The Illustration Exchange

[Crow331]

I posted this over at the comicart list to get reaction ...

Heritage responded:

"We appreciate this being brought to our attention (thanks to the fellow who called us as well). As I think/hope everybody already knows, we guarantee the authorship as stated in our cataloging on any painting unconditionally.

We feel that the painting in question is indeed the painting used to produce the final pulp cover. There are a number of possible reasons for the visible changes between the painting we sold and the printed version: all kinds of alterations were often made in the production process, and there may well have been restoration at some point to the painting.

Anyway, we're contacting the buyer and offering to inspect the painting
first-hand, and will offer to refund the purchase price if our opinion should
change about the veracity of the painting.

-Barry Sandoval"

[Ray Tolomeo]

Their opinion? Why theirs? How about an independent arbitrator/appraiser take a look. We already know that the appearance of independence or a lack of conflict of interest is not Heritage's strong suit.

[codyfoo]

I hope I'm wrong but it really sounds like the weasel dance has begun at Heritage. After the concern has been brought to the attention of Heritage and after an opportunity to re-examine the images in their own archive, Heritage continues to maintain the ptg was produced by Stevens and used as the published image for the mag cover. Comparing the hi-res images in the Heritage auction archives is even more revealing in terms of differences.

Not even an acknowledgement of uncertainity from Heritage, yet they hint the ptg might have been restored or the publication image enhanced by the publisher. It is all conjecture on the part of Heritage and does not sound promising for the buyer.

[SableStar]

If they flake out on this, it seems a Better Business Bureau entry and possibly a small claims court action might be appropriate.
_________________
----SableStar

[Dan Dos Santos]

The restoration excuse seems plausible, if it were not for the eyes.
As an artist, the very first thing I noticed between the two images is that the angle of the eye on our left is way off.
A little variation in edges like what the arrows point out are possible touch-ups, but repainting an entire eye (and inadvertently doing so crookedly) seems highly unlikely.
_________________
~ dan

[beasterbrook]

if its a touch up its the most extensive one I've seen.. it looks like everything has been touched up.. the fingers on the hand holding the paper are just so different from the origional.. and painting over an artist sig?.. and honestly how may times were "publication image enhanced by the publisher" in the what the 1930's??.. I can understand flipping the image or differnt colour etc but adding an artist signature? from what I've heard they had trouble paying artists in those days, I don't think they would have gone out of there way to add in a sig if it wasn't there.. and a prelim? I would have thought the artists would just be churning these out by the dozen and have not time to do prelims etc...

Brette:)

[Egrove]

The lack of a signature is what strikes me as fishy.

(a) I cannot see any artist deliberately modifying their artwork so it goes out into the world without their name on it.

(b) Leaving off the signature seems exactly the sort of thing someone would deliberately do when copying an artwork in order to attempt to give themselves plausible deniability. i.e. "yes I painted a copy of this picture, but I never represented it was the original and by the artist because I did not copy his signature on it".

Anyone doing copies for bona-fide purposes, - i.e. with no intention that they be mistaken for the original - would probably also leave off the signature but also prominantly label the artwork (for example on the back) with their studio name etc to protect themselves from any claim that they are involved in producing forgeries as opposed to reproductions.

As for Heritage, - give them time to inspect the work and contact the vendor. They may come through in the end, and to a degree they are also an innocent party. While someone at Heritage did not pick up on the discrepencies, it is hard to imagine them deliberately turning a blind eye to them. Assuming the work is not genuine at some point before it reached Heritgae someone chose to profit by passing the painting off as being geniune. They're the one who deserves to be strung up.

Ed

[Crow331]

BUMP