more Cool Lines deceit: misrepresented/modified art 1 1

[comicwiz]

6 hours ago, koollectablz said:

They are crooks - its not 'mistakes', they do it 100% to defraud and part people from their money.

Somewhat related to this topic, a FB friend had posted a cover to FF 80 over the weekend. After examining the photos, it became clear about 90% of cover was stats, and there was no way to confirm whether the inked bits were done by Kirby or a production staffer. But it was not a reproduction or alteration job - it was genuine production art.

I know these have appeared from time to time on the market, and the general feeling is these are roughly worth 1/10th of a cover with original inked line art. A few sold about a decade ago in the $1500-$3K range, and I believe the abovementioned piece sold within a few hours of him posting it somewhere in the middle point of that value range.

Seeing the aberrations in this thread being touted as original covers or published art when they clearly aren't reminds me of a topic I started on devaluation implications on OA tampering. While I feel awareness around dealers involved in this activity helps, I don't think it does anything until it really hurts and impacts people's pockets, and the decision to steer clear can only happen when people understand a pieces tainted history can make any price seem unattractive.

If a 1968 FF cover that is 100% period correct and reflects the final produced cover, doesn't get love from OA collectors because it's mostly stats, and it's valued in a manner that caps it in the $2-$3K range, there is no way on earth the hackneyed pages these guys are pushing out should be worth anything more than the paper they are printed on.

Edited June 7, 2017 by comicwiz

[kav]

On 4/12/2017 at 7:00 AM, SquareChaos said:

Anyone ever try reporting their auctions? Assuming people here are certain that they're misrepresenting pieces? I have no idea what eBay does in such a situation.

I have found if you report fraudulent books they get taken down after about 5 reports.  Art-no amount of reports will do anything.  A friend who knows someone who works ebay investigtions did manage to get Ducoso shut down there was a ton of evidence to present there including steranko and romita stating his pieces were fakes and google images showing where he had traced 4 of the pieces.

[delekkerste]

19 hours ago, comicwiz said:

Somewhat related to this topic, a FB friend had posted a cover to FF 80 over the weekend. After examining the photos, it became clear about 90% of cover was stats, and there was no way to confirm whether the inked bits were done by Kirby or a production staffer. But it was not a reproduction or alteration job - it was genuine production art.

I know these have appeared from time to time on the market, and the general feeling is these are roughly worth 1/10th of a cover with original inked line art. A few sold about a decade ago in the $1500-$3K range, and I believe the abovementioned piece sold within a few hours of him posting it somewhere in the middle point of that value range.

Well, if it sold in the middle point of that range, it would imply (at a 1:10 value ratio to the original), that the original would only be worth $20-$25K.  I think these production covers are generally worth far, far less than 1/10th of the original.  

A couple of years ago, I bought both the original line art to a cover and, only a month later, the production art to the same cover (mostly stat).  I paid only a little over 2% of the OA price for the production art.  Similarly, FF 80 isn't a great Kirby FF cover, but surely it's going to be in the neighborhood of $100K, which would similarly put the value of the production art at a little over 2% of the OA.  

 

[malvin]

59 minutes ago, delekkerste said:

Well, if it sold in the middle point of that range, it would imply (at a 1:10 value ratio to the original), that the original would only be worth $20-$25K.  I think these production covers are generally worth far, far less than 1/10th of the original.  

A couple of years ago, I bought both the original line art to a cover and, only a month later, the production art to the same cover (mostly stat).  I paid only a little over 2% of the OA price for the production art.  Similarly, FF 80 isn't a great Kirby FF cover, but surely it's going to be in the neighborhood of $100K, which would similarly put the value of the production art at a little over 2% of the OA.  

 

I agree with that ratio.  Many years ago I sold a stat to the UK reprint of hulk 1 (with some UK artist OA on the edges).  It was around 1.5K so the ~2% ratio makes sense

 

Malvin

[GreatEscape]

These examples are horrifying.  No doubt there is willful deceit and fraud to cheat collectors for profit but the victims typically aren't informed collectors on these boards.  Rather, they can prey on novice collectors and unsuspecting eBay community who can't see the warning signs.  It's a shame especially when new collectors are victimized just when they most need positive encouragement to become long-term OA enthusiasts.  

[comicwiz]

2 hours ago, delekkerste said:

Well, if it sold in the middle point of that range, it would imply (at a 1:10 value ratio to the original), that the original would only be worth $20-$25K.  I think these production covers are generally worth far, far less than 1/10th of the original.  

A couple of years ago, I bought both the original line art to a cover and, only a month later, the production art to the same cover (mostly stat).  I paid only a little over 2% of the OA price for the production art.  Similarly, FF 80 isn't a great Kirby FF cover, but surely it's going to be in the neighborhood of $100K, which would similarly put the value of the production art at a little over 2% of the OA.  

 

Just to be clear, I agree that the ratio is off. I just went by some of the discussion in the past referencing the 1/10th as it seemed the stream of discourse around it gravitated to it.

[DTM700]

Honest question here. Would you just straight up avoid this dealer?

They have a few pieces I'm interested in, but after reading this post I think I'd rather just avoid them all together - especially since some of the pieces have titles and logo's on them. As a new collector to OA, threads like these are invaluable.

[JadeGiant]

9 hours ago, DTM700 said:

Honest question here. Would you just straight up avoid this dealer?

They have a few pieces I'm interested in, but after reading this post I think I'd rather just avoid them all together - especially since some of the pieces have titles and logo's on them. As a new collector to OA, threads like these are invaluable.

They have a ton of art I would love to own. I actively avoid them. 

Edited June 9, 2017 by JadeGiant

[Claudio]

10 hours ago, DTM700 said:

Honest question here. Would you just straight up avoid this dealer?

They have a few pieces I'm interested in, but after reading this post I think I'd rather just avoid them all together - especially since some of the pieces have titles and logo's on them. As a new collector to OA, threads like these are invaluable.

I actually had a few good dealings with them in the past...  But I won't deal with them again just based off what I read on these boards. Buying from them now would be condoning their practices, IMO

[Squeezy McSphincter]

I found this board because I got a bad feeling about a deal and Googled their name, so these kinds of threads definitely do help the uninformed.

[thethedew]

Do they bring these altered pieces to shows, or do they only try to peddle them online, where they have the advantage?

[cloud cloddie]

9 hours ago, thethedew said:

Do they bring these altered pieces to shows, or do they only try to peddle them online, where they have the advantage?

Wasn't there a thread last year about somebody purchasing a New Mutants 87 'alternate' cover at a con that turned out to be bogus? Seems they'll pull all their shenanigans anywhere. 

[cmaeditor]

7 hours ago, cloud cloddie said:

Wasn't there a thread last year about somebody purchasing a New Mutants 87 'alternate' cover at a con that turned out to be bogus? Seems they'll pull all their shenanigans anywhere. 

I wonder if it was the "cover published in Marvel Age right before Liefeld started on New Mutants. Rather than Cable, it introduced Cougar, who was later used in Youngblood.

Edited June 10, 2017 by cmaeditor
Formatting of text

[malvin]

14 minutes ago, cmaeditor said:

I wonder if it was the "cover published in Marvel Age right before Liefeld started on New Mutants. Rather than Cable, it introduced Cougar, who was later used in Youngblood.

I believe the cover they sold was not even by Liefeld 

Malvin 

[comicwiz]

8 hours ago, cloud cloddie said:

Wasn't there a thread last year about somebody purchasing a New Mutants 87 'alternate' cover at a con that turned out to be bogus? Seems they'll pull all their shenanigans anywhere. 

I think this is the thread you are referring to.

[cloud cloddie]

3 hours ago, comicwiz said:

I think this is the thread you are referring to.

Yeah, that's the one

[RICKYBOBBY]

On 2017-06-07 at 3:53 PM, comicwiz said:

Somewhat related to this topic, a FB friend had posted a cover to FF 80 over the weekend. After examining the photos, it became clear about 90% of cover was stats, and there was no way to confirm whether the inked bits were done by Kirby or a production staffer. But it was not a reproduction or alteration job - it was genuine production art.

I know these have appeared from time to time on the market, and the general feeling is these are roughly worth 1/10th of a cover with original inked line art. A few sold about a decade ago in the $1500-$3K range, and I believe the abovementioned piece sold within a few hours of him posting it somewhere in the middle point of that value range.

Seeing the aberrations in this thread being touted as original covers or published art when they clearly aren't reminds me of a topic I started on devaluation implications on OA tampering. While I feel awareness around dealers involved in this activity helps, I don't think it does anything until it really hurts and impacts people's pockets, and the decision to steer clear can only happen when people understand a pieces tainted history can make any price seem unattractive.

If a 1968 FF cover that is 100% period correct and reflects the final produced cover, doesn't get love from OA collectors because it's mostly stats, and it's valued in a manner that caps it in the $2-$3K range, there is no way on earth the hackneyed pages these guys are pushing out should be worth anything more than the paper they are printed on.

This cover is now on Burkeys site for 9k

[jaybuck43]

15 minutes ago, RICKYBOBBY said:

This cover is now on Burkeys site for 9k

I can't find it, got a link?

[RICKYBOBBY]

26 minutes ago, jaybuck43 said:

I can't find it, got a link?

Right here my friend:

 

http://www.romitaman.com/GalleryPiece.asp?Piece=20928&ArtistId=921

[RabidFerret]

On 6/10/2017 at 7:04 PM, cmaeditor said:

I wonder if it was the "cover published in Marvel Age right before Liefeld started on New Mutants. Rather than Cable, it introduced Cougar, who was later used in Youngblood.

As of last year McFarlane had that in his collection still.