The Illustration Exchange

[Crow331]

I had this image on my website and someone pointed it out to me as a possible forgery.

This sold in a "major" auction house in June of 2008 for $6,500 ... both photos were included in the auction. I pointed out the "obvious" differences with the green arrow, but there are more. The guy who pointed it out to me sent an email to Heritage and they "called him back" immediately insistent that it was real. Thoughts??

The lip is the big obvious, but the shadows are off, the eye socket, mustache, angle of the magnifying glass, ear, gloves, tie, eyebrows and more! Not to mention if the image on the left is the "whole image" where is the rest of the hat and the signature that was printed on the cover?

The real question is how does this get past the "experts" over at the auction house?

Edward Dalton Stevens - 1931

The original that sold in auction is on the left

[Crow331]

OMG I must be losing my mind! I see that I made a similar post about this art a little over a week ago!!

My son was born 3 weeks ago so I must definitely be losing it because I don't really remember making that other post! LOL

Anyways, forget that other one since I've made a better comparison here. If any mods want to delete the other one, that's fine by me!

[beasterbrook]

I'm as far from an art expert that you can get.. but even I can see the inconsistencies in both the pictures...

Brette:)

[The Lidless Eye]

Comparing the 2 images, my unprofessional guess would be the painting is a study/preliminary painting which was used as a guide for the finished piece.

The two images certainly don't look identical, but your painting seems to lack detail and be much looser in style which makes me think prelim.

[Crow331]

Thanks guys on the thoughts. Maybe I should send a link to this to Heritage? It's definitely not a $6500 prelim, if it is a prelim, and not just an outright forgery.

The guy who originally alerted me to the discrepancy is an artist by the name of Frank Grau, Jr .... he actually blogged about this subject today which put it back in my mind. You can read his blog and thoughts on this subject here:

http://www.frankgrau.com/blog.php

[scribe]

I am confused. Was this billed as the original at Heritage?

[Crow331]

Yes. Both photos above came straight from the auction

Here is the description:

"EDWARD DALTON STEVENS (American 1878 - 1939)
Who Killed Louis Lawson Broadway Butterfly?,
Master Detective cover, October 1931
Oil on stretched canvas
15 x 11 in.
Not signed

A copy of the magazine is included in this lot. "

[scribe]

It doesn't exactly say it is the original. I wonder if that is a loop?

[Crow331]

Well every description in their auction looks the same. That is some loophole if they are saying "we never said any of our art was original". It does say 1931. So what, they might be saying "not an original, but created the same year as the original"?

There was another Edward Dalton Stevens in the same auction, probably by the same seller, but there was no matching pulp to compare it to and I couldn't find it online. I'd be curious to see if that one is a match.

[MSCORRINET]

Folks one could argue about issues of shadows and hat images, but look just above the left shoulder in the magazine cover. That is a signature of the artist. That isn't some printed name, it is the signature put there on the original art before it was used in publication by the artist.

It is not there on the "original" that was sold? Now I can understand editorial changes to art like the next guy. But how does an obvious, hand done, signature appear on the cover and disappear on the original? Never heard of anyone painting over an artist's signature - kind of decreases the value of the art.

It may be a preliminary. It may be a fake. But either way it is not the original painting, used for the cover, and that is what it was sold as. Whoever purchased it got ripped off and should present it back to Heritage for a full refund.

[codyfoo]

I would not go so far as to claim the ptg a forgery, more likely it is a study for publisher approval.

The cover image is much more refined in its execution, the eyes, hair facial qualities all show much more attention to detail.

More telling is the lack of signature on the ptg and the letter being held, positions of fingers holding the letter, creases on the letter.

I also think if you perform a study of ratios with a ruler, you will find the face is more narrow on the ptg than on the published cover.

It is definately not the ptg used in publishing the cover.

As to whether Heritage will accept the return for mis-attribution...I would expect Heritage to fight return, despite the facts:
a) they did NOT claim attribution to the artist
b) they stated ptg was unsigned
c) they stated the ptg was used to produce the cover...not in so many words, but they did state the cover date, mag title, etc and provided a copy of the magazine

If you decide, and have to go the full route, Im certain a judge will rule in your favor, especially if you have the supporting data such as obvious differences and a study of dimensions ratios from the images.

Given the bad press Heritage has received lately...it seems to be ongoing...Heritage might back down after a suit is filed.

[SableStar]

A reputable company would take this back if you request, given the data shown.
_________________
----SableStar

[scribe]

I am curious. How many here feel like they would have bid on this to win after not noticing the clues as presented here?

In a way, Heritage did its duty in presenting a clear image of the item. Their zoom feature is much better than eBay's. I can't say I look for forgery before bidding, but I do tend to look at things rather hard before plunking down that sort of cash.

[codyfoo]

I agree, I would expect Heritage to claim it is the responsibility of the buyer to assure themselves the item being sold IS what they claim it to be.

HOWEVER, Hertiage also has a responsibility to perform and demonstrate due diligence on their part. The lack of a signature on the ptg, when a signature is clearly visible on the cover that Heritage CLAIMS to be the published image, should have raised a red flag to their art cataloger. Indeed, heritage did observe the lack of a signature and noted the absence in their lot listing.

Had Heritage performed due diligence, they would have had a statement in the lot listing claiming the lot was ATTRIBUTED to the artist, since the missing signature was in conflict with the published image. Heritage failed to do so, which IMHO makes them responsible for mis-attribution of the work and liable for return of the lot.

I believe though, that Heritage claims to have a 1 yr period for returns (dont have any catalogs on hand). It is likely that after that 1 yr period, Heritage can not go back to the original seller for to recover the sale price, thus I believe heritage would fight a return, since it is likely they will have to eat the sale price themselves and be left with a ptg they can not correctly attribute to anyone and would be essentially worthless to them.

I am hopeful that Heritage will do the right thing and accept return if the owner chooses. Certainly Heritage does not need any more bad press related to mis-attribution of items, they had a lot of that with a recent auction and having yet more press demonstrating that Heritage is continuing the practice will not enhance their image in any way.

[Dan Dos Santos]

I think it's pretty safe to say it's a forgery.

No artist would do a prelim THAT detailed, simply as a comp, and then totally re-do the entire painting for print.
Instead, with a comp that detailed, they would likely just paint over it if there were things they were unhappy with.

Not to mention, from what I understand of pulps, having the time to do 2 full paintings for a single job was not a common luxury the Artists had.

I agree with everyone else,
Heritage should definitely accept this painting back.

Edit:
One more thought.
I could be possible that the Artist repainted the image exclusively for the purpose of sale... assuming the original had already been sold, lost or destroyed.
Though, even in this case I think it would be signed.
_________________
~ dan