• When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

YEAH, YEAH,...LETS SEE EM BOTH !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

104 posts in this topic

What are you talking about "the work that was done"?

 

There has not been any restoration done on these items, and I don't know why you would think there was.

 

Then you all are pulling some "creative scanning". 893naughty-thumb.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What are you talking about "the work that was done"?

 

There has not been any restoration done on these items, and I don't know why you would think there was.

 

Because we've all seen the scan posted in this thread that showed OBVIOUS staining around the Batman logo. The image posted in the Heritage newsletter showed no such staining leading us to believe you folks had suggested to the consignor to have the page cleaned up.

 

IF that's not the case, then those are some misleading scans!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

What are you talking about "the work that was done"?

 

There has not been any restoration done on these items, and I don't know why you would think there was.

 

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

 

 

Then you all are pulling some "creative scanning".

 

Like Lon, I have no idea what you're talking about here. Please explain what you mean by "restoration" and "creative scanning" as it relates to this cover. Lon and I have both seen this cover in person and held it in our hands. There has not been any work of any kind done on this cover, period. The image on our website (www.HeritageComics.com) is an accurate depiction of this piece.

 

Please, if I'm not understanding what you're saying here, enlighten me.

 

Best,

 

John E. Petty

Director of Media Relations

Heritage Galleries & Auctioneers

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What are you talking about "the work that was done"?

 

There has not been any restoration done on these items, and I don't know why you would think there was.

 

Because we've all seen the scan posted in this thread that showed OBVIOUS staining around the Batman logo. The image posted in the Heritage newsletter showed no such staining leading us to believe you folks had suggested to the consignor to have the page cleaned up.

 

IF that's not the case, then those are some misleading scans!

 

i ain't seeing it either...

 

confused-smiley-013.gif

 

the scan in this thread sure is darker, but the foxing in the logo looks the same to me

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

What are you talking about "the work that was done"?

 

There has not been any restoration done on these items, and I don't know why you would think there was.

 

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

 

 

Then you all are pulling some "creative scanning".

 

Like Lon, I have no idea what you're talking about here. Please explain what you mean by "restoration" and "creative scanning" as it relates to this cover. Lon and I have both seen this cover in person and held it in our hands. There has not been any work of any kind done on this cover, period. The image on our website (www.HeritageComics.com) is an accurate depiction of this piece.

 

Please, if I'm not understanding what you're saying here, enlighten me.

 

Best,

 

John E. Petty

Director of Media Relations

Heritage Galleries & Auctioneers

 

Between the scan on your site and this one, witch one is representative of the actual piece?

 

Let me make it easy for you.

 

Posted in this thread:

 

Batman011-Cover.jpg

 

Posted on Heritage website (I made it smaller):

 

817086001o.jpg

 

Note the pure whiteness of the Heritage scan. You can't see the whiteout or the staining. Are you saying that this very old piece of art is bone white? I find that hard to believe.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

oh. now i see it. those contrast/brightness sliders in Photoshop are rather excellent, aren't they?

 

"ctrl" + "shift" + L

Link to comment
Share on other sites

oh. now i see it. those contrast/brightness sliders in Photoshop are rather excellent, aren't they?

 

"ctrl" + "shift" + L

 

thumbsup2.gif

 

They do it with all their scans. Some time this weekend I'll post some real scans of books I've won from them along with their "bleached" scans and you'll be surprised at the results. Or maybe not so surprised.....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let me make it easy for you.

 

Easy enough for me to see the difference. Maybe they hired Hammer to manipulate the image for them? insane.gif

 

In all seriousness, if you Heritage guys don't see the problem then I can recommend a couple good optometrists I know... 893scratchchin-thumb.gif

 

Jim

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OldGuy,

 

 

893whatthe.gif Thanks for the comparison. The Heritage scan on their website certainly fooled me into believing

the cover art was nicer in appearance. I didn’t notice the excess white-out in their scan.

In the interest of full disclosure, I am confident the final description will point this out. thumbsup2.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In the interest of full disclosure, I am confident the final description will point this out.

 

At this point I have little doubt of that.

 

This conversation sure did come to a screeching halt all of a sudden.....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

the sad thing is that there wasn't a lack of interest to begin with, even with the pics KrazyKat posted, whiteout and all.

 

but now, in an effort to put the pieces in the best light, Heritage has provided scans which come up short on the smell test. which of course they did not need to do.

 

it's disappointing, but not Koos-like. one wonders if Sotheby's adjusts the colour balance of paintings they offer for sale online

Link to comment
Share on other sites

John and I just pulled the piece out of the safe and compared it to the two images.

 

I'm not sure where that top (dark) image came from. It looks like a quick digital picture, and you can see something in the background. It is overly dark, and makes the fixer stains in the logo look darker and browner than they are.

 

The second image looks much closer to the actual piece, but it is a little bit too light. It was scanned, as opposed to photographed. If you look at the full-sized image on our website, you can still see all of the white-out quite clearly. In the scan that Old Guy reduced and posted here, it isn't quite as apparent. This is exactly why we go to such pains to post over-sized scans on our website.

 

Let me be very clear, however: THERE HAS BEEN NO WORK OF ANY KIND DONE ON THIS COVER.

 

I'm going to have them re-scan the art and see how it turns out. On a piece of art that is mainly all white, it is going to turn out looking TOO white as a rule. I'm not sure how much experience you all have with scanning, but if you scan something white, it comes out blasted white unless you do something to darken it down. When I used to scan comics for eBay, I would have to put a black background behind a white-covered book, otherwise you could not tell where the cover of the book ended, and the scanner cover started.

 

Of course, anyone interested in bidding on this cover is more than welcome to come to the office and view it in person. We always offer lot viewing a week before a scheduled auction, and we're always happy to accommodate special appointments and requests.

 

Thanks for your interest,

Lon

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The second image looks much closer to the actual piece, but it is a little bit too light.

 

I'd venture to say it's a lot to light.

 

If you look at the full-sized image on our website, you can still see all of the white-out quite clearly. In the scan that Old Guy reduced and posted here, it isn't quite as apparent. This is exactly why we go to such pains to post over-sized scans on our website.

 

In fairness, here's the full size scan.

 

817086001o.jpg

 

Let me be very clear, however: THERE HAS BEEN NO WORK OF ANY KIND DONE ON THIS COVER.

 

Understood.

 

I'm going to have them re-scan the art and see how it turns out. On a piece of art that is mainly all white, it is going to turn out looking TOO white as a rule.

 

Not if it's done correctly.

 

I'm not sure how much experience you all have with scanning, but if you scan something white, it comes out blasted white unless you do something to darken it down.

 

I know enough about scanning to say that I have no problem scanning white comics or art without them getting bleached out. Redhook (Brad) can discuss this on a more technical level then I can, but I know he has no problem with it either (or most of the sellers on this board for that matter).

 

When I used to scan comics for eBay, I would have to put a black background behind a white-covered book, otherwise you could not tell where the cover of the book ended, and the scanner cover started.

 

That can help, but isn't needed to successfully scan white comics.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The second image looks much closer to the actual piece, but it is a little bit too light. It was scanned, as opposed to photographed. If you look at the full-sized image on our website, you can still see all of the white-out quite clearly. In the scan that Old Guy reduced and posted here, it isn't quite as apparent. This is exactly why we go to such pains to post over-sized scans on our website.

 

In looking at the full size scan you can still not see all the white-out. I point you to the border area on the right side. In the upper border where the first playing card ends there is some very obvious white-out (at least in the first scan we were shown) - it is invisible in the scan you have provided, and you would really have to convince yourself that you can even see the white-out to the right of the Robin figure in the border.

 

Heritage HAS been known to doctor scans before - this is a fact. And Heritage officials have apologized for it before and said it was an "overzealous employee" who did it without the consent or knowledge of the higher-ups. But it has been done, and this scan gives the appearance that the artwork is in better condition that it really is.

 

It still does not address the fact of your mis-leading (some would call it a lie) press release stating that it is the earliest Batman/Detective cover known, when in fact it's not even the earliest known Joker cover - let alone Batman/Detective cover.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow, the knives are really out in this thread.

 

First, why is everyone assuming that the scan posted by krazykat is somehow the "real" scan. Let's consider the source for a moment, shall we? I'm not a litigator, but if ever there was an impeachable witness, this would be it.

 

Second, we always say we want the big dealers to come on here to answer questions. So in response to questions whether any work has been done on the cover, two Heritage reps have come on here and stated point blank, with no equivocation, that no restoration has been done. The response has basically been that they are liars or that even if they're telling the truth, that they're still being fraudsters by doctoring the scans somehow. If I were a dealer, I'd stay away from here too because no matter what I said, it would never satisfy some people because it wasn't the answer they wanted to hear. sign-rantpost.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

you think these are knives?

 

i think they're getting a lot of slack here. sure, the original poster's not exactly awash with credibility, but that's not even the issue.

 

sure, Heritage has a right to make their products look as good as possible, and even further, there is no one in their right minds who would actually buy this artwork without prior, in-hand inspection.

 

but the simple fact is that this piece has extensive use of gesso, or whatever it is, on it. not that you would ever know by looking at the scans from Heritage. scans which in many cases might actually provide the impetus for collectors to travel to see the work in-hand...

 

confused-smiley-013.gif

 

actually, my opinion should amount to this much --><-- since there is no way in hell i would be able to buy this piece. but even going off of a scan/photo like provided by krazykat, this piece would have had plenty of interest in the community...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm more concerned about how much darker the blacks are in the second scan then the stains and the rest of the page brightening. The inks look kind of faded especially in Batman's face when compared to the 2nd scan. From other scans I have seen of older art like the cover to Tec 71 and Tec 69 they appeared much like the first Batman 11 scan...But who can forget that Batman 11 was also the book that was obviously sliced and diced in a Blue label CGC case. laugh.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites