*** MATT BAKER COVERS ONLY NO DUPLICATES***
7 7

412 posts in this topic

676 posts
Posted (edited)
19 minutes ago, RICK STARR said:

I always thought the consensus was that it is NOT a Baker cover. What sources say that it is?

Unless you can show me proof that it isn't, it stays. Credited by CGC, GCDB, Overstreet and a multitude of others. Plus, I have original Baker art work I can show you that mimics the work effortlessly. 

Edited by Joshua33

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,520 posts

Well here’s my copy if it is.

 

DB9CA7D0-973F-45BC-B59D-CDE92C454DD3.jpeg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
808 posts
1 hour ago, Joshua33 said:

Unless you can show me proof that it isn't, it stays. Credited by CGC, GCDB, Overstreet and a multitude of others. Plus, I have original Baker art work I can show you that mimics the work effortlessly. 

Which Baker art mimics this style? I also own multiple OA pieces....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
676 posts
1 hour ago, Inaflash said:

Well here’s my copy if it is.

 

DB9CA7D0-973F-45BC-B59D-CDE92C454DD3.jpeg

Holy Moses!!! (worship)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
676 posts
4 minutes ago, kat123 said:

Which Baker art mimics this style? I also own multiple OA pieces....

There are a multitude of examples. Do you need me to send them to you on DM? I'm not gonna flood this page with it. Are you claiming that literally everybody in the industry that claims this as a Baker cover knows less than you? I'm confused. Not trying to be argumentative, but if you are going to claim that a book that has is credited by all the aforementioned isn't a Baker, then the burden of proof is on you, not them. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
808 posts
32 minutes ago, Joshua33 said:

There are a multitude of examples. Do you need me to send them to you on DM? I'm not gonna flood this page with it. Are you claiming that literally everybody in the industry that claims this as a Baker cover knows less than you? I'm confused. Not trying to be argumentative, but if you are going to claim that a book that has is credited by all the aforementioned isn't a Baker, then the burden of proof is on you, not them. 

 

No arguments, Just wanted to see your example. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,387 posts
28 minutes ago, kat123 said:

No arguments, Just wanted to see your example. 

Yeah, let's see your piece.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24,648 posts

I'm definitely a Baker rookie compared to most of you in this thread, but I share some skepticism as well on the Saint #4. The composition is so simple and straightforward and the linework in the figures somehow doesn't look as fluid as his. I can believe "Baker involvement" and it's a great cover for sure, but it does seem subtly different than all the work I've seen of his.

Is there another cover from this time period where he uses that same wispy crosshatching style for the shadows?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
676 posts
2 hours ago, kat123 said:

No arguments, Just wanted to see your example. 

Will send you a direct. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,607 posts
1 hour ago, Point Five said:

I'm definitely a Baker rookie compared to most of you in this thread, but I share some skepticism as well on the Saint #4. The composition is so simple and straightforward and the linework in the figures somehow doesn't look as fluid as his. I can believe "Baker involvement" and it's a great cover for sure, but it does seem subtly different than all the work I've seen of his.

Is there another cover from this time period where he uses that same wispy crosshatching style for the shadows?

 

Agree, its a great cover but it looks more unlike Baker, than it looks like Baker...neither face looks like his typical male or female.  I also don't know that his work history would support the idea of him doing a single cover for an Avon title...maybe one of our more learned board historians can take a guess as to whether or not its even likely Baker could have been involved on this title.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25,090 posts
1 hour ago, szav said:

Agree, its a great cover but it looks more unlike Baker, than it looks like Baker...neither face looks like his typical male or female.  I also don't know that his work history would support the idea of him doing a single cover for an Avon title...maybe one of our more learned board historians can take a guess as to whether or not its even likely Baker could have been involved on this title.

It is also the only alleged Baker involvement with Avon. 

I think we are going to find the cover was drawn by Lee Ames.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
676 posts
46 minutes ago, adamstrange said:

It is also the only alleged Baker involvement with Avon. 

I think we are going to find the cover was drawn by Lee Ames.

 

Let me know when you do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25,090 posts
9 hours ago, Joshua33 said:

Unless you can show me proof that it isn't, it stays. Credited by CGC, GCDB, Overstreet and a multitude of others. Plus, I have original Baker art work I can show you that mimics the work effortlessly. 

These are same sources that still have miss-attributed multiple Phantom Lady's to Baker that clearly aren't Baker.  And, if you have followed the various reference guides for the last three decades, you have watched them change their minds on literally thousands of creator attributions. 

Where publisher and artist records are absent, identification is not a science.  There is no official board.  There is no formal process.  The complexity of the problem is compounded by lack of access to the original over-sized art, the multiple hands involved in the creation, and by the constant "inspiration" and swipage by one artist from another.  Even statements from the artists are suspect as they are often decades after the fact on matters they cared little about (it was a job) and there are many examples of conflicting statements that are impossible to reconcile.

There has also been substantial cross-contamination such that attribution from one source is used by the others to stay competitive.  This has resulted in some extremely amateurish efforts of identification to propagate widely without independent verification by the other informed observers.  As a hobby, we have thousands and thousands of pieces where there is no signature and no records to go on.  What's amazing is how far we've come, not that what we have now is completely correct.

These same sorts of problems exist with many paintings in museums and great collections even though there is far more rigor and much greater expertise being applied when examining large-scale works of art.  Just like there are occasional gatherings to determine the list of true Rembrandts, there is plenty of justification to re-examine our nascent identification of Baker and other artists.  Besides, how else are we going to generate enough controversy to keep the Boards active!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
676 posts
3 hours ago, szav said:

Agree, its a great cover but it looks more unlike Baker, than it looks like Baker...neither face looks like his typical male or female.  I also don't know that his work history would support the idea of him doing a single cover for an Avon title...maybe one of our more learned board historians can take a guess as to whether or not its even likely Baker could have been involved on this title.

It may be important to note that this cover landed right in the time period that Baker was doing freelance work, after leaving Iger 47' and prior to his first St. John cover in Oct. of 48' (Northwest Mounties). Saint 4 does have some similarities stylistically and anatomically to his early St John work on Crime Reporter 2 and 3.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
676 posts
6 minutes ago, adamstrange said:

These are same sources that still have miss-attributed multiple Phantom Lady's to Baker that clearly aren't Baker.  And, if you have followed the various reference guides for the last three decades, you have watched them change their minds on literally thousands of creator attributions. 

Where publisher and artist records are absent, identification is not a science.  There is no official board.  There is no formal process.  The complexity of the problem is compounded by lack of access to the original over-sized art, the multiple hands involved in the creation, and by the constant "inspiration" and swipage by one artist from another.  Even statements from the artists are suspect as they are often decades after the fact on matters they cared little about (it was a job) and there are many examples of conflicting statements that are impossible to reconcile.

There has also been substantial cross-contamination such that attribution from one source is used by the others to stay competitive.  This has resulted in some extremely amateurish efforts of identification to propagate widely without independent verification by the other informed observers.  As a hobby, we have thousands and thousands of pieces where there is no signature and no records to go on.  What's amazing is how far we've come, not that what we have now is completely correct.

These same sorts of problems exist with many paintings in museums and great collections even though there is far more rigor and much greater expertise being applied when examining large-scale works of art.  Just like there are occasional gatherings to determine the list of true Rembrandts, there is plenty of justification to re-examine our nascent identification of Baker and other artists.  Besides, how else are we going to generate enough controversy to keep the Boards active!

Well said:golfclap:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24,648 posts
5 hours ago, Joshua33 said:

It may be important to note that this cover landed right in the time period that Baker was doing freelance work, after leaving Iger 47' and prior to his first St. John cover in Oct. of 48' (Northwest Mounties). Saint 4 does have some similarities stylistically and anatomically to his early St John work on Crime Reporter 2 and 3.

If this cover was done around the same time as Crime Reporter 2 and 3, to me that’s an even stronger argument that it’s not by Baker. CR 2 and 3 already have those dynamic, fluid figures in an environment with depth, and pick out a split second in the narrative action. The Saint 4 has a formal composition more like a movie poster, and the figures are well-drawn but (comparatively) stiffer and more formal, like some of the mid-40s Chesler covers. It’s of course subjective, but to me the sensibilities are way different.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
676 posts
2 hours ago, Point Five said:

If this cover was done around the same time as Crime Reporter 2 and 3, to me that’s an even stronger argument that it’s not by Baker. CR 2 and 3 already have those dynamic, fluid figures in an environment with depth, and pick out a split second in the narrative action. The Saint 4 has a formal composition more like a movie poster, and the figures are well-drawn but (comparatively) stiffer and more formal, like some of the mid-40s Chesler covers. It’s of course subjective, but to me the sensibilities are way different.

 

It's interesting to see everybody's perspective on this one. To me, if both weren't signed, people would argue those as well. The difference between 2 and 3 anatomically and in facial structure is vast. To me, the early work that was packaged by Iger for Fox and other publications, plus his freelance work, demonstrate some searching for the polished product in his romance covers we would finally see.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24,648 posts
55 minutes ago, Joshua33 said:

To me, if both weren't signed, people would argue those as well.

OK, I won’t argue that.  :foryou:

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
676 posts

In other news... we're still missing GOING STEADY 13 AND 14. Does anyone have or know somebody who had these 2 issues? Let's get em posted and reorganize this thing into a finished product.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6,758 posts

...and Wedding Bells 16 to be added to the accounted for list :wink:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
7 7