Are this at least legitimate Bob Kane ghosts? 0

[Captain Canuck]

1 minute ago, Artboy99 said:

very possible. But then if drawn by a "Ghost artist" at least the ghost artist knows something about line variation, accurate linework and using various tools to complete the work whereas the Joker page at the top of my previous post is just awful. Very poor drawing.

Do we even know if Kane came up with the idea for Batman all by himself? For those in the know, Kane has done more disservice towards his legacy than he intended by not giving credit to Finger and all of his ghost artists creating doubt to whether he drew any character or not. Are there any other artists who fall into this bracket, Lee, Eisner, Shuster, Kirby, ...?

[Bronty]

Morgan, IMO if they will take them back in exchange for originals from established artists, run don't walk to do so.

However, my question is - what are they going to give you in exchange?   You mention alex ross but I see the ross stuff in your room tends to be prints.

Does that mean they'd give you ross prints as opposed to originals in exchange.

My opinion would be that any thing you can get in exchange that's actually original work is preferable.    If they are trading you the "Kanes" for prints, well, its a nice gesture but I'm not sure how you're really ahead.   Prints look neat on the wall and that but their value is only decorative for the most part; IMHO you are paying too much for the prints as well.

Salvage what you can that's original out of an exchange or talk to a lawyer.   

From my POV I'll go back to what I said in the first post on this topic.   I don't think there is any way some of these were done by a professional artist (whether Kane or ghost).

Just my opinion, but if it was my money I wouldn't be forking it over for this stuff.  

If you can get a cash refund take it and run.

Edited April 18, 2017 by Bronty

[artdealer]

55 minutes ago, Captain Canuck said:

Or maybe not done by Kane at all. Do we know for certain if Kane worked on any Batman issue? Beyond taking claim.  Did he not have a ghost artist from day one? As well, didn't he also do that with Bill Finger. 

Batman #23 cover drawn by D I c k Sprang. 

No Kane here.

Edited April 18, 2017 by artdealer

[Bronty]

2 hours ago, Captain Canuck said:

Or maybe not done by Kane at all. Do we know for certain if Kane worked on any Batman issue? Beyond taking claim.  Did he not have a ghost artist from day one? As well, didn't he also do that with Bill Finger. 

I tend to think he did tec 27 cover at least, as its not well drawn and swiped raymond.   But yeah, who knows when it comes to Kane.   I'm sure others know better than me but its all so questionable.

Edited April 19, 2017 by Bronty

[Captain Canuck]

5 minutes ago, Bronty said:

I tend to think he did tec 27 cover at least, as its not well drawn and swiped raymond.   But yeah, who knows when it comes to Kane.   I'm sure others know better than me but its all so questionable.

Are we sure he didn't even have a ghost swipe that cover? He was an established artist at that point. 

[Bronty]

No we aren't sure.    I think the swipe makes it a little more likely, but yeah, I agree.

[batman_fan]

2 hours ago, Artboy99 said:

Kane wasn't the greatest artist but he at least had line weight variations.

This image as an example, is very amateur. The entire page looks to have been drawn with the same pen and has no line variation, the inking is very badly done. The lines in the legs are terrible, they have a rushed feel.

Whereas this Joker cover by Kane, you can see some line weight changes, like on the Joker's nose.

The thing is, maybe the art on the cover to 23 was drawn by Kane and INKED by someone more competent.

All I can say is this: to the trained eye of an artist I can tell the first image is drawn by someone with little skill.

Batman 23 looks like D ick Sprang to me.

[batman_fan]

I would personally love a Batman piece by Kane but with all the uncertainty around who really did it and fakes out there, I wouldn't take a chance on anything and plunk down money for something he supposedly did.

[Crowzilla]

3 hours ago, Artboy99 said:

 

Whereas this Joker cover by Kane, you can see some line weight changes, like on the Joker's nose.

 

This cover has always been identified as Sprang and pretty sure he verified that fact.

[Artboy99]

5 minutes ago, Crowzilla said:

This cover has always been identified as Sprang and pretty sure he verified that fact.

right on

[Morgan0714]

20 hours ago, Bronty said:

Morgan, IMO if they will take them back in exchange for originals from established artists, run don't walk to do so.

However, my question is - what are they going to give you in exchange?   You mention alex ross but I see the ross stuff in your room tends to be prints.

Does that mean they'd give you ross prints as opposed to originals in exchange.

My opinion would be that any thing you can get in exchange that's actually original work is preferable.    If they are trading you the "Kanes" for prints, well, its a nice gesture but I'm not sure how you're really ahead.   Prints look neat on the wall and that but their value is only decorative for the most part; IMHO you are paying too much for the prints as well.

Salvage what you can that's original out of an exchange or talk to a lawyer.   

From my POV I'll go back to what I said in the first post on this topic.   I don't think there is any way some of these were done by a professional artist (whether Kane or ghost).

Just my opinion, but if it was my money I wouldn't be forking it over for this stuff.  

If you can get a cash refund take it and run.

He also does have some EP1/25 Alex Ross Batman stuff on canvas. Is this what you mean by an even trade for the canvas version over the nice paper version? Or are you speaking of the "1 out of 1" #3 Alex Ross has on loan at the Norman Rockwell Museum for sale at $20,000 on his website? http://www.alexrossart.com/Alex-Ross-Batman-Green-Hornet-Cover-03-Painting_p_125.html

[Bronty]

Buy what makes you happy, but if resale value is important to you, don't buy prints for anything more than a hundred bucks.

[comicartcom]

look folks, here's the deal.

Bob Kane.... probably never drew anything. He probably didn't even do Detective #27

or at least, his actual artistic output was very limited.

if you are looking for original golden age Batman art, you are looking for material drawn by Jerry Robinson, Sprang, Moldoff, Jack Burnley or published pages by the unknowns, of which there aren't many.

Even 30 years ago when people offered me art 'drawn by Bob Kane' we all knew it wasn't. But at least back then, there weren't many plain fakes made to deceive

But there's another part.... the fan part. If you don't understand art - the way an artist draws, how he handles his brush, how he does his line, the feathering one artist use that another doesn't, the way they do design.. etc etc etc.. You are never going to be able to identify an original from a fake, because you just don't know what you're looking for. This is of course why you do research... and trust the obvious dealers.

[comicartcom]

2 minutes ago, Bronty said:

Buy what makes you happy, but if resale value is important to you, don't buy prints for anything more than a hundred bucks.

yes to that. always buy it because you like it.

[Bird]

Regarding the OP and the offer of the seller to take the items back...I would return in one transaction and if you want to buy something do that afterwards. Handle getting your money back and then decide what you want to buy; I wouldn't want the "trade" to effect the value and I would ask for refunds without condition. Take the owner up on his offer and return asap.

[comicartcom]

4 hours ago, Bird said:

Regarding the OP and the offer of the seller to take the items back...I would return in one transaction and if you want to buy something do that afterwards. Handle getting your money back and then decide what you want to buy; I wouldn't want the "trade" to effect the value and I would ask for refunds without condition. Take the owner up on his offer and return asap.

I agree

[Bronty]

5 hours ago, Bird said:

Regarding the OP and the offer of the seller to take the items back...I would return in one transaction and if you want to buy something do that afterwards. Handle getting your money back and then decide what you want to buy; I wouldn't want the "trade" to effect the value and I would ask for refunds without condition. Take the owner up on his offer and return asap.

totally agree

[Bronty]

anybody live close to Morgan?   I get the sense he's a little foggy on originals vs prints and I'd invite him over to show him in person, except for the small matter of 4,000 miles or so.

[Catwoman_Fan]

This comic by Ty Templeton, is probably what you are thinking of

19 hours ago, Bill C said:

As already pointed out, the Detective 27 cover image (of the main hero and captured crook) was swiped.

Actually the story title, story itself, and many panels from Detective 27 were direct swipes from a Shadow pulp. I have tons of side by side comparisons

There was also a 1 pager drawn (forget by who) on what Batman would have looked like with only Kane ideas. Have it somewhere. Not sure how accurate it is, but it shows the limited input Kane had.

It's pretty obvious he did a huge disservice credit wise to many people. I guess in his defense, he took all the credit in a time when comic creators probably didn't think too much about getting credit (at least as opposed to today).

No offense meant to anyone- but knowing his character, how little he worked on the Batman mythos, how much of it was swiped, and more importantly how he drew literally almost nothing- it's hard to see why anyone would collect Kane art.

 

[Bronty]

 that's pretty good