Real or Fake - Action #1 Recreation by Joe Shuster 0

[grapeape]

7 minutes ago, glendgold said:

 

The loop that this all ends up with is "The experts don't know anything but I do," and that way of thinking isn't exactly in retreat these days.

Glen I think many shortcuts are taken because of that reasoning. How many times someone solicits expert opinion on here and the hounds rush out to warn “that’s a good way to have someone steal the art you’re inquiring about.”

That should never be a potential buyers first concern. Getting it right, buying the real thing is more important.

 

[MyThreeSons]

The auction was ended 

[Catwoman_Fan]

3 hours ago, comicartcom said:

and yes, I do believe the signature is authentic.

Did Joe actually do colored pencil commissions? I’ve seen a lot attributed to him (mostly through Burkey’s website- he had 4 posted at one time) 

[comicartcom]

1 hour ago, grapeape said:

 it’s time auctioneers decline to offer this kind of drek.

 

 

100% absolutely. Most of that Bob Kane s*** is just that - s***

and Glengold.. the "Joe would never ...." stuff is always funny, but again, these are people who weren't 'back there, with us' in the 60s & 70s and just don't know and are told stories by others who also, don't know. It's sad.

[comicartcom]

52 minutes ago, Catwoman_Fan said:

Did Joe actually do colored pencil commissions? I’ve seen a lot attributed to him (mostly through Burkey’s website- he had 4 posted at one time) 

recreations? you mean did he do actual redrawing of his cover as Sprang or CC Beck or LB Cole etc? I don't believe I have ever seen anything along these lines from Shuster and I have owned a number of various Shuster pieces, including 1940s items. Did he do color pieces for fans who paid him? Yes. There are a couple posted earlier in this thread.

As to my comment on authentic signature - I was looking at the piece sold on Hakes when I posted that. The eBay piece is fake + fake. The Hakes piece is fan art signed by Shuster, with an authentic autograph.

Edited January 20, 2020 by comicartcom

[Rick2you2]

It just seems to me to be lousy artwork. Would you buy a lousy Picasso just because it had his apparent signature?

Frankly, I am no expert on his art, but it doesn't look like the artwork of a professonal artist. This piece is simply crude. Look at the image I posted from Sy Barry, who is in his early 90's, and it doesn't show the sort of crudeness in this piece which would evidence a skill deterioration. I have also seen Ramona Fredon's recent sketches, and while they are not at the level of her published work, they are not crude like this either. 

[glendgold]

Just did a "Joe Shuster" search through CAF - I dont know how to tell real Shusters from fake, but here's a Superman 1 color recreation credited to him, apparently sold a couple years ago:

https://www.comicartfans.com/GalleryPiece.asp?Piece=1393877

How does this look to folks who know stuff? 

 

 

 

[The Voord]

This one from Hakes . . .

[Kal-L]

20 minutes ago, The Voord said:

This one from Hakes . . .

 

[glendgold]

24 minutes ago, The Voord said:

This one from Hakes . . .

Those are different pieces. Whoever did them  wasn't trying to do a line  for line recreation (look at Supes's motion lines; count the windows in the building). But the lettering - okay, this is amateur forensics - looks like the same person did it each time.

Edited January 21, 2020 by glendgold

[comicartcom]

I don't know how anyone would think  those are by Shuster

this hobby is hopeless.

[Kal-L]

So look at my earlier post, this is what I'm referencing when I say that Joe has few large recreations of AC1, Superman and Superman #14 floating around apparently all part of the same commission near the end of his career (I've heard numbers between 12-17 of them, but who knows).  All similar, but with some variation (if someone was trying to copy they're doing a poor job and that I actually think bodes well for them). You see 2 copies of Superman #1 above, here for example are copies of 3 of the known #14's:

First one sold by Hakes from the Franco Toscanini collection (where one of the AC1, and Superman #1's also came from) https://www.hakes.com/Auction/ItemDetail/220318/SUPERMAN-14-COVER-IMAGE-ORIGINAL-ART-BY-SUPERMAN-CREATOR-JOE-SHUSTER

Second one privately owned and posted on CAF since 2005: 

https://www.comicartfans.com/GalleryPiece.asp?Piece=92888

Third one recently sold by a very well known Superman Collector, but since it was a private sale I'll only share the pic.

Food for thought.  I'm glad the AC1 auction was taken down until some questions can be addressed, especially since the posting had some serious errors...but I'm not so quick to dismiss the authenticity.

[Rick2you2]

1 hour ago, comicartcom said:

I don't know how anyone would think  those are by Shuster

this hobby is hopeless.

Did the artist use crayons on it? Sure looks that way.

[comicartcom]

1 hour ago, Rick2you2 said:

Did the artist use crayons on it? Sure looks that way.

probably colored pencils., and no doubt, the illo of Superman right above you in Kal-L's post is more garbage, all drawn by the same forger

Edited January 21, 2020 by comicartcom

[Crowzilla]

I find it very hard to believe that the cover recreations on this page (Superman 1, 14 and the earlier Action 1) were done by the same artist who did the pieces that were posted from Heritage on the first page.

That's not just skill deterioration of a few years (especially knowing the Action 19 tribute was done in 1983), even with failing eyesight.

[Crowzilla]

I guess these two could be by the same artist, but...

[Kal-L]

Well it’s certainly an interesting discussion.  We know at least three of these have gone through a well respected auction house and were housed in an established collection of impeccable pedigree, another sits with a well known collector on CAF where it’s been posted for 15 years without so much a question about its lineage, and I know that at least the signature (not necessarily the art) has been verified by JSA/BAS or both on at least another two (the AC1 that started all this and the private sale I mention). None of that says these are real, but thats a lot of circumstantial evidence that that there may be something to these.  Like others I do believe that these were all done by the same person, I’m just starting to think that person was Joe Shuster.

Maybe I’m a sucker, but the strange thing is the more I look at this the more inclined I am to believe it.  I wish Joe was still around so we could ask him.

[RICKYBOBBY]

7 hours ago, glendgold said:

 

The loop that this all ends up with is "The experts don't know anything but I do," and that way of thinking isn't exactly in retreat these days.

These so called “experts” also have huge egos and they expect people believe their opinions likes facts. Opinions are opinions and opinions can be wrong.

[grapeape]

43 minutes ago, Kal-L said:

Well it’s certainly an interesting discussion.  We know at least three of these have gone through a well respected auction house and were housed in an established collection of impeccable pedigree, another sits with a well known collector on CAF where it’s been posted for 15 years without so much a question about its lineage, and I know that at least the signature (not necessarily the art) has been verified by JSA/BAS or both on at least another two (the AC1 that started all this and the private sale I mention). None of that says these are real, but thats a lot of circumstantial evidence that that there may be something to these.  Like others I do believe that these were all done by the same person, I’m just starting to think that person was Joe Shuster.

Maybe I’m a sucker, but the strange thing is the more I look at this the more inclined I am to believe it.  I wish Joe was still around so we could ask him.

I appreciate a different opinion. Again the thing I stress, the most important action is to study the art. Where is our Shuster expert?

There were numerous “Kirby” pieces sold by collectors, dealers and auction houses with “impeccable pedigrees.”

Later those pieces came in to question or were roundly dismissed by very knowledgeable people. 
 

Also I’m not calling anyone out but if folks out there own a “Shuster” recreation or drawing and are chiming in one way or the other disclosure is important. 

I know there are legit recreations out there done by many artists living and dead. I stay away from them like the plague. 
 

It’s profound that you said “I wish Joe was around so we could ask him.”

There’s not a piece in my collection that I own where I wish I could ask the artist,

”Did you do this?”

I know for sure. I studied the artists for 30 years—-nothing compared to some of my hero’s on the board (you know who you are.) If there’s any doubt I pass.

Always
 

Things like signatures on art absolutely do not in and of themselves validate the art. It can only be one piece of an incomplete story. If it’s not published you need provenance. Chain of ownership. Witnesses to the creation of the art. On and on.

Its the Wild West our there. Fakes everyday on eBay. Creeping into auction houses. 

This auction was a disaster. 

 

Edited January 21, 2020 by grapeape

[grapeape]

6 minutes ago, RICKYBOBBY said:

These so called “experts” also have huge egos and they expect people believe their opinions likes facts. Opinions are opinions and opinions can be wrong.

I think many of the expert opinions here are meant to eliminate delusions of grandeur. Sometimes we want something to be authentic so badly that we don’t see the truth.

That being said RICKYBOBBY you have a point that expert opinions are not always delivered with empathy. They can feel like attacks. 

I like to temper what I say when it comes to calling something a fake unless I’m 100% sure.

In this situation with the Action 1 it’s incumbent upon the experienced collectors to point out huge red flags. I stop short of calling it a fake. I will pass when it is auctioned again because it doesn’t pass the smell test for me.