• When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.

Butcher job on All-Star Squadron #9
0

42 posts in this topic

Nostalgic Investments posted the original All-Star Squadron #9 cover by Joe Kubert.

I just noticed ink-wash fire that was originally an overlay is mounted on the inked bristol page. When originally done by Kubert there was two layers, inked and ink-wash overlay. I have emailed Nostalgic Investments to verify its all one piece. If it had the overlay separate I don't see them not showing a scan of it

if the scan is true and its now all one piece, Someone after 2010 f u c k  e d this artwork up!!!! 
In Feb 2010 it was sold on Heritage with the inked later and an overlay of the ink-wash fire. After it was sold at Heritage some insufficiently_thoughtful_person f u c k e d with this, cut out the parts of the overlay with fire and mounted it on the inked bristol page. ARGH!!! Why?
Yes the inked layer is missing parts of the legs becuse they are covered in fire and looks incomplete. So the cutup the overlay and pasted on the inked layer? If they would have put a little bit of thought into it. Could have made a color stat of the overlay, cut that out and mounted it on a clear mylar overlay. Would have had the same visual effect and would not have damaged the original art layer or damage the under layer.

I am not saying Nostalgic Investments altered the piece. I can not see a dealer (except one other) altering the artwork in this fashion. Doing that the value drops alot. If I had the money to spend #12K on the Kubert cover I wouldn't after the cover now. Damn wish I would have bought it at $3,100 in 2010.

Nostalgic Investments scan

https://www.nostalgicinvestments.com/comic-art/all-star-squadron-9-cover

AllStarSquadron_9_cover.jpg

 

Heriatge (2010) scans

https://comics.ha.com/itm/original-comic-art/joe-kubert-all-star-squadron-9-cover-original-art-dc-1982-/a/7017-94152.s?ic4=ListView-ShortDescription-071515

AllStarSquadron_9_cover_before.jpeg

AllStarSquadron_9_cover_beforeol.jpeg

Edited by Brian Peck
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Brian Peck said:

Nostalgic Investments posted the original All-Star Squadron #9 cover by Joe Kubert.

I just noticed ink-wash fire that was originally an overlay is mounted on the inked bristol page. When originally done by Kubert there was two layers, inked and ink-wash overlay. I have emailed Nostalgic Investments to verify its all one piece. If it had the overlay separate I don't see them not showing a scan of it

if the scan is true and its now all one piece, Someone after 2010 f u c k  e d this artwork up!!!! 
In Feb 2010 it was sold on Heritage with the inked later and an overlay of the ink-wash fire. After it was sold at Heritage some insufficiently_thoughtful_person f u c k e d with this, cut out the parts of the overlay with fire and mounted it on the inked bristol page. ARGH!!! Why?
Yes the inked layer is missing parts of the legs becuse they are covered in fire and looks incomplete. So the cutup the overlay and pasted on the inked layer? If they would have put a little bit of thought into it. Could have made a color stat of the overlay, cut that out and mounted it on a clear mylar overlay. Would have had the same visual effect and would not have damaged the original art layer or damage the under layer.

I am not saying Nostalgic Investments altered the piece. I can not see a dealer (except one other) altering the artwork in this fashion. Doing that the value drops alot. If I had the money to spend #12K on the Kubert cover I wouldn't after the cover now. Damn wish I would have bought it at $3,100 in 2010.

Nostalgic Investments scan

https://www.nostalgicinvestments.com/comic-art/all-star-squadron-9-cover

AllStarSquadron_9_cover.jpg

 

Heriatge (2010) scans

https://comics.ha.com/itm/original-comic-art/joe-kubert-all-star-squadron-9-cover-original-art-dc-1982-/a/7017-94152.s?ic4=ListView-ShortDescription-071515

AllStarSquadron_9_cover_before.jpeg

AllStarSquadron_9_cover_beforeol.jpeg

Brian I’ve gone back and forth on the 2010 vs. today. This was professionally done in my opinion. I feel your passion for leaving the art as it was. 
This is a rare opportunity to see a piece of art as it was and as it is now after arts and crafts.

I prefer untouched or even the suggestions you made. 
I imagine whoever invested in “fixing” this did so to make the art more attractive? That’s subjective I understand so,,..

what do some our friends here think?

1)Would you be ticked to buy this without realizing it was worked on?

2)Do you think it looks better now or as it was before?

3)If the sellers are aware of “restoration” should they put it in the listing description?

For me 1) I would be upset to pay and later find out about “fixing” I’d like to know about any changes post original production process by artists #2 I agree with Brian the cover looked better as it was. #3even if you add stats word balloons etc I think it should be disclosed. 

I’m not ready to elevate what took place here to Los Bros status unless this is a repeated process by a dealer or seller.

Disclosure will not hurt and can only instill confidence in an item up for purchase.
 

Thanks Brian

🍇 🦍 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My instinctual reaction is to dislike the refurbishment, but I think that for viewing purposes, it is an improvement. And, if the combination results in something that actually looks more like the final product, I don’t think it is so bad—so long as it is disclosed. I am not a conservator for future generations. I buy what I like and look at what I like. The overlay detracts from view-ability.

I, personally, would not make these alterations, but I don’t think I would spurn the piece because of them. And, I may even pay less for it, because I know a lot of people would likely disagree with me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Brian Peck said:

If they would have put a little bit of thought into it. Could have made a color stat of the overlay, cut that out and mounted it on a clear mylar overlay. Would have had the same visual effect and would not have damaged the original art layer or damage the under layer.

"Problem" solved. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In 2016, I was offered the Flash 297 cover art in trade by a dealer for some art that I had just bought. I'm a big Infantino Flash fan and I loved this cover, so I was excited to get it and the dealer seemed eager to trade it to me. When the dealer, who used to sell Kirby art but no longer has a website, sent me the scan, it was the Heritage cover scan from when it sold in 2014. I saw that it had been hand colored and the letters from Heritage between Mark Hanerfield and the owner who had it colored by Carmine Infantino from 1989 proved to me that Infantino, himself had colored it, so I was okay with the cover in that shape. The scan the dealer sent me is shown below. It had a black and white logo in that scan. I asked another dealer who, at the time, I had no idea was in a sort of partnership with the dealer who was offering me the cover, and he said that if the cover wasn't colored, it would be worth $15,000 at least, so the asking price of $7,500 was half of what it was really worth and a very fair deal. So, after a long, grueling back-and-forth trade process, I made the trade for the cover, giving up way more than I wanted (by allowing the dealer to convince me he was my friend and I should give him some of my best art in the trade because we were such good friends and he needed a win). When the cover arrived, it was in a crystal clear bag and I could see that it had a color logo, which looked great, and two word balloons, which were not shown in the Heritage scan. From looking at it in the bag, I thought it was all on an acetate overlay. When I took it out of the bag, I discovered that the Flash logo was a color xerox logo that had been GLUED onto the cover art, while the word balloons were added on the acetate overlay. The dealer never disclosed any of this to me at all in our dealings. Never once did he disclose that information and I had asked time after time about the condition and the logo, but, I let it slide because I didn't think he would try to burn me (wow, was I wrong). He also refused to answer my question: Were you the person who glued the logo onto the cover? It ended our "friendship" (but allowed me to see that a lot of dealers are in cahoots with one another and many are NOT trustworthy, no matter how nice they act). He cut off all communications with me after that, because he'd gotten what he wanted and dumped a cover (which you can see in the scan below) that was hard for him to get rid of, no matter how much he dressed it up.

flash297HeritageScan.jpg

Flash297Infantino.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, grapeape said:

1)Would you be ticked to buy this without realizing it was worked on?

2)Do you think it looks better now or as it was before?

3)If the sellers are aware of “restoration” should they put it in the listing description?

1. YES. Back to seller it would go. Insta.

2. "Looks better" is not what we ( comic ART collectors anyway) do here. We do Art. Someone please conjure Jeffrey Jones to address this. Now. Please.

3. YES. Anything less is intentional deception and carries the burden of all that goes with that stain on one's business.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Question: A while ago I was negotiating for a piece which never came to fruition. The basic background was a typical pencil and ink, which would later have color added. An overlay of a shadow was included with the final published cover, along with the logo. One of my concerns was that the absence of color would make the shadow less visible, detracting from the final piece, since the color made the shadow stand out more. The artist indicated he could reproduce it with more of a “burn” (around 10%) to increase its visibility. Would that have been considered an alteration to the art, or a legitimate adjustment?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, grapeape said:

Brian I’ve gone back and forth on the 2010 vs. today. This was professionally done in my opinion. I feel your passion for leaving the art as it was. 
This is a rare opportunity to see a piece of art as it was and as it is now after arts and crafts.

I prefer untouched or even the suggestions you made. 
I imagine whoever invested in “fixing” this did so to make the art more attractive? That’s subjective I understand so,,..

what do some our friends here think?

1)Would you be ticked to buy this without realizing it was worked on?

2)Do you think it looks better now or as it was before?

3)If the sellers are aware of “restoration” should they put it in the listing description?

For me 1) I would be upset to pay and later find out about “fixing” I’d like to know about any changes post original production process by artists #2 I agree with Brian the cover looked better as it was. #3even if you add stats word balloons etc I think it should be disclosed. 

I’m not ready to elevate what took place here to Los Bros status unless this is a repeated process by a dealer or seller.

Disclosure will not hurt and can only instill confidence in an item up for purchase.
 

Thanks Brian

🍇 🦍 

 

And no it looks like s h i t, half chop job covers up some of Joe’s signatute, motion lines and parts of Robotman and Steel. Whoever did it did a poor job. Not Bechara fault but you ended up with something of a butcher job. Whoever did thing could have made a colour stat of the overlay and then cut that and mounted it on a clear mylar overlay.

Edited by Brian Peck
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, vodou said:

"Looks better" is not what we ( comic ART collectors anyway) do here. We do Art. Someone please conjure Jeffrey Jones to address this. Now. Please.

This. ^^^^^

 

That piece is so fudged up it’s not even funny. I don’t even have to ask my brother what he thinks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Brian Peck said:

Response from  Bechara

 

I just double checked, it is one piece. Where did you see there was an overlay? If there was one there isn’t any longer. I got it this way

Hell then who is the butcher?

How do we stop him or her before they strike again???

:facepalm:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, lobrac said:

I'm tempted to bid stronger on it than last time, but the previous one went for $6,766 on ebay (with the brothers beating a $6,666 bid).  Is an unused cover really worth more than that?  I want to avoid the brothers getting it, but I'm not willing to overpay either :P

Malvin

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, malvin said:

I'm tempted to bid stronger on it than last time, but the previous one went for $6,766 on ebay (with the brothers beating a $6,666 bid).  Is an unused cover really worth more than that?  I want to avoid the brothers getting it, but I'm not willing to overpay either :P

Malvin

The devil bid was mine, and it was more than I really wanted to pay and a little more than I thought it was worth. Made sense once I realized I was bidding against a “dealer”. I actually like this one better, but I’m not bidding crazy just to outbid los bros, so I’m out. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Brian Peck said:
13 hours ago, Will_K said:

"Problem" solved. 

No its too late. origonal overlay has already been cut up and mounted on the bristol.

I know it's too late.  I was just agreeing with your idea.

Link to comment
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
0