Fake(?) FF #48 cover shows up at ECCC 4 4

[John S.]

18 minutes ago, tth2 said:

When I was in London recently and met up with some Boardies, the question of forgeries was raised with the prominent OA collector in the group.  His answer was that the provenance of every significant piece of OA was so well known that no forged piece could possibly be foisted on the market, at least not amongst the cognoscenti.

I admire anyone who is able to have that degree of certainty about anything in life.

Tim the conversation (by that point you had drunk a few, so are forgiven)  was discussing known pieces and being able to identify a forgery of one of those notable pieces, given the right level of connections and the small amount of players at that level.

 

Obviously with earlier art covers not known to exist and specific later covers like the FF 48-50, would need to be left to the experts to identify any forgeries.

Edited April 29, 2018 by John S.

[tth2]

9 hours ago, John S. said:

Tim the conversation (by that point you had drunk a few, so are forgiven)  was discussing known pieces and being able to identify a forgery of one of those notable pieces, given the right level of connections and the small amount of players at that level.

 

Obviously with earlier art covers not known to exist and specific later covers like the FF 48-50, would need to be left to the experts to identify any forgeries.

No John, the specific example I used was a piece where the existence was not certain and it was fresh to the market.  You may remember I referred to the AF 15 cover, which you reasonably conjectured did not exist based on several data points, but on the other hand could not prove for sure that it did not exist.  

Why would I use a known piece as an example?  It would be crazy for someone to try forge the first Wolverine panel, for example, because there'd be a few zillion people who know the page was sold on Heritage and would question the authenticity if the provenance couldn't be proved. 

[aokartman]

Interesting. 

tth2 said..."It would be crazy for someone to try forge the first Wolverine panel, for example, because there'd be a few zillion people who know the page was sold on Heritage and would question the authenticity if the provenance couldn't be proved."

This reminds me of the early days of eBay when I was selling an oil painting by a listed regional artist, and I sent a shout out to museums in that area.  Their responses included "Sorry, we don't buy anything off eBay", implying it's too dicey.  It was a painting from my mother's estate which clearly (to me) was authentic, but lacked imprimature of any previous sales notice.

Major auction houses work hard to maintain their standards, knowing that future collectors rely on the provenance, and values are affected.

Hence the careful descriptions of the possibly Donnelly (?) enhanced covers.

David

[John S.]

6 hours ago, tth2 said:

No John, the specific example I used was a piece where the existence was not certain and it was fresh to the market.  You may remember I referred to the AF 15 cover, which you reasonably conjectured did not exist based on several data points, but on the other hand could not prove for sure that it did not exist.  

Why would I use a known piece as an example?  It would be crazy for someone to try forge the first Wolverine panel, for example, because there'd be a few zillion people who know the page was sold on Heritage and would question the authenticity if the provenance couldn't be proved. 

Well obviously a miscommunication somewhere along the line as whilst i remember you using the AF #15 cover as an example, i believed that was just a singular example of an expensive piece, and genuinely thought you were just talking about art that was out there, and not unknown art pieces that have never surfaced. It was extremely loud where we were, so maybe i didnt hear correctly, or maybe i had drunk too much by that stage.

 

As i mentioned previously, in those cases it would need to be authenticated by experts.

Edited April 29, 2018 by John S.

[NelsonAI]

FYI - I'm hearing this second hand but I was told that the guy in the picture studying the alleged "FF48" wearing the Captain America cap was not the "owner" of the art.  The guy in the pic apparantly is a friend of Joe Sinnott that assists him at shows.

Cheers!

N.

Edited April 29, 2018 by NelsonAI
typos

[lobrac]

Also heard second hand, I was told "Joe Sinnott" is actually Mark Landis cosplaying at the con as "Joe Sinnott." This is all starting to get pretty confusing.

[tth2]

5 hours ago, NelsonAI said:

FYI - I'm hearing this second hand but I was told that the guy in the picture studying the alleged "FF48" wearing the Captain America cap was not the "owner" of the art.  The guy in the pic apparantly is a friend of Joe Sinnott that assists him at shows.

Cheers!

N.

Interesting.  But this seems to contradict with Vodou's statement: "I bet that's the owner holding it. If so, I don't need further clues."  This certainly seemed to indicate that he could tell from the back of the head who it was and that it was some big hitter who could plausibly own the FF 48 and 52 covers, not some assistant.

[thethedew]

If that cover really IS a fake, then the cult of secrecy in this hobby has enabled its existence.

[Bronty]

8 minutes ago, thethedew said:

If that cover really IS a fake, then the cult of secrecy in this hobby has enabled its existence.

Can’t change human nature.   People aren’t going to freely give away information that they perceive has value

[thethedew]

1 hour ago, Bronty said:

Can’t change human nature.   People aren’t going to freely give away information that they perceive has value

Ah, don't bother me with Common Sense while I'm having fun pointing fingers and feeling smug.

 

Edited April 30, 2018 by thethedew

[Mmehdy]

well the real owner of the cover could come forward on the boards.........which leads me to this conclusion..there could be many more fakes out there....who did, and who sold it......

[buyatari]

3 hours ago, thethedew said:

If that cover really IS a fake, then the cult of secrecy in this hobby has enabled its existence.

If that cover is a fake what transparency would have prevented it?

If anything I'd argue that the common knowledge of which covers have not been found yet gives forgers a better idea of which covers to fake. 

Edited April 30, 2018 by buyatari

[PhilipB2k17]

3 hours ago, thethedew said:

If that cover really IS a fake, then the cult of secrecy in this hobby has enabled its existence.

[PhilipB2k17]

27 minutes ago, buyatari said:

If that cover is a fake what transparency would have prevented it?

If anything I'd argue that the common knowledge of which covers have not been found yet gives forgers a better idea of which covers to fake. 

Faking high profile pages with a legit auction history, or that are posted on someone’s CAF gallery, would not be difficult. 

~Passing them off as genuine~ would be. 

 

Edited April 30, 2018 by PhilipB2k17

[thethedew]

54 minutes ago, buyatari said:

If that cover is a fake what transparency would have prevented it?

If anything I'd argue that the common knowledge of which covers have not been found yet gives forgers a better idea of which covers to fake. 

Famous episodes of 'Doctor Who' aside, nobody bothers to try to fake the Mona Lisa, because everyone knows where it is, and precisely what it looks like.

'Missing' covers obviously are an easier mark as no-one but the original artist knows what they might look like.

Personally, I'm disturbed by the notion that that FF48 piece might likely be a fake.  It's hard to tell from just a 72dpi internet photo, but it looks pretty legit to me, and I find it uncomfortable that my years of experience might well have failed me should it ever have been laid in front of me.  I'm spoiled, too used to being able to confirm a piece is legit with a quick glance.  When the Hobby is getting big enough to attract skillful forgers, we have a serious problem.

I hope more info on this issue is forthcoming.

[Mr. Machismo]

When I’m buying a piece that’s not directly from the artist, I often pull up a large published image on Google and study the two. Brush strokes, the way the ink settles on the page, things like that. A “spot the differences game”, essentially. Dependent on the price, I’ll look into the seller as well.

I assumed this was the norm, but maybe I’m mistaken? Even with older art like 60s covers, you still have the physical comic (and probably some Google images) to inspect for comparison. 

Edited April 30, 2018 by Mr. Machismo

[batman_fan]

Maybe the picture of the cover is not the best but from what I can see, I thought it looked pretty decent. Now I haven’t done a detailed comparison to the original so don’t know how well it looks next to it. 

[delekkerste]

5 hours ago, thethedew said:

Personally, I'm disturbed by the notion that that FF48 piece might likely be a fake.  It's hard to tell from just a 72dpi internet photo, but it looks pretty legit to me, and I find it uncomfortable that my years of experience might well have failed me should it ever have been laid in front of me.

It may look pretty legit from that distance, angle and photo resolution, but, it's entirely possible that red flags would go up immediately if you saw it in person or even a high-resolution scan of it.  If Sinnott and/or the people around him quickly raised multiple issues with the piece after seeing it up close, I'm guessing that many/most experienced collectors would have recognized it as problematic as well.    

Edited April 30, 2018 by delekkerste

[vodou]

6 hours ago, thethedew said:

Famous episodes of 'Doctor Who' aside, nobody bothers to try to fake the Mona Lisa, because everyone knows where it is, and precisely what it looks like.

There are a ton of vintage fake Mona Lisa out there. ML wasn't always at the Louvre and it wasn't always the most prominent piece they had. The only reason the fakes aren't more interesting (aka 'scary!') today is that we all know where ML is hanging. Or do we? Is the displayed ML actually a AE page (lol) or color photocopy, to keep the real one out of harm's way? Is the Louvre's ML actually a fake, known or unknown to them? (One can imagine the many scenarios where either could be true yet not be general public knowledge.) Etc etc etc. How many of us have actually even been to Paris and seen ML in person? If you have, would you know the real one from a well (or even not so well) executed copy? And so then the rest of us are just taking it on the word of "everybody else, expert and not alike" that the Paris Louvre ML is exactly what it's purported to be, yadda yadda yadda. That's actually pretty thin stuff right there, no?

[pemart1966]

9 hours ago, thethedew said:

Famous episodes of 'Doctor Who' aside, nobody bothers to try to fake the Mona Lisa, because everyone knows where it is, and precisely what it looks like.

'Missing' covers obviously are an easier mark as no-one but the original artist knows what they might look like.

Personally, I'm disturbed by the notion that that FF48 piece might likely be a fake.  It's hard to tell from just a 72dpi internet photo, but it looks pretty legit to me, and I find it uncomfortable that my years of experience might well have failed me should it ever have been laid in front of me.  I'm spoiled, too used to being able to confirm a piece is legit with a quick glance.  When the Hobby is getting big enough to attract skillful forgers, we have a serious problem.

I hope more info on this issue is forthcoming.

I'm reading a book right now entitled "The Art of the Con" - it may have been discussed on these boards previously.  Elaborate methods are undertaken to create a "fake" piece of art that looks so authentic that it fools "experts"; critics; gallery owners; and ultimately, buyers.  Interesting reading.

If you handle enough Marvel interior art, you get a feel for it; what it looks like; how it feels in your hands; the "patina"; yes, even how it smells.  You just know if you have the real McCoy in your hands.

I've seen and held LOTS of Marvel interiors over the years BUT I've seen in person, I think 1 vintage 60s ('61-'67) Marvel cover, but never held one and I'm sure that the majority on this thread are the same.  

There's that big gap in the mid 60s where no examples have yet surfaced.  Think about how some unscrupulous individual could jump right in, with a faked piece; a plausible background story.  Add a potential buyer eager to get the scoop on fellow collectors and SOOOO wanting to believe that it's real - he gets conned.  

 

Edited April 30, 2018 by pemart1966