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

[pemart1966]

11 hours ago, Mmehdy said:

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......

...and regardless of whether it was done as a lark and not with the intent to deceive, if the piece was a good enough fake it could end up in the hands of someone who did want to use it with the  "intent to deceive" - that to me is the scary part.

Edited April 30, 2018 by pemart1966

[Mmehdy]

23 minutes ago, pemart1966 said:

...and regardless of whether it was done as a lark and not with the intent to deceive, if the piece was a good enough fake it could end up in the hands of someone who did want to use it with the  "intent to deceive" - that to me is the scary part.

the signing is the key....to deceive, I am wondering if someone on the boards has contact with the artist and could get some straight answers or possible does he have a website?? we need to know.....

[comicwiz]

The signing is the part that keeps bouncing around in my head. Assuming it's real, and as a fan driven pursuit, I can see someone wanting to carry around a quarter to half million cover around at a show because they can, but why not arrange a private signing and put a little extra into the creators pocket, while offsetting the massive risks of getting jacked by professional thieves. Again, assuming it's real, the signature anywhere other than the border will have a nominal effect, if any impact at all, from the perspective of value enhancement. On the flipside, it adds an element of authenticity to something that isn't genuine, and the payoff could be large if it's an artist at an advanced age, with possibly deteriorating vision. The latter is the thing that skeeves me out even more than someone owning a fake.

Edited April 30, 2018 by comicwiz

[pemart1966]

34 minutes ago, Mmehdy said:

the signing is the key....to deceive, I am wondering if someone on the boards has contact with the artist and could get some straight answers or possible does he have a website?? we need to know.....

The FF 48 cover could be a one off and if it was done with "intent to deceive" he wouldn't be easily contactable.

There is an artist named Bruce McCorkindale - some of his works have been posted in CAF.  Seems he's reproduced a number of vintage Marvel covers as commissions. I've never seen one in person so I don't know with what materials he works.  His works are indicated as reproductions by gallery members.  

I am not saying or implying that Bruce is trying or may try to con people.  The point is that HIS works looks pretty good so it's not beyond the realm of imagination or possibility that someone devious with similar talents could try his hand at a con.

[drewincanada]

This makes me think of Rudy Kurniawan and his forgeries of rare and expensive wine. In both Rudy's case and rare OA, the market value of the forgeries make it well worth the time, effort and skill required by the forger to pull it off. In Rudy's case the primary reason for his downfall was that he created vintages of wines that never actually existed. For such a good forger, it was a really stupid mistake. It would be like someone creating OA for AF #16 dated Sept 1962.

However, with Rudy experts also began to notice inconsistencies in the fine details of the labels: typographic elements were slightly misplaced, inks were a little heavy and caused the type to swell more than it should have, etc.

I expect that the same level of forensic work could/will be done with the #48 cover.

[pemart1966]

7 minutes ago, comicwiz said:

 

 

48 minutes ago, Mmehdy said:

 

Edited April 30, 2018 by pemart1966

[pemart1966]

51 minutes ago, Mmehdy said:

the signing is the key....to deceive, I am wondering if someone on the boards has contact with the artist and could get some straight answers or possible does he have a website?? we need to know.....

The signing wouldn't bother me - I wouldn't put any stock in it.  Stan will sign ANYTHING put in front of him won't he?

What MIGHT bother me more is a letter of authenticity from an original creator. 

[pemart1966]

10 minutes ago, drewincanada said:

This makes me think of Rudy Kurniawan and his forgeries of rare and expensive wine. In both Rudy's case and rare OA, the market value of the forgeries make it well worth the time, effort and skill required by the forger to pull it off. In Rudy's case the primary reason for his downfall was that he created vintages of wines that never actually existed. For such a good forger, it was a really stupid mistake. It would be like someone creating OA for AF #16 dated Sept 1962.

However, with Rudy experts also began to notice inconsistencies in the fine details of the labels: typographic elements were slightly misplaced, inks were a little heavy and caused the type to swell more than it should have, etc.

I expect that the same level of forensic work could/will be done with the #48 cover.

Someone could create a fake AF 16 cover and say that it was done up but never used because....

[vodou]

15 minutes ago, drewincanada said:

This makes me think of Rudy Kurniawan and his forgeries of rare and expensive wine. In both Rudy's case and rare OA, the market value of the forgeries make it well worth the time, effort and skill required by the forger to pull it off. In Rudy's case the primary reason for his downfall was that he created vintages of wines that never actually existed. For such a good forger, it was a really stupid mistake. It would be like someone creating OA for AF #16 dated Sept 1962.

However, with Rudy experts also began to notice inconsistencies in the fine details of the labels: typographic elements were slightly misplaced, inks were a little heavy and caused the type to swell more than it should have, etc.

I expect that the same level of forensic work could/will be done with the #48 cover.

That was a great documentary (on Rudy), can't remember the name on the spot though. These things often unravel rather quickly once the hunt is on, it's that first piece that goes wrong that gets others looking at everything. I guess it's a Tipping Point moment when perception momentum shifts from trust to distrust. The key to all this, imo, is treat every piece as suspect, find ways to disprove it to yourself (vs. assuming 'proven!") and then only after failing at every plausible attempt to disprove, accept it as proven (or at least very likely) the real thing. Treat them all like that and the likelihood of being taken, getting stuck with the first piece (prior to anything unraveling) is going to be very low. This is not how human psychology is default set though, so taking the contrarian stance is what's required and that fact also tells you why so many get taken so often and for so much. That tells you how Mark Landis prospered (yes, prospered!) in two different art groups for quite a while before having the rug pulled out from under him...twice. In comic art it was not that the art looked "bad" (even though it did, check George Hagenauer's CAF to see the exact how/why of it) but that more than one example ended up being in the same place at the same time (duh!) Contrarian doubting eyes would have caught the first example the first time due to the "lack" of brushwork alone, no need for the rest and no need for the hobby to be inundated with them for several years. That's just dumb. And then it all happened again in fine art. And just because Mark is out of the business now (but...hmmm...really? I somehow doubt it!) do any of you think he was the first to do it, or the last, in comic art? Of course not. And those other guys have poisoned the hobby (fake Frazetta sketches, anyone?) to some extent already decades ago and it's still going on.

The best educator is handling a lot of bristol board, especially by the same guy/team...and otherwise doubting every piece you come across until all doubts have been extinguished. Even for 1980s US1 panel pages

[vodou]

14 minutes ago, pemart1966 said:

Someone could create a fake AF 16 cover and say that it was done up but never used because....

I know exactly who the buyer would be too. Unless it was a BIN that was $1000 more than he was comfortable paying and then, even though he wasn't going to take it down, he wouldn't tell anybody else what the listing was either

[vodou]

20 minutes ago, pemart1966 said:

The signing wouldn't bother me - I wouldn't put any stock in it.  Stan will sign ANYTHING put in front of him won't he?

What MIGHT bother me more is a letter of authenticity from an original creator. 

Jack Kirby LOA dated 2016?

[pemart1966]

When I first got in to the OA at the time "hobby" in the late 70s, a still prominent member of the community warned me about fake FF 12 pages.  I've never encountered any.  Are there fake FF 12 pages out there?

[MarvelComicsArt]

 

50 minutes ago, vodou said:

That was a great documentary (on Rudy), can't remember the name on the spot though. These things often unravel rather quickly once the hunt is on, it's that first piece that goes wrong that gets others looking at everything. I guess it's a Tipping Point moment when perception momentum shifts from trust to distrust. The key to all this, imo, is treat every piece as suspect, find ways to disprove it to yourself (vs. assuming 'proven!") and then only after failing at every plausible attempt to disprove, accept it as proven (or at least very likely) the real thing. Treat them all like that and the likelihood of being taken, getting stuck with the first piece (prior to anything unraveling) is going to be very low. This is not how human psychology is default set though, so taking the contrarian stance is what's required and that fact also tells you why so many get taken so often and for so much. That tells you how Mark Landis prospered (yes, prospered!) in two different art groups for quite a while before having the rug pulled out from under him...twice. In comic art it was not that the art looked "bad" (even though it did, check George Hagenauer's CAF to see the exact how/why of it) but that more than one example ended up being in the same place at the same time (duh!) Contrarian doubting eyes would have caught the first example the first time due to the "lack" of brushwork alone, no need for the rest and no need for the hobby to be inundated with them for several years. That's just dumb. And then it all happened again in fine art. And just because Mark is out of the business now (but...hmmm...really? I somehow doubt it!) do any of you think he was the first to do it, or the last, in comic art? Of course not. And those other guys have poisoned the hobby (fake Frazetta sketches, anyone?) to some extent already decades ago and it's still going on.

The best educator is handling a lot of bristol board, especially by the same guy/team...and otherwise doubting every piece you come across until all doubts have been extinguished. Even for 1980s US1 panel pages

 I have a simple question to all of my fellow collectors. 

What if there was a in theory a "cover" that existed which was supposedly altered before it was printed.

And what if this cover was originally created on separate sheets of paper.

And than reassembled onto an entirely new board so as to create an image much closer to the original published version.

Now what if this cover had a wonderful back story as well.

And yet everyone always used words to describe it as"rumored to have been drawn on separate pieces of paper."

"Rumored to have been altered at the time of printing, etc"....

Now for the record i am not speculating on if this Cover art is authentic or not,

I am merely referencing it to make a specific point.

My question is a simple one.

A) the paper is now glued to another board ( modern day paper) , that in itself creates a problem of " Knowing how the paper should feel.

of course some people will immediately respond with " oh you can still tell by the top surface , how the paper feels."

To which i answer not 100%. Such alterations create authenticity nightmares.

B)The cover is altered and in places looks nothing like the published cover.

So my other question is , do you trust your own eyes. The eyes of experts?

The wonderful back story? Or do you look at it under a microscope with doubting eyes immediately? 

I bring all this up because its not always so cut and dry.

The cover i am speaking about is the Captain America #100 by Jack Kirby.

I have known its backstory for many years. Currently in the hands of a reputable dealer .

And yet some collectors won't touch it while others swear by it.

So who is correct. Self proclaimed experts on both sides disagree.

Take a look and tell me how someone can be 100% sure if its authentic or not.

The point is , unless its beyond obvious something is not authentic , it's not always so simple.

And sometimes drastic changes are made to covers or alterations and you cannot judge the actual artwork solely by the printed version.

Printed lines may not perfectly match the original art.

Difficult questions , require difficult answers.

Again i am not making any judgements on this cover either way, just using it as a point of reference.

 

[otherworldsj331]

With the money now involved, I am actually expecting that at some point in the next 5,10 years a fake high value 1960's Marvel cover or 2 to be auctioned at a reputable auction house. With all the (probably permanently) lost covers out there, it's ripe for a scam. With the expertise they have in Hong Kong re paper forgeries (just to use that area as an example), I think it is more likely then not this scheme will eventually hatch. They'll get the right board and ink, make it look '60's era, use a expert forger (it's got to be easier to forge then a full color painting or USA bill - which they are already doing) and probably foist an elaborate story. Something like new home owner finds stacks of comics and OA in garage or basement. Do a little HW, buy a cheap old estate sale home where no one can challenge their story as far as what may have been hidden away in an attic or somewhere. Or even a old car at a public auction, Lord knows what you can expect to find in those trunks. 

The risk is low. If they are found out, they just plead ignorance. Hey they consigned dozens of other items that were in that trunk, and they all were authentic. Whats going to happen to them beside they may have lost a chunk of money. 

Around, what 30k, 50k to have the work done? A FF48 may fetch around 500K, 600K,700K? if I were the boss of a crime family I would say go for it. That's a high reward for relatively low risk.

[vodou]

1 hour ago, otherworldsj331 said:

With the money now involved, I am actually expecting that at some point in the next 5,10 years a fake high value 1960's Marvel cover or 2 to be auctioned at a reputable auction house. With all the (probably permanently) lost covers out there, it's ripe for a scam. With the expertise they have in Hong Kong re paper forgeries (just to use that area as an example), I think it is more likely then not this scheme will eventually hatch. They'll get the right board and ink, make it look '60's era, use a expert forger (it's got to be easier to forge then a full color painting or USA bill - which they are already doing) and probably foist an elaborate story. Something like new home owner finds stacks of comics and OA in garage or basement. Do a little HW, buy a cheap old estate sale home where no one can challenge their story as far as what may have been hidden away in an attic or somewhere. Or even a old car at a public auction, Lord knows what you can expect to find in those trunks. 

The risk is low. If they are found out, they just plead ignorance. Hey they consigned dozens of other items that were in that trunk, and they all were authentic. Whats going to happen to them beside they may have lost a chunk of money. 

Around, what 30k, 50k to have the work done? A FF48 may fetch around 500K, 600K,700K? if I were the boss of a crime family I would say go for it. That's a high reward for relatively low risk.

Works for me, and I think we'll probably see it happen (or have we already but don't know it...yet?) The fun would be if the real FF 48 owner steps forward with his example in hand, hopefully with mischievous expression permanently affixed. Even more fun if he doesn't and just he and his very close friends know that the "publicly sold" example is F A K E. Fun. Fun. Fun.

[vodou]

1 hour ago, MarvelComicsArt said:

The cover i am speaking about is the Captain America #100 by Jack Kirby.

I figured as much and do not like it, whatever the story is. The 'assemblage' is essentially a case of wishful thinking (and creative marketing), not what we all tend to collect here: original art. This is not to say that the hobby doesn't embrace this, just like the vintage Harley Davidson hobby (somewhat) embraces an entirely new bike built around an engine. Got the engine/vin you can register near anything as a '58 Panhead or whatever. Also not for me.

[comicwiz]

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/04/28/french-museum-discovers-half-collection-fakes/

[Mmehdy]

3 hours ago, MarvelComicsArt said:

 

 I have a simple question to all of my fellow collectors. 

What if there was a in theory a "cover" that existed which was supposedly altered before it was printed.

And what if this cover was originally created on separate sheets of paper.

And than reassembled onto an entirely new board so as to create an image much closer to the original published version.

Now what if this cover had a wonderful back story as well.

And yet everyone always used words to describe it as"rumored to have been drawn on separate pieces of paper."

"Rumored to have been altered at the time of printing, etc"....

Now for the record i am not speculating on if this Cover art is authentic or not,

I am merely referencing it to make a specific point.

My question is a simple one.

A) the paper is now glued to another board ( modern day paper) , that in itself creates a problem of " Knowing how the paper should feel.

of course some people will immediately respond with " oh you can still tell by the top surface , how the paper feels."

To which i answer not 100%. Such alterations create authenticity nightmares.

B)The cover is altered and in places looks nothing like the published cover.

So my other question is , do you trust your own eyes. The eyes of experts?

The wonderful back story? Or do you look at it under a microscope with doubting eyes immediately? 

I bring all this up because its not always so cut and dry.

The cover i am speaking about is the Captain America #100 by Jack Kirby.

I have known its backstory for many years. Currently in the hands of a reputable dealer .

And yet some collectors won't touch it while others swear by it.

So who is correct. Self proclaimed experts on both sides disagree.

Take a look and tell me how someone can be 100% sure if its authentic or not.

The point is , unless its beyond obvious something is not authentic , it's not always so simple.

And sometimes drastic changes are made to covers or alterations and you cannot judge the actual artwork solely by the printed version.

Printed lines may not perfectly match the original art.

Difficult questions , require difficult answers.

Again i am not making any judgements on this cover either way, just using it as a point of reference.

 

looks like kirby signed off on it....again, the "need" to sign it, Somebody must know something.....we need to get the word out....

[MarvelComicsArt]

Unfortunately at some point Roz was signing as well... she would say leave it here and come back in a half an hour ... than she would sign whatever was there.

So who knows who even signed what these days?

Edited May 1, 2018 by MarvelComicsArt

[glendgold]