fraudulent LOTR Masterpieces 2 sketches

[Guest]

[kbmum]

Just a head's up to anyone who is bidding on LOTR sketches -- artists and members at Scoundrel are reporting a number of fake sketches.  It appears that people are painting over some of the lighter, less detailed sketches, faking artist signatures, and trying to sell the cards on eBay.  There are a couple of Scoundrel threads here:

http://scoundrelpublishing.com/spart/viewforum.php?f=64

[ferdinand_the_yak]

Wow... amazing what people will stoop to.

I think that avid skecth collectors would be able to tell the difference (generally) between fakes and the real thing. I saw the "Vanderstelt" Aragorn sketch on Ebay a while ago, I thought it was very good, but since I don't really collect any more, I didn't bother clicking the link to see a larger picture (i.e. only looked at the Gallery pic). Now that I look at it, it doesn't really sit well with the other cards I have seen Vandersteldt do. I can imagine how less experienced collectors could get fooled though.

[De Orc]

Oh great not only do I have to worry about fake coins/banknotes (From China) but now I have to worry about fake LOTR sketch cards  who said collecting was a calm relaxing hobby    thanks for the heads up though I for one was unaware of this going on.

[allender]

I won one of those auctions.    I wasn't very forewarned because the storms cut off power and internet access for a few days, and I was behind in my lurking at Scoundrel. But several nice people sent messages the moment the auction was finished.

Well, it's really kind of nice artwork and the auction was cheap. I have considered completing the transaction. But I think I'll have more fun going after the seller unless he has a very good story (which I'm not expecting). Odd thing is that the other reported-fake from the same seller sold to somebody I know, and he already left positive feedback. That other one just said it was a LOTR M2 sketch card, but the description for mine (a two-card panel) said they "came from the same box."
.

[grecopa]

Most of these I can tell are fakes, but the Vanderstelt, not so much.    And by the way, I am definately NOT K. 

[allender]

I originally thought that the "K" might have been for Kate Glasheen, who was part of the set, but I haven't seen how she signed sketches. The auction was for a two-card panel, so I should have figured something was wrong when one of our loyal Yaksters (who tries to track down complete multi-part sketches) didn't bid on it. 

[kbmum]

Has the seller given you any explanation about the cards?

[allender]

I'll give a longer response on Scoundrel, but here's the gist. I get the impression that a sizable number of artists and other collectors had been contacting him too, as we went along. And it became clear that he realized that he had done a big "whoops."

I don't buy his claim of having made an unintentional, misleading mistake in the listing because it sure looks like his own artwork over an erased real Topps card. But I do think he didn't originally appreciate how wrong the community would consider the practice. But he certainly was voluble in his apologies and immediate offers to make things right. He's listed a large amount of his artwork on eBay in the past with no other issues that I see. He's done other art that was painted over subject-matter papers and cards, but none of those looks like it's something 'authentic' that might have been released with a card set.

So I'm chalking him up as a very promising artist who tried something that turned out to be a no-no, but has now been beaten across the head and shoulders about having crossed the line. He seems more naive than sinister, and a lot less naive than before. If the two auctions he listed had actually been authorized Topps cards, they probably would have brought quite decent prices, and nobody would have had a problem with the artwork if it hadn't been painted on LOTR M2 card stock.

As for Roz's comment that we might be able to tell "fakes", it's often difficult to do even within the body of work of a single artist, because some items are quick sketches and others take an hour. And with more than 100 artists contributing to a set, you have artists you've never seen before. I originally thought that this auction was from one of the half-dozen artists that I haven't been able to assign a signature or a style to. I like Len's word of "fraudulent" instead of "fake". And I even briefly thought that the item might have been a quick study for one of the more-detailed works he produced.

[grecopa]

As for Roz's comment that we might be able to tell "fakes", it's often difficult to do even within the body of work of a single artist, because some items are quick sketches and others take an hour. And with more than 100 artists contributing to a set, you have artists you've never seen before. I originally thought that this auction was from one of the half-dozen artists that I haven't been able to assign a signature or a style to. I like Len's word of "fraudulent" instead of "fake". And I even briefly thought that the item might have been a quick study for one of the more-detailed works he produced.

Fake and fraudulent can actually be synonyms.  But fraudulent (fraud) means more deceptive in the tone of the word than fake.  Fake does not have to be defined as also deceptive.

[Bryanjs14]

you know, this kind of stuff can be picked up now by us collectors relatively easy...but what about 20 years down the road? 50 years? 100 years?

Who knows how long sketch cards could hold their popularity and value. There will be no way to tell years down the road when people like us on this and other boards no longer collect and aren't around to warn people about this kind of stuff...pretty scary.

[allender]

Fake and fraudulent can actually be synonyms.  But fraudulent (fraud) means more deceptive in the tone of the word than fake.  Fake does not have to be defined as also deceptive.

Actually, I kind of wish that they wouldn't be synonyms, but I accept your point. In my first message to the seller, I used the "fake" word. The seller originally used these words: "... have received email from strangers saying Hey these cards are fake.. which i dont quite understand - i mean im looking at them- they are real- they are sketch cards and have art on them.."

That's all very true, they may be "real" and he could argue against the word "fake". But when they're painted on a Topps card with the intent to be deceptive about their provenance, or even as an honest mistake if you don't know where the cards came from, that would be "fraudulent" to me even if the cards aren't fake.

Following up on Bryanjs14's point, I plan to remain a collector for at least the next 100 years. (If I don't make it that far, let me know and I'll buy you dinner.) But who's to say that an occasional fake won't have some heavy value in the future? The fake Vanderstelt and Pence cards are actually pretty good. The only real protection that keeps sketch collecting from being a real mess is the fact that most of the artists participate in these online communities, and the ones who don't have friends who do.

I still get the feeling that, if I had pulled those cards from a pack, I would have been quite happy. Happier than I was for some that I did pull from packs. That's the danger for some of the values we assign to these cards in the future. Will autographs from card sets remain more valuable than cards somebody signs at a con? Will authorized sketches with a card company logo remain pricier than aftermarket drawings on blank card stock? Would we even care so much, if we didn't have this and other boards to talk about it? 

[ferdinand_the_yak]

As for Roz's comment that we might be able to tell "fakes", it's often difficult to do even within the body of work of a single artist, because some items are quick sketches and others take an hour. And with more than 100 artists contributing to a set, you have artists you've never seen before.

That would have been me Jeff

I know that artists vary in their work a bit, and of course don't expect the exact same style for each card, but after drooling over Vanderstelt after Vanderstelt on Ebay, I was pretty sure that the card in question was different. Now it could have been that Jerry decided to do something a bit different, or maybe he got out of the wrong side of bed that day () but it could have also been someone else's work altogether. Which in this case, it was.

I definitely don't claim to be an expert, and if this hadn't come up, I would say that the card would have looked mighty tempting!