WARNING: Coolines Sandman Poster Art
2 2

32 posts in this topic

Aside from any other feeling about coolines....as someone who makes stats for myself and other collectors (which in some instances are made not because the piece is missing original stats, but simply because myself or the collector likes how the piece presents with an overlay), I see nothing wrong with this. They aren't claiming it's something that it's not, it just has a newly made (cheap looking) overlaying giving the piece some context.

 

Unless I'm missing something?

Edited by Phill the Governor
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/10/2021 at 5:55 PM, Phill the Governor said:

Unless I'm missing something?

You never know. The listing says nothing about the title stat I don't think and it seems like they describe the piece before it was added. In my experience with these guys sometimes it is an overlay but not always. So you have to see it to know I guess. You would hope, but like I said I recall otherwise in the past.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/10/2021 at 5:59 PM, Bird said:

You never know. The listing says nothing about the title stat I don't think and it seems like they describe the piece before it was added. In my experience with these guys sometimes it is an overlay but not always. So you have to see it to know I guess. You would hope, but like I said I recall otherwise in the past.

I think reading between the lines, the statement "bottom has hand lettered Sandman title" insinuates the text at the top is not original art.

 

Not that I want to give them the benefit of the doubt.. but I can only assume the bigger issue is how much it costs..  :cry:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/10/2021 at 6:04 PM, Phill the Governor said:

I think reading between the lines, the statement "bottom has hand lettered Sandman title" insinuates the text at the top is not original art.

 

Not that I want to give them the benefit of the doubt.. but I can only assume the bigger issue is how much it costs..  :cry:

well, you and I are focusing on the physical aspects of the addition. We have not addressed how misleading it is...which is the purpose, no? To artificially create provenance and importance?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/10/2021 at 6:06 PM, Bird said:

well, you and I are focusing on the physical aspects of the addition. We have not addressed how misleading it is...which is the purpose, no? To artificially create provenance and importance?

 

In this situation my gut says that since there's no statement of the top text being original art, it's the buyer's responsibility to know what they are buying..

Especially since... any true collector who buys the piece is going to buy it regardless of that overlay. Maybe they like it and will keep it. Maybe they will take it off and throw it away and display the piece with no overlay because they know it wasn't technically original to the piece. But, especially where the piece is coming from, I don't think the overlay has anything to do with the perceived value/price of the piece.

 

Considering the amount of pieces that sell with missing original stats, for prices that seem to not care about stats being there or not, I don't see this an issue.

 

Now if they were claiming its a published cover to something, when it's actually just a promo piece-- now we have a problem.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/10/2021 at 6:14 PM, Phill the Governor said:

 

In this situation my gut says that since there's no statement of the top text being original art, it's the buyer's responsibility to know what they are buying..

Especially since... any true collector who buys the piece is going to buy it regardless of that overlay. Maybe they like it and will keep it. Maybe they will take it off and throw it away and display the piece with no overlay because they know it wasn't technically original to the piece. But, especially where the piece is coming from, I don't think the overlay has anything to do with the perceived value/price of the piece.

 

Considering the amount of pieces that sell with missing original stats, for prices that seem to not care about stats being there or not, I don't see this an issue.

 

Now if they were claiming its a published cover to something, when it's actually just a promo piece-- now we have a problem.

The fact that nothing is mentioned about the blurbs at the top while at the same time, the lettering at the bottom IS addressed as is the fact that the top of the cover is said to be inked in sold black could be seen as an attempt to deceive in my opinion.  

This shouldn't be a type of "hide and go seek" exercise.  Why would they not mention the blurbs at the top especially if they're mentioning everything else?  One should not have to be relying on their gut to tell them what's what...

Edited by pemart1966
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/10/2021 at 8:04 PM, pemart1966 said:

The fact that nothing is mentioned about the blurbs at the top while at the same time, the lettering at the bottom IS addressed as is the fact that the top of the cover is said to be inked in sold black is an attempt to deceive in my opinion.  

This shouldn't be a type of "hide and go seek" exercise.  Why would they not mention the blurbs at the top especially if they're mentioning everything else?  One should not have to be relying on their gut to tell them what's what...

My point is, an attempt to deceive how?

They aren't claiming it's anything other than the tour poster art... which it is.

A salty opinion of a piece purchased by known dealers who mark stuff up to crazy prices is one thing. But in this context I really don't see anything wrong. For one, the stat isn't even pure line art- its clearly a lousy printed out piece of paper in greyscale. Anyone with any common sense would see the stat and assume it's not original to the piece, just like all the other lousy stats they made themselves for other pieces. If they put a little "no. 8" up there with the stat and tried to pass it off as an unpublished cover, now that's an entirely different story. Yet the arguments in this thread seem to think that's what's been done.

 

Never thought I'd be defending coolinesart but I don't see how this can be viewed any other way, from the perspective of a legitimate person who would buy the piece. :eyeroll:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/11/2021 at 1:18 AM, Phill the Governor said:

Never thought I'd be defending coolinesart but I don't see how this can be viewed any other way, from the perspective of a legitimate person who would buy the piece. :eyeroll:

Nobody is salty apart from yourself given most of your responses. I think the piece is ugly, hence why I didn't make an offer to the original owner when they contacted me. But that's irrelevant. Because as I stated, I made the post so anyone considering purchasing the piece is aware. As Coolines did not bother to mention anything about the added logo or show pictures without, one can only assume that the intention is to deceive. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/11/2021 at 4:04 AM, barneythecantankerous said:

Nobody is salty apart from yourself given most of your responses. I think the piece is ugly, hence why I didn't make an offer to the original owner when they contacted me. But that's irrelevant. Because as I stated, I made the post so anyone considering purchasing the piece is aware. As Coolines did not bother to mention anything about the added logo or show pictures without, one can only assume that the intention is to deceive. 

I completely agree with you. The content states that “top half of art has been inked solid black” means exactly that, but the presence of the additional trade dress as a post-production embellishment is not something the average person would recognize. If the average person would be deceived, and the trade dress was added with that intent, that’s the essence of fraud. You just have to prove resultant damages. Technical accuracy by Coollines is not enough. A potentially saving to Coollines is whether the inconsistency gave a reasonable person a duty to inquire. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/11/2021 at 5:32 AM, Rick2you2 said:

I completely agree with you. The content states that “top half of art has been inked solid black” means exactly that, but the presence of the additional trade dress as a post-production embellishment is not something the average person would recognize. If the average person would be deceived, and the trade dress was added with that intent, that’s the essence of fraud. You just have to prove resultant damages. Technical accuracy by Coollines is not enough. A potentially saving to Coollines is whether the inconsistency gave a reasonable person a duty to inquire. 

This is just ridiculous, now we're bringing fraud into this? Again, you are all arguing from the side that they are saying this is something it's not. If there was an attempt to pass this off a an unpublished cover I would be on your side of the argument, 100%. As it stands, from what I see in front of me- they added a crappy stat to the top of a piece used as a flyer/poster. This was not a sketch, nor a commission. It was a piece actually used for some purpose outside of being drawn. So the argument does not hold water.

 

On 12/11/2021 at 4:04 AM, barneythecantankerous said:

Nobody is salty apart from yourself given most of your responses. I think the piece is ugly, hence why I didn't make an offer to the original owner when they contacted me. But that's irrelevant. Because as I stated, I made the post so anyone considering purchasing the piece is aware. As Coolines did not bother to mention anything about the added logo or show pictures without, one can only assume that the intention is to deceive. 

This gave me a little chuckle. So you're giving a heads up to everyone about a piece you consider ugly. Nowadays they are giving medals out for everything, you're probably entitled to one for your service.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/11/2021 at 10:26 AM, Phill the Governor said:

This is just ridiculous, now we're bringing fraud into this? Again, you are all arguing from the side that they are saying this is something it's not. If there was an attempt to pass this off a an unpublished cover I would be on your side of the argument, 100%. As it stands, from what I see in front of me- they added a crappy stat to the top of a piece used as a flyer/poster. This was not a sketch, nor a commission. It was a piece actually used for some purpose outside of being drawn. So the argument does not hold water.

“Published” doesn’t have to be a cover to add value. It can be a house ad, or a trade show poster, too. They would not bring as much as a cover, or add as much, but you can bet your bottom dollar that it would not have been “enhanced” if the sellers didn’t think this would increase the piece’s value.

And, it is ugly.

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