IMPORTANT INFO for anyone buying "unused/rejected" covers esp. from Cool Lines 2 2

[comicwiz]

1 hour ago, comix4fun said:

STATUS UPDATE:

 

This matter has been resolved for the buyer. The issues, facts, assertions, attributions were discussed at length and face to face at SDCC and the piece in question has been returned and reimbursement has been made. 

That said...the piece is back in the seller's possession, and remains on their CAF and website galleries for sale. Word to the wise. 

 

For anyone wanting the asserted origins of this piece from the seller, and summarized details discovered independent of the seller's claims:

It is listed for sale as "LIEFELD/ YAP - New Mutants #87 rejected, unused cover"

Rob Liefeld has confirmed, noted in this thread, that he had nothing to do with this piece. 

The "YAP" in the signature section is NOT Gwong Yap, the only YAP to ever work on New Mutants and for Marvel. It was, according to Stephen,  GARY Yap, who's NEVER worked for Marvel nor on New Mutants and has no professional credits on GCD until 3-4 years AFTER New Mutants 87's artwork was created. 

Stephen asserted to us that it was an unused cover because it was an inking sample that Gary Yap submitted in order to try and get work at Marvel, which was subsequently rejected by them. THUS, in his mind, it is a rejected, unused cover. 

In fact that comma, in "New Mutants #87 rejected, unused cover" is, to Stephen, a key factor in his defense of the piece. He believes that comma clearly states that the image is  taken from New Mutants #87, used as an independent inking sample to get work, and was rejected...full stop...and that it has a cover image that was never published in this form that makes it "unused".  He pointed out that comma a few times and how important it was.   I guess using a comma instead of accurately describing the piece with a couple of sentences in his online descriptions saves valuable time and energy better spent on adding stats and logos to other pieces. 

Also, leaving "Liefeld" in the description is acceptable to him because the image was taken from the real New Mutants #87 and, paraphrasing as I understood the convoluted reasoning, as "Liefeld's Idea" it means he's still part of this piece. That's despite Liefeld clearly stating the work is NOT his in any way. 

So, to summarize, it was (as Stephen stated was described to him by Gary Yap, whom he says he acquired it from, and then described to the buyer and myself..and I have no idea if this is actually true or accurate) a submission piece by a guy who's never worked for Marvel, to try and get work for Marvel, and got rejected. Given his amateur status and never getting work or credits for Marvel this was, certainly, work done AFTER the real NM 87 was completed and on the stands. 

So, if you are some fan fic writer and you send in a blind ---script submission for the new Star Trek show and they reject you.....pop that baby up on eBay as a "Star Trek rejected, unused ---script", even though it's really a most likely worthless not even tangentially related item not in any way officially tied to the Star Trek franchise. Sounds legit.   

The piece is still up for sale in their galleries with the simple description of "LIEFELD/ YAP - New Mutants #87 rejected, unused cover".

Anyone who comes across it should probably know all of the above. 

Thanks for the update Chris.

This walks and talks like a seller who has been caught red handed misrepresenting an item, and flagrantly not caring to course correct.

[Shaun C89]

Why are these guys allowed to be on CAF? From everything I have heard about them they are a severe detriment to the hobby. Glad to hear the guy got his money back.

[Twanj]

1 minute ago, Shaun C89 said:

Why are these guys allowed to be on CAF? From everything I have heard about them they are a severe detriment to the hobby. Glad to hear the guy got his money back.

Glad it was resolved, but it sounded like it took a year between purchase & refund at SDCC.

Can they be banned from cons?

[PhilipB2k17]

Speaking of Coollines, check this out.

Recent Estate sale in Independence Missouri:

Nice Late Silver/Early Bronze age Three Mousketeers cover circa 1970 attributed to Phil Mendez.

Art on Coollines: 

http://www.coollinesartwork.com/Featured.asp?Piece=305117

Same piece, but its the "finished pencils." GCD says Mendez both pencilled and inked the cover, admittedly with a question mark. https://www.comics.org/issue/75697/

So, why do both pieces have a paste up title, and mastheads, etc. on it if he lightboxed the final inked version from his pencils? And look at the word "Milk" on the bowl. It's colored in with pencil on the Coollines piece, but its not on the inked version, or the actual published cover. And it's not blue line.

It's just kind of odd. 

I came across this when I found the above published cover, and started research comps. Only one comp cover was sold on HA back in 2004, so that value is practically useless. I found the Coollines piece on CAF. 

Edited July 24, 2017 by PhilipB2k17

[vodou]

The "comma". Wow. If I didn't already know all the notes to every tune in their songbook, this alone would be all the warning I'd ever need. The heck with all the other names/euphemisms we've all attached to these boys over the years, maybe we can just call 'em the Commas with a permanent embedded hyperlink to this thread?

[irchooker]

I threw up in my mouth reading about this exchange.  Confronted on the convention floor, can you imagine his body language and facial expressions as this conversation is playing out.  Gotta ask my brother, indeed.

[JadeGiant]

2 hours ago, Shaun C89 said:

Why are these guys allowed to be on CAF? From everything I have heard about them they are a severe detriment to the hobby. Glad to hear the guy got his money back.

Agreed. How cana they be allowed to prey on new collectors and/or those who don't read about their deceptive practices? It seems apparent that there is no legal recourse (or it would be cost/hassle prohibitive) to curb their activities but I would think more could be done within the bounds of the hobby to prevent other collectors from being ripped off. Hats off to Chris and anyone else who aided in getting the collector their money back - you have my respect! 

[Shaun C89]

I would have asked Liefeld to go over to their table and tell them to their face it was a fake. I bet Liefeld has been around long enough to know who these guys are.

[Ironmandrd]

Reminds me of the following:  i was next to Liefeld at the NY show I guess two years ago when he was going through Bechara's portfolio books and he saw a commission piece that was attributed to him.  He stared at it, called Bechara over and said he didn't do the piece.  Bechara immediately crossed out Liefeld's name on it and flipped the art so it's back was facing out (meaning it was not for sale).

[comix4fun]

3 hours ago, Shaun C89 said:

I would have asked Liefeld to go over to their table and tell them to their face it was a fake. I bet Liefeld has been around long enough to know who these guys are.

When I told them, flat out, that Rob said the piece was a "fake" when asked about it and had cautioned a friend of his away from it before it was sold to the buyer I was with, the claim was quickly changed to that they didn't not know whether or not Rob did anything on the piece and weren't claiming that he did...that saying the piece was "Liefeld/Yap" meant it originated with Rob's "idea" of the cover image, regardless of whether or not he ever touched the piece in question. 

So, yeah...there's that.  

[-m]

Ironic

 

[The Voord]

4 hours ago, comix4fun said:

. . . saying the piece was "Liefeld/Yap" meant it originated with Rob's "idea" of the cover image, regardless of whether or not he ever touched the piece in question.  

Sounds like we're in Richard Rae territory on this one. 

Well done on calling SD out and helping to get the buyer his refund. 

[gumbydarnit]

I feel good about the collection I have acquired over the years, but if I were to start over today with all the fake sketches, unused covers and general misinformation I would tread very lightly and maybe concentrate on buying directly from artists or artists' reps.

Here's my one dealing with this type dark side of the hobby - I bought a Wolverine sketch by a name artist 12-15 years ago, fast forward 10 years - I was clicking around on ebay and saw THE EXACT SAME sketch for sale. I took a high res detail scan of a particular area of the drawing that showed underdrawing etc... and sent it to the seller stating that I own the original drawing, that he must be selling a copy. He replied something like- Oh my I don't know how that happened I'll take it down right away.

You wonder how may copies he had sold of that sketch before I stumbled upon it, particularly because I don't search for that artist's work often. Oh yeah, he had OUTSTANDING ebay feedback!

Edited July 25, 2017 by gumbydarnit

[PhilipB2k17]

2 hours ago, gumbydarnit said:

I feel good about the collection I have acquired over the years, but if I were to start over today with all the fake sketches, unused covers and general misinformation I would tread very lightly and maybe concentrate on buying directly from artists or artists' reps.

Here's my one dealing with this type dark side of the hobby - I bought a Wolverine sketch by a name artist 12-15 years ago, fast forward 10 years - I was clicking around on ebay and saw THE EXACT SAME sketch for sale. I took a high res detail scan of a particular area of the drawing that showed underdrawing etc... and sent it to the seller stating that I own the original drawing, that he must be selling a copy. He replied something like- Oh my I don't know how that happened I'll take it down right away.

You wonder how may copies he had sold of that sketch before I stumbled upon it, particularly because I don't search for that artist's work often. Oh yeah, he had OUTSTANDING ebay feedback!

How could he be selling a copy of your sketch, if you have the sketch? Did the artist scan it in before selling it to you? Did you post in on CAF, so it could be copied? 

[PhilipB2k17]

I stick to published art, and have been buying more and more from artists, or their official reps. At some point, maybe I'll do a commission. But I'm not at that point yet.

[gumbydarnit]

Philip, I believe he may have at one point owned the sketch. His ebay handle looked very familiar, I tried to check my scattered records and see if he was the ebayer that originally sold me the sketch, but I couldn't find the ebay email regarding that purchase.

I would guess, he made a high res scan, sent me the original art, and years later printed it out and was trying to sell the printout as an original.  

I can't tell you how odd it feels to be clicking around ebay and see art that you have sitting in your portfolio posted for sell!!

Edited July 25, 2017 by gumbydarnit

[kav]

On 7/24/2017 at 9:36 AM, comix4fun said:

STATUS UPDATE:

 

This matter has been resolved for the buyer. The issues, facts, assertions, attributions were discussed at length and face to face at SDCC and the piece in question has been returned and reimbursement has been made. 

That said...the piece is back in the seller's possession, and remains on their CAF and website galleries for sale. Word to the wise. 

 

For anyone wanting the asserted origins of this piece from the seller, and summarized details discovered independent of the seller's claims:

It is listed for sale as "LIEFELD/ YAP - New Mutants #87 rejected, unused cover"

Rob Liefeld has confirmed, noted in this thread, that he had nothing to do with this piece. 

The "YAP" in the signature section is NOT Gwong Yap, the only YAP to ever work on New Mutants and for Marvel. It was, according to Stephen,  GARY Yap, who's NEVER worked for Marvel nor on New Mutants and has no professional credits on GCD until 3-4 years AFTER New Mutants 87's artwork was created. 

Stephen asserted to us that it was an unused cover because it was an inking sample that Gary Yap submitted in order to try and get work at Marvel, which was subsequently rejected by them. THUS, in his mind, it is a rejected, unused cover. 

In fact that comma, in "New Mutants #87 rejected, unused cover" is, to Stephen, a key factor in his defense of the piece. He believes that comma clearly states that the image is  taken from New Mutants #87, used as an independent inking sample to get work, and was rejected...full stop...and that it has a cover image that was never published in this form that makes it "unused".  He pointed out that comma a few times and how important it was.   I guess using a comma instead of accurately describing the piece with a couple of sentences in his online descriptions saves valuable time and energy better spent on adding stats and logos to other pieces. 

Also, leaving "Liefeld" in the description is acceptable to him because the image was taken from the real New Mutants #87 and, paraphrasing as I understood the convoluted reasoning, as "Liefeld's Idea" it means he's still part of this piece. That's despite Liefeld clearly stating the work is NOT his in any way. 

So, to summarize, it was (as Stephen stated was described to him by Gary Yap, whom he says he acquired it from, and then described to the buyer and myself..and I have no idea if this is actually true or accurate) a submission piece by a guy who's never worked for Marvel, to try and get work for Marvel, and got rejected. Given his amateur status and never getting work or credits for Marvel this was, certainly, work done AFTER the real NM 87 was completed and on the stands. 

Stephen swore repeatedly that he told the buyer it was an "rejected/unused inking sample" when they discussed it at SDCC last year, the buyer doesn't have any memory of anything like that, remembering a description more in line with the CAF and website title/descriptions. 

So, if you are some fan fic writer and you send in a blind ----script submission for the new Star Trek show and they reject you.....pop that baby up on eBay as a "Star Trek rejected, unused ----script", even though it's really a most likely worthless not even tangentially related item not in any way officially tied to the Star Trek franchise. Sounds legit.   

The piece is still up for sale in their galleries with the simple description of "LIEFELD/ YAP - New Mutants #87 rejected, unused cover".

Anyone who comes across it should probably know all of the above. 

Holy toleto based on this I have TONS of unused/rejected Marvel DC and Dark Horse pages!!!!!!  

[malvin]

Actually, this thread just reminded me.

The Geoff Darrrow Inhumans cover on comiclink is not the cover.  Darrow had a pencilled version and an inked version and I owned both before.  I think I sold them separately.  The one there is the pencilled version.  There is an inked one out there that was actually used for publication.

Malvin

[Buzzetta]

This is why I do not even bother or never have serious considerations of buying anything from the Donnelly brothers or Cool Lines Art whenever I see them at NYCC, Comic Art Con or anywhere else. 

[First Upgrade]

2 hours ago, Buzzetta said:

This is why I do not even bother or never have serious considerations of buying anything from the Donnelly brothers or Cool Lines Art whenever I see them at NYCC, Comic Art Con or anywhere else. 

This is 'easy' to do when seeing them in person. It can be less 'easy' when their consignments are entered across online auction venues...see those 'Featured' listings ending today...