Link to comment
Share on other sites
stinkininkin

stinkininkin

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, romitaman said:

This piece is drawn on 11.5 by 15.5 inch strathmore type art board.

The frame looks very old this art was in.....but that doesnt mean anything  obviously.

There is a nice Christmas  Peanuts framed scene also with this piece and i'm going to scan it shortly and send to the list also.

another  question is.. this linework is so thin compared to peanuts strip work.... and schulz always had that thick line.....

thanks

mike

schulzbaseball1.jpg

Not a Schulz expert Mike and that does NOT look right to me.  Wouldn't touch it.

Scott

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Will_K

Will_K

Posted
Posted

Not an expert either.  But Peppermint Patty's frown in the bottom panel looks all wrong.  Schroeder looks wrong in the bottom panel as well.  As you mention, the line thickness vs paper dimensions is way off.  For something like this, I'd expect the paper to be at least twice the size. 

And, Schulz was a storyteller.  He could definitely tell a story in 2 panels.  There doesn't seem to be any story here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
romitaman

romitaman

Posted
  • Author
Posted (edited)

Here is the Christmas piece still framed WITH the BACK of the piece with the ink printed Schulz home address on back of frame where he apparently lived in SEBASTOPOL CALIFORNIA .....Frame is quite old if that means anything.schulzchridtmasback.thumb.jpg.60589e925bedb5f8b4aa8b7bc2b297b4.jpg

Peanuts10.jpg

Edited by romitaman
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Will_K

Will_K

Posted
Posted

Re: the Christmas piece

Still not a Schulz expert...

The signature looks off.  In almost every example I've seen, the H never goes into the U.  Schulz wrote SCHULZ with the letters separated, not connected (e.g like -script writing).  I have seen SCHULZ with the letters connected in a sketch that doesn't look like Schulz drew.

Sally looks awkwardly small under the Christmas tree.  The clouds look kind of crappy.

Note, according to Wikipedia, by 1969, Schultz left Sebastopol for Santa Rosa.  Wikipedia says Marcie first appeared in 1971. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
romitaman

romitaman

Posted
  • Author
Posted

agreed....... thanks everyone.... these both were sent to me to evaluate to purchase and just wanted to get more eyes on it was all....i'll ship them back  

PS brian..i'll get you those scans shortly  what we've talked about. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
BCarter27

BCarter27

Posted
Posted

I know nothing about these things, but how can you tell just from the art? I've seen hundreds of bad con sketches that wouldn't pass muster either.

Doesn't the stamp lend it authenticity? Has anyone seen a similar stamp on other pieces?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Doc McCoy

Doc McCoy

Posted
Posted

 

16 minutes ago, BCarter27 said:

 

I know nothing about these things, but how can you tell just from the art? I've seen hundreds of bad con sketches that wouldn't pass muster either.

 

The complete lack of uniformity in the characters size and the unsure lines would lead me to believe they were traced right away.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
kav

kav

Posted
Posted (edited)

The first piece is close but the second is way way off.  The hardest thing about schulz to fake are the hands.  None of these hands look like schulz.  The hair on schroeder and marcie and Linus in the second piece are way off.  Obviously a compilation of traces schulz would never draw characters so off in size as lucy and schroeder.  Linus body-the whole linus is really really bad.  The schroder is obviously traced from a pic of him looking down at his piano.  Schulz was a happy guy he would never draw a group sad scene like that.

Edited by kav
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Brian Peck

Brian Peck

Posted
Posted

WARNING!!!!!! One of the fake pieces Mike was offered is now on ebay.

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Charles-Schulz-original-drawing-Comic-Art-Signed-Charlie-Brown-Snoopy-Peanuts-/263155288766?hash=item3d45470abe:g:urkAAOSw5TZZmCDF

But only half of it is being offered. Mike original post showed two images on one piece but the ebay auction only offers the bottom image.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
pemart1966

pemart1966

Posted
Posted (edited)
On 2017-08-11 at 9:17 PM, kav said:

The first piece is close but the second is way way off.  The hardest thing about schulz to fake are the hands.  None of these hands look like schulz.  The hair on schroeder and marcie and Linus in the second piece are way off.  Obviously a compilation of traces schulz would never draw characters so off in size as lucy and schroeder.  Linus body-the whole linus is really really bad.  The schroder is obviously traced from a pic of him looking down at his piano.  Schulz was a happy guy he would never draw a group sad scene like that.

I wouldn't even call the first piece close.  WAY too many things wrong with it.

1.  Charlie Brown's hand and tongue.

2.  No brim on Linus' hat.

3.  Lucy's feet.

4.  Sally's eyes and hands.

5.  Schulz would never detail a wall like that.

6. Snoopy's foot with the shading.

7.  Marcie's mouth line.

These are just the ones that jumped out at me immediately.

Someone went to great lengths to deceive here what with the stamp and all but the quality of the "drawings" leaves no question that they are all absolutely fake.

Edited by pemart1966
Link to comment
Share on other sites
kav

kav

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, pemart1966 said:

I wouldn't even call the first piece close.  WAY too many things wrong with it.

1.  Charlie Brown's hand and tongue.

2.  No brim on Linus' hat.

3.  Lucy's feet.

4.  Sally's eyes and hands.

5.  Schulz would never detail a wall like that.

6. Snoopy's foot with the shading.

7.  Marcie's mouth line.

These are just the ones that jumped out at me immediately.

Someone went to great lengths to deceive here what with the stamp and all but the quality of the "drawings" leave no question that they are all absolutely fake.

Yep and back of schroeder's head-very subtle lines the way schulz draws it and very hard to duplicate.  A mess.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
kav

kav

Posted
Posted

Not to mention schulz would never be so idiotic as to draw impact effect on bat that indicates completely different direction of ball than what is depicted.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
pemart1966

pemart1966

Posted
Posted (edited)
12 minutes ago, kav said:

Not to mention schulz would never be so idiotic as to draw impact effect on bat that indicates completely different direction of ball than what is depicted.

All 3 pieces so horribly, horribly wrong...*:puke! puke

Edited by pemart1966
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
2 2
Go to topic listing