Devaluation implications on OA tampering 0

[comicwiz]

I need to poll for opinions on this continuing pattern of art turning up with elements added to OA that were never there to begin with. These graphic elements include but are not limited to logos, title, masthead paste-up, etc.  In the case of covers, the point of differentiation is simple - if the OA appeared with none of these elements, and were added later, I need to hear opinions on how this devalues the art.

My opinion of art being defaced such as the example below is that it is worth less than when it first sold in 2014 for $669.20.  The question is, how much less.

This may be more of a forward statement to a seller who continues to warn in their listings that "even gentle handling can drop its value & collectibility." Hopefully, on the example shown, the seller had the presence of mind not to perform these alterations directly on the board, but on an overlay.

I understand  that by illustrating this point through visual reference that it will draw in opinions toward the actual seller - my intention in broaching this subject is not to sling mud, but to crowd source for opinions and thoughts on factors impacting value. 

Similar to someone trimming a comic, I'm not asking for confirmation on whether this qualifies as defacing a collectible as I've already arrived at that conclusion, but how much the OA community feels it should impact value. 

More specifically, are we talking a 1/4 of value if it's directly pasted on the board of what would have otherwise been the unaltered OA? Some, or no impact at all if they are pasted on an overlay? How about factors of increased value if it had just been left alone?

NOTE: I don't want to draw in examples of art that had paste-ups that fell off, just examples of art that never had any to begin with.

I concede that the parallels to restoring collectibles to enhance their appearance is likely behind the motivation of such practices, but what I'm hoping this post does is stimulate enough discussion around avoidance and consequences so the community can come to agreement on whether it does devalue art.

 

Edited April 17, 2017 by comicwiz

[malvin]

Not going to comment on all the other forms, but if it is an overlay, I would say it is zero to positive impact and not in any way negative

Malvin

[comiconxion]

I think you're in the minority.  Most people would say it increases the value and many people pay to have these created as some collectors want the art to look like it did when it was published.  As long as it's added on an overlay, it really doesn't negatively impact the art. 

[SquareChaos]

I agree with @malvin - not sure why anyone would find fault with an overlay. 

[comicwiz]

Good points, but I'm not sure about the opinion of positive influence. And I say this because disclosure is key, which is not happening.

The other thing to consider is all these pieces are returning with a hefty increase in value, in some cases 3x or more higher than it originally sold, and I'm not sure it's either justified, nor is the lack of disclosure having a positive influence on the practice, even in the case where it's done using an overlay.

[Bird]

You start with the premise that adding these things devalues the art. I think that premise is questionable at best.

I think adding stats, overlays, etc. is one discussion and the perceived "lack of disclosure" is a whole other discussion.

[comicwiz]

4 minutes ago, SquareChaos said:

I agree with @malvin - not sure why anyone would find fault with an overlay. 

Again, the fault is the lack of disclosure. Neither the Pedigree auction in 2017 (which saw it unsold for $1800) or the recent eBay listing (April 17th, 2017) which ended unsold at just under $1800 mentioned anything about the added elements.

I have nothing to go by in any of the past listings which even mention anything was added from the first time it appeared on Heritage in 2014. All I know is it's been added.

So this isn't simplified by saying "I have no issue with overlays."

[Christopher_Short]

Got a Bronze cover in the Mid 4 figure range that was on Acetate with rubber cement browning the whole image, not very atractive. The art did not include any of the graphic text associated with the cover AND any of the fill in black areas that indicated outerspace.  Sold the piece for pretty much what I paid. Within months, the person who purchased it had it professionally cleaned and added an overlay with a recreation of the Masthead and text along with the missing black. Was put on auction and sold for about 8k more (now a 5 figure piece).....

 

[Phill the Governor]

1 minute ago, comicwiz said:

Good points, but I'm not sure about the opinion of positive influence. And I say this because disclosure is key, which is not happening.

The other thing to consider is all these pieces are returning with a hefty increase in value, in some cases 3x or more higher than it originally sold, and I'm not sure it's either justified, nor is the lack of disclosure having a positive influence on the practice, even in the case where it's done using an overlay.

As long as the art hasn't been altered then it shouldn't matter. If the new stats are adhered directly on the art that's a different story. Otherwise who cares if a piece sells for 3x what it sold for originally because it now has stats on an overlay. I for one am not surprised considering we're dealing with pieces of art that are subjective by nature and the majority of collectors are OCD by nature. 

[comicwiz]

Just now, Bird said:

You start with the premise that adding these things devalues the art. I think that premise is questionable at best.

I think adding stats, overlays, etc. is one discussion and the perceived "lack of disclosure" is a whole other discussion.

If it was a one-of, I'd agree to some extent. But there's a pattern here. I find fault in both, and they are linked in any discussion on value.

[comicwiz]

9 minutes ago, Christopher_Short said:

Got a Bronze cover in the Mid 4 figure range that was on Acetate with rubber cement browning the whole image, not very atractive. The art did not include any of the graphic text associated with the cover AND any of the fill in black areas that indicated outerspace.  Sold the piece for pretty much what I paid. Within months, the person who purchased it had it professionally cleaned and added an overlay with a recreation of the Masthead and text along with the missing black. Was put on auction and sold for about 8k more (now a 5 figure piece).....

 

This is a good test case, but a bit disimilar as well.

All these Whitman covers from the period came with no paste-up elements, just the original inked art.

Some have bluelines as indications for placement of logos, title, etc.

I have a cover that has the same issue you were describing, but that cement browning is an indication the paste-ups were there at one time, but were lost or removed at some point. I actually think adding it on an overlay is the right way to go in such situations.

Again, I think it's a little different when they were never there to begin with.

Edited April 17, 2017 by comicwiz

[SquareChaos]

32 minutes ago, comicwiz said:

Again, the fault is the lack of disclosure. Neither the Pedigree auction in 2017 (which saw it unsold for $1800) or the recent eBay listing (April 17th, 2017) which ended unsold at just under $1800 mentioned anything about the added elements.

I have nothing to go by in any of the past listings which even mention anything was added from the first time it appeared on Heritage in 2014. All I know is it's been added.

So this isn't simplified by saying "I have no issue with overlays."

I understand, but I guess I approach it as I'd approach all secondary markets and most first - buyer beware. If I catch something that the seller failed to disclose, naturally it would make me wonder what else they have failed to disclose, and then it is a question of how badly I want the piece in question. I've personally never encountered this type of situation in my few years of collecting, so it is an interesting scenario.

Anyway, I think the reason you received more than one such "I have no issue with overlays" answer is because an overlay does not modify the original. If all we're talking about is an overlay, and you're sure of it, then you've basically leveled the playing field - there is no longer an asymmetry of information, and you have a number of options from this position. Do you try to negotiate the seller down in price to reflect what you believe to be reality? Maybe the seller doesn't even know, and you now find the scenario flipped where they wonder if you're the shady one? Or do you just move on and take that money to another piece? I have to imagine each scenario would be unique based on the buyer's preferences and whether or not the seller really was actively attempting to rip someone off.

[thehumantorch]

Overlays are fine but it should be disclosed.  People should know exactly what they're buying.
Clearly creating overlays are for profit and selling without disclosure is dishonest.

Permanently adding something that wasn't there to begin with is worse and brings down the value to me.

[ESeffinga]

^Exactly that. And if a piece has overlays, it should be noted what is original to the production process and what was recreated after the fact. Chances are in-hand it's much easier to tell than it is in scans for online bidding. At least for folks that are familiar with the materials used for old overlays and stats, vs modern attempts.

Permanently altering an original will get you a smack where I come from.

And IMO there's a world of difference between restoration (which still needs to be disclosed when, where and by whom) and alteration.

-e.

Edited April 17, 2017 by ESeffinga

[wurstisart]

Back in the day the overlay was part of the pruning process.

Modern covers did not need overlays for them getting printed. So all the overlay does is make it look like the actual cover.

 

Me personally. 

I like the old original cover with overlays but don't like it on modern pieces.

[Mickey7]

I don't mind overlays when they are disclosed.  So, I think the ebay seller should disclose this information.  More info on a piece's history the better. 

 

 

Edited April 18, 2017 by Mickey7

[IngelsFan]

 I am curious to see what responses come in for this. I have in my collection covers that have recreated logos where the logo had been reused on every issue so a lot of the OA covers are missing it. I also have Dell and Charlton covers that never had logos and they remain logo-less today. I also have a GA cover that I'm absolutely torn on, because some  of the original logo text is there, but some is missing. Should I have it all removed and recreations put in an overlay? Should I have recreations done just for the missing pieces and affix them to the cover the same as the ones that are already there?

To muddy the water a bit, has anyone every done this with a painted cover?

[comicwiz]

16 minutes ago, Mickey7 said:

If it was re-inked, this should obviously be disclosed. 

I can't comment on this with any degree of certainty, but judging from other images from the seller, they tend to oversaturate brightness/contrast, so I think the difference you see is digital manipulation to darken the black inks.

Edited April 17, 2017 by comicwiz

[comicwiz]

21 minutes ago, IngelsFan said:

To muddy the water a bit, has anyone every done this with a painted cover?

Incidentally, this thought had occurred to me when I wrote this post.

To reiterate, these Whitman covers never came with any logos/titles - shown are covers from my collection, so again, these never came with any to begin with:

 

[thehumantorch]

31 minutes ago, Mickey7 said:

I don't mind overlays when they are disclosed.  So, I think the ebay seller should disclose this information.  More info on a piece's history the better. 

However, more concerning to me would be the possibility the piece was re-inked?   Blowing up the scans from the original Heritage listing compared to the ebay listing, it appears the inks are different.   If this is the case, I think the piece should take a huge hit in value.   If it was re-inked, this should obviously be disclosed. 

 

 

I noticed the inks looked darker in the later image, not sure if it's been re-inked or just different scanner settings.
Re-inked is an awful idea.