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

[Kal-L]

24 minutes ago, grapeape said:

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. O and on.

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

This auction was a disaster. 

 

Fair enough, and discussion is what these boards are all about.  I’m a life long Superman fan, a heavy collector and friend to many in the community, including those who knew Franco well.  I have several signed Shuster items, but his original art has eluded me (so far). However I do know the owners of several of these pieces, as well as others attributed to Shuster.  I certainly cannot claim to be an expert, I’m just following the breadcrumbs.

But just to be clear I don’t know who the consigner was 

Edited January 21, 2020 by Kal-L

[comicartcom]

I would never buy, sell or trade for any of these pieces. Not even if they were offered to me for a dollar - unless I was going to buy them to destroy them, so nobody got stuck with them in the future.

Edited January 21, 2020 by comicartcom

[comicartcom]

I also have come to the conclusion that the Action #1 piece sold by Hakes in 2017 also has a completely fake signature.

it is obvious what is happening here.. a forger, who has found success because "there is a sucker born every minute" (to quote the Great Barnum) and just keeps pumping them out. The faker is able to do this, due to the inexperience of some, and the greed of others. Most likely, they entered the market by trades through some well meaning collectors or dealers, who are offered them cheap, and with dollar signs in their eyes.

it's unfortunate. Because people are being cheated. Another issue would be an owner, not wanting to be 'stuck' for the money or trade, sells or trades it to some other sucker and here is a problem, because if you know or even just suspect you have a fake, it's wrong to try to pawn it off on another person, with a single exception: if you can trade or sell them to Danny Dupcak, nobody will think poorly of you.

 

Edited January 21, 2020 by comicartcom

[grapeape]

Things mothers should teach their children

1)Wipe the Dupcak off your shoes before coming in the house

2) Wash your hands after making a Dupcak

3) Never buy a Mickey Mantle rookie card from Dupcack

4) Private Auctions on eBay are the devils work

 

 

Edited January 21, 2020 by grapeape

[The Voord]

6 hours ago, glendgold said:

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.

I know.  Never said they were the same, when clearly they're not.

[vodou]

14 hours ago, glendgold said:

History is a lot weirder than people think.

Yeah.

https://www.artsy.net/article/artsy-editorial-salvador-dali-accidentally-sabotaged-market-prints

[vodou]

12 hours ago, grapeape said:

the number one protection against being sorry later is to summon every bit of research and expert opinion before a purchase. 

I disagree. The number one is: don't buy "art" for the signature. Buy art for the art, with your eyes, signature only confirms what you should already see (not imagine in your head!)

A great signature on bad art is only ever going to be: a great signature. And the bad art, if bad enough, may even reduce the value of the signature

[vodou]

11 hours ago, Rick2you2 said:

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.

(careful - that Sy isn't great or even good; it's passable for a retired old-timer; some of us just haven't wanted to rain on your parade; you clearly like it a lot, which is just fine)

[vodou]

4 hours ago, grapeape said:

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

My preference is the ol' fine art standard pushback: not right, not for me.

That, a milder version of: it's fake, get a rope

 

[vodou]

4 hours ago, comicartcom said:

if you can trade or sell them to Danny Dupcak, nobody will think poorly of you.

Now that's a name that should never be forgotten. Thanks!

[Rick2you2]

44 minutes ago, vodou said:

(careful - that Sy isn't great or even good; it's passable for a retired old-timer; some of us just haven't wanted to rain on your parade; you clearly like it a lot, which is just fine)

For what it is, I don't agree. It is a head shot. Head shots, by and large, do not lend themselves to great art. To me, they are like an artist's signature more than art itself. I have a personal bias because of the subject and artist, but I know its limits. Besides, who wouldn't want Leslie Neilson in a trench coat? (There was another actor who it looks even more like, just can't place the name).

Look at all the headshots done by Perez or Adams floating around lately Their skills may be evident in the piece, although not always, but they are simply not great art. 

The point I was trying to make, however, is that if you compare the fluidity of the line in Barry's piece, it has a certain sense of experience to it. Now look at the fake Shusters. They have a hesitancy to them, particularly the coloration, like the artist wasn't sure about what to do next. And sometimes, like the bystander's face in one of them, they blow it. A pro may do a bad face, but not one that looks amateurish, different sort of mess-up.

[vodou]

2 hours ago, Rick2you2 said:

if you compare the fluidity of the line in Barry's piece, it has a certain sense of experience to it. Now look at the fake Shusters.

Sy is losing his line, but still clearly by a pro. This so-called Shuster is by a very late, weak Shuster or a fake. The line isn't even close to 'losing', it's lost.

[grapeape]

15 hours ago, comicartcom said:

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

this hobby is hopeless.

Don’t give up on us buddy 

uh nah.....I take it back. You did all you could..... Give up !!!

[grapeape]

10 hours ago, comicartcom said:

I also have come to the conclusion that the Action #1 piece sold by Hakes in 2017 also has a completely fake signature.

it is obvious what is happening here.. a forger, who has found success because "there is a sucker born every minute" (to quote the Great Barnum) and just keeps pumping them out. The faker is able to do this, due to the inexperience of some, and the greed of others. Most likely, they entered the market by trades through some well meaning collectors or dealers, who are offered them cheap, and with dollar signs in their eyes.

it's unfortunate. Because people are being cheated. Another issue would be an owner, not wanting to be 'stuck' for the money or trade, sells or trades it to some other sucker and here is a problem, because if you know or even just suspect you have a fake, it's wrong to try to pawn it off on another person, with a single exception: if you can trade or sell them to Danny Dupcak, nobody will think poorly of you.

 

Speaking of Dupcak whatever happened to Jan???

Who could ever forget the • I’m Dating Dan Dupcak thread?•
 

Absolute comedy gold....

[glendgold]

8 hours ago, The Voord said:

I know.  Never said they were the same, when clearly they're not.

That was actually me registering surprise - when I saw the two images show up on CAF I thought it was the same piece, having sold twice.  Took a second for me to realize they were different. 

[Rick2you2]

11 hours ago, comicartcom said:

I also have come to the conclusion that the Action #1 piece sold by Hakes in 2017 also has a completely fake signature.

it is obvious what is happening here.. a forger, who has found success because "there is a sucker born every minute" (to quote the Great Barnum) and just keeps pumping them out. The faker is able to do this, due to the inexperience of some, and the greed of others. Most likely, they entered the market by trades through some well meaning collectors or dealers, who are offered them cheap, and with dollar signs in their eyes.

it's unfortunate. Because people are being cheated. Another issue would be an owner, not wanting to be 'stuck' for the money or trade, sells or trades it to some other sucker and here is a problem, because if you know or even just suspect you have a fake, it's wrong to try to pawn it off on another person, with a single exception: if you can trade or sell them to Danny Dupcak, nobody will think poorly of you.

 

Following up, I keep thinking of starting a thread on dubious Bruce Timm artwork. Someone has the signature down pretty well, but there have been more than a few suspicious eBay pieces I have seen this past year or two.

[ESeffinga]

The Bruce Timm pieces, the Mike Mignola sketches, the Watterson and Schulz stuff. These are knocked off very regularly. And yet for anyone familiar with these artist's work, the real and the fake can generally be spotted in seconds, if not instantly. It just depends on the quality of the photo/scan of the piece. If the listing is out of focus, just walk away. Not worth the potential for shenanigans.

[alxjhnsn]

16 hours ago, vodou said:

Now that's a name that should never be forgotten. Thanks!

Danny Dupcak is a name previously unknown to me. Lots to read here though.

[glendgold]

3 hours ago, alxjhnsn said:

Danny Dupcak is a name previously unknown to me. Lots to read here though.

Yeah, educational.  Thanks for the link.

[Nexus]

Danny Dupcak...geez. Haven't heard that name in a decade.

Anyone remember Jason Ewert? That was the last straw for me with slabs and I went all-in on art.