Altered Original Art for Sale...

[JromeSaskagograci]

I was recently directed to a completed eBay auction in which one of the Donnelly brothers sold a Howard Chaykin Punisher War Journal page for $985.

 

http://www.ebay.com/itm/HOWARD-CHAYKIN-Punisher-War-Journal-25-pg-30-incredible-splash-of-Punisher-/391465411372?hash=item5b2528232c%3Ag%3Arh4AAOSwY0lXRMsl&nma=true&si=tystK4umQJkEidkIV3ke%252FCyn7QY%253D&orig_cvip=true&rt=nc&_trksid=p2047675.l2557

 

 

What bothers me about the auction, aside from the inflated price, is the "background on overlay" notation.

 

Given that Chaykin assembles his pages digitally, what clearly happened with this piece is that the seller grabbed the "background" (including the lettering!) from the published page and physically added it to the artwork, creating a falsely composited piece that never really existed. I have of course seen this sort of thing before, most often with the addition of trade dress to cover pieces.

 

On the other hand, the basic artwork hasn't been changed - it is just an addition, so it's still there and not really destroyed.

 

I'm not looking to reignite the overall Donnellys discussion, but am curious what the prevailing opinion is regarding this sort of thing, specifically with regard to marketing pieces for sale - it's obviously sneaky, but does it go so far as to constitute fraud?

[alxjhnsn]

I think that they should be much clearer in their descriptions - to say the least.

[jaybuck43]

I think that they should be much clearer in their descriptions - to say the least.

 

I agree with this 100%. No declaration that it is V. 2 (2008) either. In principle I have no issue with an overlay. Given the fact that the original art is just the Punisher it looks less like a piece of OA and more like a convention sketch. If I was buying that OA, I would definitely do the same thing before I display it. Now should they have shown a scan of the actual piece without the overlay as well as the piece with the overlay, and a better explanation in the description? You bet! I don't think I would call this altered art for sale though. The art is still in it's original condition.

[rocket1312]

I'm still relatively new to all of this, but one of my biggest pet peeves is the vagueness that sometimes comes along with overlays. In my mind it should be mandatory to provide a scan of the art sans overlay on any auction or dealer website. It should at the very least be considered common courtesy.

[JadeGiant]

I'm still relatively new to all of this, but one of my biggest pet peeves is the vagueness that sometimes comes along with overlays. In my mind it should be mandatory to provide a scan of the art sans overlay on any auction or dealer website. It should at the very least be considered common courtesy.

 

Of course it should be clearly described, but then you wouldn't want to pay as much and that goes against the CL mantra to gouge and fleece.

[jaybuck43]

I'm still relatively new to all of this, but one of my biggest pet peeves is the vagueness that sometimes comes along with overlays. In my mind it should be mandatory to provide a scan of the art sans overlay on any auction or dealer website. It should at the very least be considered common courtesy.

 

Of course it should be clearly described, but then you wouldn't want to pay as much and that goes against the CL mantra to gouge and fleece.

 

Be careful, most people associate CL with ComicLink and not CoolLines. Yes I think it's an attempt to fleece the lesser knowledge art collectors (hence it being on eBay and not one of the known houses) but like I said earlier, I don't consider adding an overly altering the art, assuming it is properly disclosed. In this particular case it was a very shoddy job (part of the Cool Lines pitch job is to copy and paste 99% of their verbiage into each posting which makes people just glaze over it in general since it looks like boilerplate.

[JromeSaskagograci]

 

In this particular case it was a very shoddy job (part of the Cool Lines pitch job is to copy and paste 99% of their verbiage into each posting which makes people just glaze over it in general since it looks like boilerplate.

 

That's the part I find really troubling - the complete lack of specificity regarding the overlay. Someone looking at that piece not knowing the artist's method is in no way informed that the overlay had nothing to do with the artist's process, but instead is something the dealer made when trying to bolster its presentation and sale value.

 

It's disheartening to consider that someone overpaid by several hundred dollars for the piece, and there's a real chance it's because the buyer didn't understand that s/he was buying a considerably more sparse original dressed up with a homemade hack.

[Mmehdy]

wow....

[MIL0S]

Given the fact that the original art is just the Punisher it looks less like a piece of OA and more like a convention sketch.

 

if the original art was just the Punisher image I'm shocked the Donnelly boys didn't doctor it up and try to pass it off as a non-existant "alternate cover" to wring even more money out of it.

[artdealer]

The original art was just the punisher figure.

I originally had the art for sale.

[JromeSaskagograci]

The original art was just the punisher figure.

 

The original doesn't even include the gun!

 

It's interesting to wonder who the buyer is for this piece at this price, but probably is most fascinating because it's such a bald-faced (and apparently successful) attempt by a dealer to swindle someone who doesn't know any better. And it is done in such a nuanced way, there's no one to whom it can be complained about - try reporting the seller to eBay and the answer will be, "it's right there in the description that the background is on overlay!"

 

The sale is made to someone who likely has no sense of scale regarding what the real page is and what it should cost, and because the buyer fails to beware, the seller robs that person in completely legal fashion.