Dilemma - Another collector had prelim to my piece inked, latest owner says mine is a blueline with no pencils 3 3

[Yorick]

I bought a "Garcia-Lopez" inked piece, but it turned out that it was lightboxed.  Really strong inking, but I was wondering how I got it so cheap. 

 

[Xatari]

A new collector posted a piece he was excited about and several from the community jumped all over his post saying he was positioning it as something he wasn't.  He never claimed his was the published version and simply pasted what the auction description stated.  I know we all are quick to opine about art in the hobby, but we also tend to eat our young.

I reached out and suggested if he was unhappy with his purchase based on the description that he should contact Comic Link.  He likes the piece as it has nostalgia for him.  Friends, we are talking about a $1500 piece, not a Secret Wars 8 page at $3MM+.  I don't know many sub $2k pieces that warrant three pages of forum thread and continued replies on his FB thread (until he deleted it) or CAF (which continues to receive replies).  I can see why he would feel on the defensive.

Maybe time to move on.  

[dinesh_s]

The pile on and the @ss kissing in this thread is next level. Thread should be renamed "lets bully a noob"

Edited April 10 by dinesh_s

[cloud cloddie]

On 4/9/2024 at 9:05 PM, Xatari said:

A new collector posted a piece he was excited about and several from the community jumped all over his post saying he was positioning it as something he wasn't.  He never claimed his was the published version and simply pasted what the auction description stated.  I know we all are quick to opine about art in the hobby, but we also tend to eat our young.

From my understanding of the original post, this was not about a new collector just enjoying their new piece. It was also about an implication that Malvin’s piece was less than it was. Big difference. 

On 4/9/2024 at 9:05 PM, Xatari said:

 Friends, we are talking about a $1500 piece, not a Secret Wars 8 page at $3MM+.  I don't know many sub $2k pieces that warrant three pages of forum thread and continued replies on his FB thread (until he deleted it) or CAF (which continues to receive replies).  

I understand that you might not care to have a discussion about a ‘cheap’ piece, but for those of us that don’t only chase grails, I find this topic interesting. 

[Xatari]

Did you read his original post? Also, I don’t see this type of lengthy discussion around other pieces in this price range. It just feels it is time to move on. Malvin and the owner already communicated directly and worked this out. Not sure why it keeps being perpetuated. 

Edited April 10 by Xatari

[cloud cloddie]

On 4/9/2024 at 10:53 PM, Xatari said:

Did you read his original post? Also, I don’t see this type of lengthy discussion around other pieces in this price range. It just feels it is time to move on. Malvin and the owner already communicated directly and worked this out. Not sure why it keeps being perpetuated. 

To your points… yea, I read the original post. Did you?

If you’re so bored with a post about a piece of art somebody didn’t pay 100K for at HA, then yes, it’s time for you to move on. 

And from my understanding, the situation has not been worked out, other than both parties deciding to stop posting publicly about it. It’s probably being perpetuated because people are flaming the noob, and others are throwing the word bully around on Malvin. 

[Grendel72]

On 4/10/2024 at 3:24 PM, cloud cloddie said:

And from my understanding, the situation has not been worked out, other than both parties deciding to stop posting publicly about it.

I think in this instance, this is the best outcome one is going to get. It's an impasse. Unless  the 'worked out' = the owner acknowledging his isn't an original. Doesn't seem likely for now. Being on the right side of an issue doesn't mean mob mentality can't rear its ugly head. For what's its worth, think both Malvin and the other guy are decent persons and I can empathise with both of them. I truly believe given some time the other guy will realise his piece isn't the original. But he need to come to this realisation on his own. The more he is pressured, the more he is going to knuckle down. And the more pissed we get the more we pressure him. And the cycle goes on. I am not singling out any individual here but collectively. 

[vodou]

On 4/10/2024 at 5:40 AM, Grendel72 said:

But he need to come to this realisation on his own. The more he is pressured, the more he is going to knuckle down. And the more pissed we get the more we pressure him. And the cycle goes on.

 

On 4/8/2024 at 1:14 PM, vodou said:

 

[MyNameIsLegion]

On 4/9/2024 at 11:05 PM, Xatari said:

A new collector posted a piece he was excited about and several from the community jumped all over his post saying he was positioning it as something he wasn't.  He never claimed his was the published version and simply pasted what the auction description stated.  I know we all are quick to opine about art in the hobby, but we also tend to eat our young.

I reached out and suggested if he was unhappy with his purchase based on the description that he should contact Comic Link.  He likes the piece as it has nostalgia for him.  Friends, we are talking about a $1500 piece, not a Secret Wars 8 page at $3MM+.  I don't know many sub $2k pieces that warrant three pages of forum thread and continued replies on his FB thread (until he deleted it) or CAF (which continues to receive replies).  I can see why he would feel on the defensive.

Maybe time to move on.  

 

On 4/9/2024 at 11:46 PM, dinesh_s said:

The pile on and the @ss kissing in this thread is next level. Thread should be renamed "lets bully a noob"

the only 2 people sticking up for the poor guy (and I do empathize with him...to a point, that point being when he started throwing the troll card around at any and all comments not to his liking like some 9 year old) are the one's trying to downplay it as "no big deal" because it's not a 6 figure piece of art? When the "Great Generation of Collectors"   got started $1500 was a lot of money, it was a nice cover or a Ditko Spidey page or 2, an entire SA interior book...etc. Are ya'll grooming this newb to make more ill-advised purchases?   He's already over-bought into that fugly Madrox "birth page" since that's all the rage to hype up amongst the new breed of collectors that seems to be your niche. Y'all are playing in a shallow, treacherous, and very deceptive end of the collecting pool.  Better he learn now, before he mortgages his house on something dumb and Ed Piskors himself.  Now explain to me who is kissing up to who here? My collecting goal in life is to never own anything, anything with Booster Gold on it. 

[comix4fun]

Maybe I can find the moderate midline in this for everyone. 
The hardest thing for anyone to do, in any facet of life, is to accept someone else's opinion above or in place of their own. That can be true even in situations where the gap in information, knowledge and experience is wide or where the parties stand as equals or near equals. 

In a hobby such as this, especially when on is just getting started, you don't know who to trust, who to listen to, who to be wary of, and really you just don't know what you don't know. 

That's why I've always said the most valuable thing I've taken from this hobby are the relationships I've made. That's true even among people in identical collecting demo's, chasing the same pieces, but all enjoying the same art, same memories, same nexus of nostalgia. Only in this hobby have I been able to be shown someone's new addition and my response be "EFF YOU DUDE!" and have it be universally understood as, perhaps, the highest possible compliment. 

Over time, you learn who to listen to, what to look for, who the good and bad actors are, and a wealth of other facts and details about pieces, people, and niches in the hobby that can only be absorbed in due course.

In this case, I see neither bullying, nor -kissing, nor piling on, nor anything other than a disagreement that's likely been exacerbated by word choice. 

I saw the Facebook post and thread before it was deleted. The poster was excited for his piece, yes. But he chose to diminish another collector's piece (without actual personal knowledge of that piece) in describing his own. As a self-described "Noobie", perhaps he didn't think that through. But, when comments were made on this thread to that effect  (not in a mean, bullying, or angry way) on his Facebook post....he immediately called anyone and everyone making note of the fact that he was likely in error in his description, he chose to take it as and describe it as "TROLLING", repeatedly. When the description claiming a diminishment in Malvin's piece was the first "stone" can he really be offended, or surprised, when it was volleyed back and countered. To take cover under "Stop Trolling Me" seems to lack awareness of what he'd done to initiate that back and forth discussion. Again, perhaps the newness of it all was to blame. 

There was a difficult choice there to make for a new collector. Who were these people posting? Why should I trust their facts over mine? I am sure Malvin, myself and many others have had the same or similar reactions to people when we were fresh out of the oven as baby art collectors. Many of us come to this hobby as successes in the real world in our own spaces. How could we ever take a stranger's word as fact over our own? That takes time and experience and, most importantly, a VERY slow roll in these instances. 

I wish, when I started collecting, people had told me sooner to just sit back, watch, learn, and take it all in for at least six months, before buying anything, believing anyone, or forming opinions about what I knew or didn't know. I could have saved myself from a ton of mistakes. 

But in the end. Everyone here is an adult. I've had my small share of internet dust-ups in the past, this one doesn't really register on the scale and has been relatively respectful aside from the unwarranted labeling. I think there's a space where the integrity and attribution of each piece and each owner's property is respected for what they really are without needing to diminish the other and without clouding the factual provenance of both.

[Xatari]

On 4/7/2024 at 8:19 PM, malvin said:

Thanks Jason, especially on doing all that comparison work. I don't think he is angling for resale, he just believes what the auction listing said. He doesn't even believe the Kevin Maguire note, he says too bad we won't have a chance to show Kevin Maguire both pieces at once

Malvin

@malvin knows the owner has not claimed his piece as the published version and has privately communicated this with him. Malvin also knows this piece is nostalgic for the owner who was happy to share his new acquisition as a badge of pride.  They communicated via private correspondence.  This idea of having to keep fighting an ongoing battle is a moot point.  Rather than stay silent about this, if Malvin just acknowledged this took place in his private conversation with the owner it would help deescalate this thread. Moreover, Malvin, if you really felt this was a burden you didn't want to carry, you could either have bought the other piece or sell your own as others have shared. 

Further, mentions of grooming, gambling, and suicide followed by insults of another piece in this collector's portfolio are beyond too far. Grow up.

[PhilipB2k17]

On 4/8/2024 at 10:10 PM, malvin said:

Thanks Shemp

Yes, you are right. The main initial issue was that in an attempt to legitimize his piece when I pointed out to the auction house that it was an inked prelim, the consignor argued that his has real pencils while mine was light boxed (since he can't argue that his was published since it was different from the print). The guy used the auction description on this post, which impugned my piece saying it was light boxed.

Some of my posts also argue that mine was the published one rather than the underlying issue (as did others). Although when he changed his description to be more vague, it implied that his was published.

As for leaving my comment up. My initial attempt was to stop his piece from disparaging mine, and hopefully educate him. I didn't want to harass him if he didn't want to change his mind. As well, I think he bought premium membership since other comments have been deleted.

Hopefully this CGC post doesn't get deleted  and will serve as documentation on the background behind the 2 pieces

Malvin

Assuming he believed they were the original pencils, why in the world would you get the original pencils for a published cover inked by someone other than the artist or published inker (or at all), when you know the actual inks exist?

Edited April 10 by PhilipB2k17

[CGC Mike]

I have been notified about this thread.  I have read it, and will leave it up unedited.  Lets keep it civil, though.  If I see anyone trying to escalate this in the wrong direction, they will be banned from the topic and possibly receive posting restrictions on the entire forum.  

Mike

[gumbydarnit]

I like this thread for one primary reason- it just illustrates the problem with commissioning recreations that are not by the original artist, inking lightboxed printouts etc.. not many collectors insist on adding the descriptions to the actual artwork to help future buyers

Let’s say someone commissions a random inker to ink a printout of a Perez commission that they don’t own. I think when this happens, a description should be added “George Perez printout inked by Johnny Journeyman”. Written on around the bottom of the art and not in the boarder where it could be cut off. This would clarify George Perez did not touch this page at all. 

In addition to adding the description, I think the original artist signature should NEVER be copied on a recreation, unless the original artist drew the recreation. By removing the Perez signature from the recreation it helps emphasize that Perez did not touch this page. As one looks for the artist signature they instead see the accurate description.

Too often the commission has no description added. The piece is sold a couple of times and then the third or fourth owner throws it in an auction. Without any mention of it being in a printout inked by Johnny Journeyman, it instead is listed as a George Perez commission. There is plausible deniability that the owner had no idea it wasn’t Perez. “See it’s signed Perez right on the page.”

But if you remove the Perez signature and add the description …. Yay! you now have a win win. Potential buyers now know what is being sold to them and the seller can sleep easy knowing that he sold his art as a Johnny Journeyman inked George Perez printout and not as a George Perez commission, saving those poor future buyers lots of money because of the piece’s transparency.  Who wouldn’t want that?!?

This is not happening, and everyday you see has more and more recreations and inked blue lines come to market without the needed info on the artwork, so it’s now very much a buyer beware situation.

I think transparency is a topic that deserves further discussion and constant monitoring in our hobby.

Please read my opinion as a bit of a sidebar and not a post specifically targeted at the pieces discussed upthread.

 

[MyNameIsLegion]

On 4/11/2024 at 12:10 AM, gumbydarnit said:

I like this thread for one primary reason- it just illustrates the problem with commissioning recreations that are not by the original artist, inking lightboxed printouts etc.. not many collectors insist on adding the descriptions to the actual artwork to help future buyers

Let’s say someone commissions a random inker to ink a printout of a Perez commission that they don’t own. I think when this happens, a description should be added “George Perez printout inked by Johnny Journeyman”. Written on around the bottom of the art and not in the boarder where it could be cut off. This would clarify George Perez did not touch this page at all. 

In addition to adding the description, I think the original artist signature should NEVER be copied on a recreation, unless the original artist drew the recreation. By removing the Perez signature from the recreation it helps emphasize that Perez did not touch this page. As one looks for the artist signature they instead see the accurate description.

Too often the commission has no description added. The piece is sold a couple of times and then the third or fourth owner throws it in an auction. Without any mention of it being in a printout inked by Johnny Journeyman, it instead is listed as a George Perez commission. There is plausible deniability that the owner had no idea it wasn’t Perez. “See it’s signed Perez right on the page.”

But if you remove the Perez signature and add the description …. Yay! you now have a win win. Potential buyers now know what is being sold to them and the seller can sleep easy knowing that he sold his art as a Johnny Journeyman inked George Perez printout and not as a George Perez commission, saving those poor future buyers lots of money because of the piece’s transparency.  Who wouldn’t want that?!?

This is not happening, and everyday you see has more and more recreations and inked blue lines come to market without the needed info on the artwork, so it’s now very much a buyer beware situation.

I think transparency is a topic that deserves further discussion and constant monitoring in our hobby.

Please read my opinion as a bit of a sidebar and not a post specifically targeted at the pieces discussed upthread.

 

there are major dealers that have been laundering  xerox prints as stats,  transparency overlays, trade dressed prelim art with some serious word salad descriptions meant to confuse and obfuscate the true origin and artist for YEARS via Comiclink in particular, but also HA that otherwise would be radioactive when it sits on their site or CAF or they have to go ask their brother for a price. There's a reason they have their own thread.  It's comical if not criminal, but any newb in the hobby could easily be taken in by it and be none the wiser. This entire thread wouldn't exist if Comiclink put any effort in verifying the authenticity of their consignments. I will give HA some credit for at least standing behind what the say and making corrections when informed, and even refunding auctions where there is some disagreement about the accuracy of a listing. 

Edited April 11 by MyNameIsLegion

[comix4fun]

On 4/11/2024 at 12:10 AM, gumbydarnit said:

 

Too often the commission has no description added. The piece is sold a couple of times and then the third or fourth owner throws it in an auction. Without any mention of it being in a printout inked by Johnny Journeyman, it instead is listed as a George Perez commission. There is plausible deniability that the owner had no idea it wasn’t Perez. “See it’s signed Perez right on the page.”

 

 

I remember a few examples of actual bronze/copper cover art, with less than clear information about who penciled it or inked it, that was stuck under the nose of some big time artists  who signed anything put in front of them....only to have that piece suddenly be called a Miller or whatever by whatever dealer was selling it with the same "See? it's signed by him right on the piece. Why would he sign it if he didn't create it?"

It's been a danger and problem for a long long time. The new age of blue lines and inked prelims and less than total disclosure by consignors/dealers/sellers only muddies the water further. 

[The Voord]

On 4/7/2024 at 8:34 PM, cloud cloddie said:

 

 whatever that pocket thing is on Blue Beetle’s waist, it looks like b**ls on his piece. I thought it was nsfw at first. 👀

All vegetables and no meat, lol!

[cstojano]

On 4/11/2024 at 6:54 AM, The Voord said:

All vegetables and no meat, lol!

Its the prelim to Dark Kingdom.

[Will_K]

On 4/11/2024 at 1:10 AM, gumbydarnit said:

commissioning recreations

Was there ever a "Please share your recreations" topic ?  I could go for that.

[Dr. Balls]

On 4/11/2024 at 9:12 AM, Will_K said:

Was there ever a "Please share your recreations" topic ?  I could go for that.

I first read that as "Please share your reactions" - and figured that's an appropriate title for this thread.