Coollines scam! Selling Mark Bagley Ultimate Spider-Man 36 Cover Recreation as the Original
1 1

45 posts in this topic

548 posts

http://www.coollinesartwork.com/Featured.asp?Piece=308697

Well, another day, another thread about one of the Donellys brothers being crooks. Ive sent them an email about it. But history has taught it will fall on deaf ears. 

They're passing off a recreation of a cover I own as the real deal. This recreation was made YEARS after Ultimate Spider-Man 36 was published. (And Im pretty sure was commissioned by a board member here.)

It is not the FINAL cover as they state. They've added logos to a recreation and labeled it the "FINAL" cover. IE They are looking for a dupe. Buyers PLEASE be aware. 

Edited by Khazano

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
693 posts
21 minutes ago, Khazano said:

http://www.coollinesartwork.com/Featured.asp?Piece=308697

Well, another day, another thread about one of the Donellys brothers being crooks. Ive sent them an email about it. But history has taught it will fall on deaf ears. 

They're passing off a recreation of a cover I own as the real deal. This recreation was made YEARS after Ultimate Spider-Man 36 was published. (And Im pretty sure was commissioned by a board member here.)

It is not the FINAL cover as they state. They've added logos to a recreation and labeled it the "FINAL" cover. IE They are looking for a dupe. Buyers PLEASE be aware. 

No shaming Los Bros but we might as well keep trying. Love to see your cover to compare.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
548 posts
Just now, grapeape said:

No shaming Los Bros but we might as well keep trying. Love to see your cover to compare.

Here's mine... The proof really is in just comparing their recreation to the published version. On the recreation, none of Venom's scars or shadows line up with the published version at all. (Heck, nothing lines up with the published version on theirs. Where as mine is obviously dead on.) 

Ultimate Spidey 36 cvr.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
548 posts
5 minutes ago, exitmusicblue said:

Troubled history for this art... I've seen iterations everywhere, including on CAF.

It's been the exact same recreation being bounced around for the past five or six years. (And listed on two dealer sites at the same time.)  But it's always been labeled as such so there's never been harm in it... Now though, it's a different story... 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,869 posts
1 minute ago, Khazano said:

It's been the exact same recreation being bounced around for the past five or six years. (And listed on two dealer sites at the same time.)  But it's always been labeled as such so there's never been harm in it... Now though, it's a different story... 

IIRC, there was a "prelim," as well, that didn't have the logo (a la coollines).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
693 posts
1 minute ago, Khazano said:

Here's mine... The proof really is in just comparing their recreation to the published version. On the recreation, none of Venom's scars or shadows line up with the published version at all. (Heck, nothing lines up with the published version on theirs. Where as mine is obviously dead on.) 

Ultimate Spidey 36 cvr.jpg

This a loathsome practice these two have unleashed on the comic art community. I don’t buy from them but like you I dread every time they sell something like this. Dread more the day they realize they’ve been had.

i certainly feel for you owning the legit cover. You’re working hard to explain yours is the legit cover. Those two are working just hard enough to deceive the buying public.

If you are tired of these two place the word SHAME in any post about them!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
548 posts
6 minutes ago, exitmusicblue said:

IIRC, there was a "prelim," as well, that didn't have the logo (a la coollines).

Ive never seen a prelim for any of Marks USM covers/pages (and Ive been collecting them since issue #1) That said, I guess its possible... But odds are, it was someone trying to pass off this recreation off as a prelim, which would at least explain how Coollines thought they could pass this off as being part of the publication process, assuming they bought it under the pretense of it being a prelim.

Edited by Khazano

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,406 posts

Maybe OP should change the thread title to name the piece by artist/title/number - that will really make it stand out for what it is. And it's pretty important this stuff is paid attention to, not just for the guy that they eventually sucker for the line of suckers that will follow into perpetuity. Anybody that can defend them, in other deals/situations while this stuff goes on simultaneously...should be publicly admonished/shamed too. I write that because there are some apologists out there for The Bros., along the lines of "well, they are difficult to deal with but I've never seen them pass fakes". Well. Wrong. Here you go: This Thread.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
693 posts
21 minutes ago, vodou said:

Maybe OP should change the thread title to name the piece by artist/title/number - that will really make it stand out for what it is. And it's pretty important this stuff is paid attention to, not just for the guy that they eventually sucker for the line of suckers that will follow into perpetuity. Anybody that can defend them, in other deals/situations while this stuff goes on simultaneously...should be publicly admonished/shamed too. I write that because there are some apologists out there for The Bros., along the lines of "well, they are difficult to deal with but I've never seen them pass fakes". Well. Wrong. Here you go: This Thread.

Bingo. Blinders off. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
548 posts
1 hour ago, vodou said:

Maybe OP should change the thread title to name the piece by artist/title/number - that will really make it stand out for what it is. And it's pretty important this stuff is paid attention to, not just for the guy that they eventually sucker for the line of suckers that will follow into perpetuity. Anybody that can defend them, in other deals/situations while this stuff goes on simultaneously...should be publicly admonished/shamed too. I write that because there are some apologists out there for The Bros., along the lines of "well, they are difficult to deal with but I've never seen them pass fakes". Well. Wrong. Here you go: This Thread.

Done. 

Im actually really surprised. They usually ride that gray line when they do stuff like this which allows their apologists to exist.  But this is so blatant even for them.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,406 posts
5 minutes ago, Khazano said:

Im actually really surprised.

I'm not.

I lost my Bros Virginity when they tricked Frank Miller into signing Captain America Annual #5 cover art even though it's Ed Hannigan and he's stated so publicly (on Comicart-L).

https://www.comicartfans.com/ForSaleDetails.asp?ArtId=407222

image.thumb.png.98b51bae80ba8d9b5825a81028f9b01b.png

They even twisted GCD's arm into changing the correct credits to falsely back up their 'claim'.

Indexer Notes

Miller pencils confirmed by signature on original art. Info per Cory Sedlmeier. Previous indexer credited Ed Hannigan.

https://www.comics.org/issue/34974/

This was all like ten years ago, probably more; I've been done with them ever since. Full stop.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
693 posts
41 minutes ago, vodou said:

I'm not.

I lost my Bros Virginity when they tricked Frank Miller into signing Captain America Annual #5 cover art even though it's Ed Hannigan and he's stated so publicly (on Comicart-L).

https://www.comicartfans.com/ForSaleDetails.asp?ArtId=407222

image.thumb.png.98b51bae80ba8d9b5825a81028f9b01b.png

They even twisted GCD's arm into changing the correct credits to falsely back up their 'claim'.

Indexer Notes

Miller pencils confirmed by signature on original art. Info per Cory Sedlmeier. Previous indexer credited Ed Hannigan.

https://www.comics.org/issue/34974/

This was all like ten years ago, probably more; I've been done with them ever since. Full stop.

Los Bros S H A M E

I forgot about this. I can’t keep track of all the shenanigans. Although there is a main thread about Los Bros it’s good for some of these latest grievances to show up on a fresh thread.

Im angry for Khazano and sorry for him. These wipes are messing with a key ingredient that comic art collectors desire. One of a kind art, fully disclosed and honesty in representation.

My buddy Vodou—-he mentions the “Miller” cover. Outrageous and we have seen a pattern,  a fetid legacy of cautionary tales. Due diligence is on us though. Question everything. Auction houses make “mistakes” all the time in attributing artistic credit. eBay auctions are robust with inaccurate postings.

We joke all the time. This is no joke. Los Hermanos Del “ask my brother” are laughable but mostly harmless when they tell us to inquire or quote 3x 5x 10x real value on pieces. Well maybe not harmless as they make stale a chunk of nice art.

When art is misrepresented, altered, and artists credits are deliberately manipulated you’re hurting the market and the collector. No bueno.

signed on my high horse 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
708 posts

Sometimes Hannigan lost art credit if he was the layout artist only.  If he was just the idea man, no credit was given.

Check my CAF for a Hannigan/Rubenstein Cap cover that I bought directly from Ed Hannigan in 1995.

https://www.comicartfans.com/gallerypiece.asp?piece=1275344

David Albright

cap235.jpg

Edited by aokartman
clarify, pic added

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23,765 posts
16 hours ago, vodou said:

I'm not.

I lost my Bros Virginity when they tricked Frank Miller into signing Captain America Annual #5 cover art even though it's Ed Hannigan and he's stated so publicly (on Comicart-L).

https://www.comicartfans.com/ForSaleDetails.asp?ArtId=407222

Boy, it sure does look like Miller to me.  How confident are we in Hannigan's memory?  I mean, I look at David A's Hannigan/Rubinstein-drawn Cap #235 cover and it doesn't look like the same hands worked on the Cap Annual 5 cover. 2c 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,406 posts
1 minute ago, delekkerste said:

Boy, it sure does look like Miller to me.  How confident are we in Hannigan's memory?  I mean, I look at David A's Hannigan/Rubinstein-drawn Cap #235 cover and it doesn't look like the same hands worked on the Cap Annual 5 cover. 2c 

Hannigan's memory, backed up by...Rubinstein's too (all on Comicart-L, many, many years ago). He inked it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,406 posts
2 minutes ago, delekkerste said:

I look at David A's Hannigan/Rubinstein-drawn Cap #235 cover and it doesn't look like the same hands worked on the Cap Annual 5 cover. 2c 

I get it, this piece really wants to be a Miller, that's how not only Bros but also Burkey, at various times in the oughts claimed it was...but there's an endless number of explanations possible as to why it can look that way but not be that way. Two possibles...

1. Hannigan's style changed over time. Those two covers are about two years apart.

2. Rubinstein's inking changed over time. Was he hitting Miller a lot at the same time (1981) as Ann5? Too lazy to check myself, just throwing it out there.

Again with both Hannigan and Rubinstein claiming it as "theirs", the onus would be on others to prove it ain't so. Here's a left-field...is that even Frank's signature - for real? Or a messy-enough make-do to get 'er done? It's the Brothers...zero leap to think they'd fake it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,406 posts

Something else, the Cap on David's cover...I can 'read' more than a bit of Miller's Cap 'look' later seen in Marvel Fanfare #5 in the face. How much is Miller...how much is Rubinstein (on all these jobs)?

https://www.comics.org/issue/39600/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23,765 posts
10 minutes ago, vodou said:

Hannigan's memory, backed up by...Rubinstein's too (all on Comicart-L, many, many years ago). He inked it.

How confident are we in Rubinstein's memory? (:

I mean, he did indicate that Miller basically provided him with the roughest of layouts for the Wolvie mini-series, and then Nelson came across that trove of photocopies of early 1980s Miller pencil art which showed conclusively that the layouts were anything but rough.  

Similarly, Klaus retracted his statement about Miller's layouts on separate sheets having started before the commonly-assumed issue #185.  But, after looking at some pre-#185 art in person and considering the matter further, he confirmed that #185 was indeed the starting point after all.  Just sayin'...these guys have inked thousands of pages and memories can be fallible.  

6 minutes ago, vodou said:

Something else, the Cap on David's cover...I can 'read' more than a bit of Miller's Cap 'look' later seen in Marvel Fanfare #5 in the face. How much is Miller...how much is Rubinstein (on all these jobs)?

https://www.comics.org/issue/39600/

That's another possibility - that Rubinstein "Millerized" the Hannigan pencils as opposed to Miller having had anything to do with the cover. Because it really does look like bog standard Miller/Rubinstein to me! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,925 posts
34 minutes ago, delekkerste said:

Boy, it sure does look like Miller to me.  How confident are we in Hannigan's memory?  I mean, I look at David A's Hannigan/Rubinstein-drawn Cap #235 cover and it doesn't look like the same hands worked on the Cap Annual 5 cover. 2c 

Who knows?

Edited by PhilipB2k17

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
1 1