All Poster Forum
Common Poster Subjects => Authentication => Topic started by: Mirosae on April 24, 2016, 03:56:36 PM
-
Gents & Ladies
I would welcome any thoughts on this "original art" apparently it belonged to another well known collector from NYC.
The current owner reassured me that it is the original. I have been talking to my usual suspects and So far three out of four people are very sceptical so the "nay " are winning.
To me there are substantive differences around the eyes; and the signature.
Thanks a lot in advance for your help
"Original art"
(http://i1356.photobucket.com/albums/q737/Hope_Emerson/Valentino_Flohri_zpsuerkdsb6.jpg)
"Magazine cover"
(http://i1356.photobucket.com/albums/q737/Hope_Emerson/20160226_081821-1_zpsxalxj6p1.jpg)
Comparison
(http://i1356.photobucket.com/albums/q737/Hope_Emerson/20160424_190546_zpse3stnelx.jpg)
-
the pastel does appear to be a Flohri
yes is the original as far as I can tell and is very nice. What are they trying to extort you for cashwise
-
Just looking at the signature, missing dash to left. The word Hollywood is different when comparing letter for letter. Also the inside half of the eye compares quite different to me.
-
I say there is zero chance it is the original to the magazine cover, and a tiny chance it is more than a few years old.
Probably done by a starving artist type.
-
Yeah, there are a lot of subtle but noticeable differences in shading and color.
Steve pointed out the lettering and I noticed that the white only goes partway into the first "O" in one of them, while it goes into the "L" in the other.
-
Coincidentally, I recently made my first foray into original magazine cover art (by Ernesto Garcia Cabral). I won't hijack this thread, but will post it elsewhere once I have it in hand. Hopefully it's legit!
-
I say there is zero chance it is the original to the magazine cover, and a tiny chance it is more than a few years old.
Probably done by a starving artist type.
+1
-
Steve pointed out the lettering and I noticed that the white only goes partway into the first "O" in one of them, while it goes into the "L" in the other.
Every letter in the word Hollywood is different (size/ position)
-
Every letter in the word Hollywood is different (size/ position)
The gallery that currently has this for sale will say (and insist) that this IS the original, Flohri art, without question.
http://grapefruitmoongallery.com/9233
I inquired about this item, over 2 months ago, with detail, side by side comparative images, via a number of emails, and asked the gallery rep about the multiple, visual discrepancies on the pastel as compared to the image shown on the mag cover (variations in numerous areas of the art that didnt match, the signature being "off" & in a slightly different area, re-written etc).
Her replies were "interesting," to say the least, since she couldn't explain those variations away. And when asking $7500.00, I was hoping to be convinced. Sadly, I wasn't.
-
(http://www.mysterycorp.com/temp/valentino_combosig.gif)
-
Every letter in the word Hollywood is different (size/ position)
Let alone so much more, Steve. :-\
-
(http://www.mysterycorp.com/temp/valentino_combosig.gif)
This is incredibly helpful. As you say the lettering is really different. And the colours too.
Thank you Steve
-
Coincidentally, I recently made my first foray into original magazine cover art (by Ernesto Garcia Cabral). I won't hijack this thread, but will post it elsewhere once I have it in hand. Hopefully it's legit!
Please do share!!!!
-
I say there is zero chance it is the original to the magazine cover, and a tiny chance it is more than a few years old.
Probably done by a starving artist type.
Yes, someone else had said exactly the same. I take the nah are winning.
Thanks
-
Rosa, don't listen to what these non-art people are saying.
You do indeed have the original piece there and Dan over at Grapefruit Moon Gallery is top-notch.
why the painting doesn't look quite right is most likely because the pastel has been restored at some point
a little art education: for paints, pigment is ground down to a fine powder, finer than talc, and mixed with a medium. Oils for oil paint, water based solubles for water paints and a thick oil based paste for acrylics. Pastels are the pure pigment, without a medium. But because pastels are a non-fixed medium, they are fugitive. An anti-caking powder is mixed with the pigment and they are pressed into pastel sticks. But over time, the pastel flakes off or worse, it gets touched and any touch rubs away or smudges the pastels. It also happens when pastels are poorly stored and the surfaces are in contact with other surfaces, like another painting
the problem now becomes how to restore such damage and with pastels it is nearly impossible to get a correct match because nobody does it like the original artist and if you don't have a reference to look at, you also make mistakes, like leaving out the extra line in front of the artists signature which the restorer may have thought was a smudge and the restorer also probably enhanced what they did not restore, just like poster restorers adding translucent colors to boost the finished product.
that's why the piece has some areas that are spot on, and others seem a little off and why others - such as the signature - have a ghost line.
it is the original, but it is restored. You might ask Dan if he had the restoration done and mention my name and that I said you should ask him.
If Dan had it restored, he will tell you, if he did not, he might look into it. (okay.. I read above where Jeff previously asked him about it. probably comes to Dan in it's current condition)
meanwhile, here's a pastel piece from 1940 by Rolf Armstrong.. I might mention, it's on my wall, at my office and Dan has tried to buy it...
(http://www.comicbidz.com/cgc_setsale/apf/armstrong2.jpg)
-
That looks great Rich. On both accounts :P
Thank you all for giving me such a good food for thought. Rich, I hear what you are saying. I also appreciate others providing a different viewpoint.
Will muddle it over...
Thank you all - very helpful. :)
-
Rosa, don't listen to what these non-art people are saying
I have started on an artistic journey and been taking life drawing classes the past few weeks (no joke) and feel this qualifies me as art people:
This original likely was drawn by the Chinese in a sweat shop. It is f-f-f-fake. Please be under no illusion that this is not worth your consideration.
Talk of paint, pigments, pastels, powder, pressed poorly is pure poppycock
-
You do indeed have the original piece there and Dan over at Grapefruit Moon Gallery is top-notch.
I've bought a couple of posters from Grapefruit Moon in the past, they are great. Dan is the former lead guitarist of Soul Asylum, remember those guys?
-
I am very glad to see that this thread has provoked such a good discussion. It is most helpful to have others' views and opinions. It is also good to read plenty of food for thought - not just for me but for anyone out there considering a similar purchase.
This is why APF is so wonderful. Thank you :)
-
I find myself agreeing with Rich in that it's had (a lot of) restoration. If you look at the upper right corner of the 'eye' comparison photos at the lines on the turban you can see the ghost images of the original lines of the folds underneath the overpainting.
GFM gallery is definitely first rate, but in this case the question for me would be do you want to shell out your hard earned dosh on something that has had so much work done on it, not the original vs. repro question.
That said, it is lovely.
[Edit: upper RIGHT corner. Need to remember that "right" is the hand with the ribbon tied to it...]
-
I've bought a poster from these guys. One of my best purchases last year. They have all kinds of good stuff for sale. Have no idea about the Valentino though...
-
Rosa, don't listen to what these non-art people are saying.
You do indeed have the original piece there and Dan over at Grapefruit Moon Gallery is top-notch.
why the painting doesn't look quite right is most likely because the pastel has been restored at some point
a little art education: for paints, pigment is ground down to a fine powder, finer than talc, and mixed with a medium. Oils for oil paint, water based solubles for water paints and a thick oil based paste for acrylics. Pastels are the pure pigment, without a medium. But because pastels are a non-fixed medium, they are fugitive. An anti-caking powder is mixed with the pigment and they are pressed into pastel sticks. But over time, the pastel flakes off or worse, it gets touched and any touch rubs away or smudges the pastels. It also happens when pastels are poorly stored and the surfaces are in contact with other surfaces, like another painting
the problem now becomes how to restore such damage and with pastels it is nearly impossible to get a correct match because nobody does it like the original artist and if you don't have a reference to look at, you also make mistakes, like leaving out the extra line in front of the artists signature which the restorer may have thought was a smudge and the restorer also probably enhanced what they did not restore, just like poster restorers adding translucent colors to boost the finished product.
that's why the piece has some areas that are spot on, and others seem a little off and why others - such as the signature - have a ghost line.
it is the original, but it is restored. You might ask Dan if he had the restoration done and mention my name and that I said you should ask him.
If Dan had it restored, he will tell you, if he did not, he might look into it. (okay.. I read above where Jeff previously asked him about it. probably comes to Dan in it's current condition)
meanwhile, here's a pastel piece from 1940 by Rolf Armstrong.. I might mention, it's on my wall, at my office and Dan has tried to buy it...
(http://www.comicbidz.com/cgc_setsale/apf/armstrong2.jpg)
Good info, Rich. Back when I was emailing the gallery associate, I even asked if it had been retouched or restored. She said it hadn't been. All the other slight artistic variables, she said, were caused by things like lighting, when it was being readied to be photographed for the mag cover (she said those created shadows were the issue). I didnt quite get that explanation, as this piece would have been evenly lit for a cover photo.
Anyhow, had she simply said that it had been heavily retouched and restored in the years since, that would have answered the question and explained away the differences in appearance. But because she didnt, it left me wondering. The associate's emails were very nice and she thanked me for asking the questions. She also said she would investigate further but I never got any follow ups.
-
I have started on an artistic journey and been taking life drawing classes the past few weeks (no joke) and feel this qualifies me as art people:
This original likely was drawn by the Chinese in a sweat shop. It is f-f-f-fake. Please be under no illusion that this is not worth your consideration.
Talk of paint, pigments, pastels, powder, pressed poorly is pure poppycock
man can you be a dumbass sometimes
:P
-
All the other slight artistic variables, she said, were caused by things like lighting, when it was being readied to be photographed for the mag cover (she said those created shadows were the issue). I didnt quite get that explanation, as this piece would have been evenly lit for a cover photo.
yeah that is kind of dumb, however, Motion Picture magazine in the 1920s didn't use the highest quality printing for the cover stock.
-
yeah that is kind of dumb, however, Motion Picture magazine in the 1920s didn't use the highest quality printing for the cover stock.
Thanks.
And in the end, and as you mentioned, it's the rather heavy retouching/restoration that also gives it the slightly different look.
-
I find myself agreeing with Rich in that it's had (a lot of) restoration. If you look at the upper right corner of the 'eye' comparison photos at the lines on the turban you can see the ghost images of the original lines of the folds underneath the overpainting.
GFM gallery is definitely first rate, but in this case the question for me would be do you want to shell out your hard earned dosh on something that has had so much work done on it, not the original vs. repro question.
That said, it is lovely.
[Edit: upper RIGHT corner. Need to remember that "right" is the hand with the ribbon tied to it...]
Thank you Peter Always good to hear from you. I too heard wonders about this Gallery.
-
I've bought a couple of posters from Grapefruit Moon in the past, they are great. Dan is the former lead guitarist of Soul Asylum, remember those guys?
I've bought a poster from these guys. One of my best purchases last year. They have all kinds of good stuff for sale. Have no idea about the Valentino though...
You two trouble makers spending all your dosh on a pin up posh
:P
I should dedicate my life to writing poems.... :P
-
man can you be a dumbass sometimes
:P
Hey..watch your cheeky tongue mister... :P
;D
-
It is also good to read plenty of food for thought - not just for me but for anyone out there considering a similar purchase.
This is why APF is so wonderful. Thank you :)
I learned three things from this thread:
1- the Gallery has a good reputation and it is worth considering;
2- You bought items from them already - bunch of avid pin-up collectors (no one would have ever guessed!) devil 2
3- Not a clear answer_ different camps : like in life never a straight simple answer ..though the nos are winning
A huge thank you to those who contributed in good spirit.
Very helpful....
-
Siempre es un gusto, tia! thumbsup.gif
-
(Endless loop in my head since this morning...)
..Runaway train never going back... Wromg way on a one way traaaack...seems like I should be getting somewhere..
-
Really interesting thread! I also appreciate your input about paints Rich. I just don't see that this picture, if original, could be anything but completely restored to the point where everything was gone over again. I also think that if it was restored they did not do a very good job. If I were to take this information into account and also the conflicting information that was coming from the gallery I would pass on this one IMO. I guess it would be cool to know (if purchased) the original was under the restoration but the overall feeling of the piece has a completely different vibe than the image on the magazine cover. I also don't think the possible explanation of the missing line next to the signature holds up. The restorer must have looked at the original magazine cover and saw there were clearly lines on both sides of the signature. This painting kind of reminds me of how some of the S2 reproductions came out on the classic movie posters that were hand pulled. Some are great, others miss the mark.
When I got my original art for the JAWS 2 THAI poster and compared it to the actual poster, NOTHING was out of place except for color differences due to printing. This is obviously because the painting was not restored, but I don't see much of anything that lines up with these 2 images on the small detail level. Again this is all IMO.
And Rich that 1940 pastel you have is just gorgeous!
-
Really interesting thread! I also appreciate your input about paints Rich. I just don't see that this picture, if original, could be anything but completely restored to the point where everything was gone over again. I also think that if it was restored they did not do a very good job. If I were to take this information into account and also the conflicting information that was coming from the gallery I would pass on this one IMO. I guess it would be cool to know (if purchased) the original was under the restoration but the overall feeling of the piece has a completely different vibe than the image on the magazine cover. I also don't think the possible explanation of the missing line next to the signature holds up. The restorer must have looked at the original magazine cover and saw there were clearly lines on both sides of the signature. This painting kind of reminds me of how some of the S2 reproductions came out on the classic movie posters that were hand pulled. Some are great, others miss the mark.
When I got my original art for the JAWS 2 THAI poster and compared it to the actual poster, NOTHING was out of place except for color differences due to printing. This is obviously because the painting was not restored, but I don't see much of anything that lines up with these 2 images on the small detail level. Again this is all IMO.
And Rich that 1940 pastel you have is just gorgeous!
Mike, I don't think the restorer had a copy of the magazine cover to look at, but also I've seen people do restorations on pastels and it is the most impossible restoration there is, beyond hiring someone to do the work that would cost many times what the painting is worth. The restorer was better than Chris Cloutier.
I have no doubt it is the real piece
and thanks.. I've had that Armstrong for 30 years.. I used to have another Armstrong and 2 Mozert pastels. I also had a Margaret Brundage pastel for Weird Tales once, a 1935 cover. It had come from a very famous comic art collection I got a few pieces from. There was something spooky about the WT cover. I never slept well as long as I had it in my home back then. I traded it off for the only Norman Saunders horror comic cover known to exist plus a stack of other art. My buddy later sold it to a collector in Florida who still has it.
-
I'm certainly am no artist so I appreciate all the info Rich, especially regarding the restoration of a pastel being extremely difficult sm1
-
Mike, I don't think the restorer had a copy of the magazine cover to look at, but also I've seen people do restorations on pastels and it is the most impossible restoration there is, beyond hiring someone to do the work that would cost many times what the painting is worth. The restorer was better than Chris Cloutier.
I have no doubt it is the real piece
and thanks.. I've had that Armstrong for 30 years.. I used to have another Armstrong and 2 Mozert pastels. I also had a Margaret Brundage pastel for Weird Tales once, a 1935 cover. It had come from a very famous comic art collection I got a few pieces from. There was something spooky about the WT cover. I never slept well as long as I had it in my home back then. I traded it off for the only Norman Saunders horror comic cover known to exist plus a stack of other art. My buddy later sold it to a collector in Florida who still has it.
If this is the case, then it makes one wonder why he wouldnt have tried to obtain one, so that he could been more exact in the restoration. The subtlety of the original is gone in many areas. The retouch work is rough and not fluid like the original was, on areas of the headdress and the bands of color, that move downward, as well as the 2 horizontal, gold bands above Valentino's forehead.
I guess the fact that it is still in existence, even in this overly restored state, is better than not having it around at all.
-
because to most people, trying to find the magazine would be at best, difficult
you can't just presume everything is easy. Try to find a copy of this specific issue this week, and let me know if you were successful.
it's also possible the people who owned it may not have even known what it was. Maybe they found it at a flea market 40 years ago
hey, here's an exercise.. go to Heritage and look up Frazetta paintings and examine each one against the original printed material.
Frazetta changed many of his paintings after publication. The cover to Vampirella #1 - he removed her clothes and she is now, naked. Kevin Eastman owns this piece
look for a copy of the Monster Mania from 1966 with the cavemen cover and match it against the painting which I believe Heritage has sold.. no longer the same. he changed the #@*&% painting! Guess what - artists do this all the time! Not that it has anything to do with the Valentino, but examining them will add to your education
I spent years selling this type of art.
-
I get what you are saying completely. I was more just thinking aloud and saying it was too bad the artist who did the retouching didnt have the mag. cover for reference, possibly.
-
Is there any evidence any part of the image is original. Quick look maybe, close look doubt it
-
Is there any evidence any part of the image is original. Quick look maybe, close look doubt it
go to Dan's store and examine the piece in person. You simply don't know what you're talking about.
-
go to Dan's store and examine the piece in person. You simply don't know what you're talking about.
All views on good faith and spirit are welcome. I actually appreciate different opinions, yours and Steve's. Most of us are not experts but take a view based on our tastes or semi-informed judgment.
-
Really interesting thread! I also appreciate your input about paints Rich. I just don't see that this picture, if original, could be anything but completely restored to the point where everything was gone over again. I also think that if it was restored they did not do a very good job. If I were to take this information into account and also the conflicting information that was coming from the gallery I would pass on this one IMO. I guess it would be cool to know (if purchased) the original was under the restoration but the overall feeling of the piece has a completely different vibe than the image on the magazine cover. I also don't think the possible explanation of the missing line next to the signature holds up. The restorer must have looked at the original magazine cover and saw there were clearly lines on both sides of the signature. This painting kind of reminds me of how some of the S2 reproductions came out on the classic movie posters that were hand pulled. Some are great, others miss the mark.
When I got my original art for the JAWS 2 THAI poster and compared it to the actual poster, NOTHING was out of place except for color differences due to printing. This is obviously because the painting was not restored, but I don't see much of anything that lines up with these 2 images on the small detail level. Again this is all IMO.
And Rich that 1940 pastel you have is just gorgeous!
Very helpful Mike. Your Thai poster is splendid and certainly one which I would be delighted to own too.
-
because to most people, trying to find the magazine would be at best, difficult
you can't just presume everything is easy. Try to find a copy of this specific issue this week, and let me know if you were successful.
it's also possible the people who owned it may not have even known what it was. Maybe they found it at a flea market 40 years ago.
+ Good point. It has taken me over 10 years to find a "cover" - only that. I hope I will be able to upgrade and find a better copy of the magazine. But I am not in a hurry.
Also a final thought from me. My own personal conundrum. Some of us are emotional collectors, and would undoubtely find it difficult to make rational choices when it comes to posters or pieces like this.
Rationally I have considered the odds of finding something like this but on paper at a price I can afford. It is not looking good. But I need to find "my right" choice.
On balance I have decided not to go for this..but my heart finds it difficult to let it go...just because...oh boy...it is gorgeous.
I shall leave you now with that thought. The emotional Vs rational decision. Great fun.
Be good :D
-
man can you be a dumbass sometimes
:P
I understand, what you really want to tell the world about your fashion indiscretions:
(http://www.mysterycorp.com/temp/avatar_87mod2.jpg)
-
I say there is zero chance it is the original to the magazine cover, and a tiny chance it is more than a few years old.
Probably done by a starving artist type.
I stand corrected. There may well be an original pastel under this restoration, and if the seller says so, I have no reason to doubt it. I bought a number of items from this seller many years ago when I was an eBay seller, and I never once received a purchase I was unhappy with.
I would say that the restoration is surely extensive, and may well cover large portions of the original, and I would be astounded if the restorer referred to an original (or a digital image of the original) when they performed their restoration, which is why I thought there was zero chance it was original. This is a case where seeing an image of the unrestored original would be worth many thousands of words.
-
I stand corrected. There may well be an original pastel under this restoration, and if the seller says so, I have no reason to doubt it. I bought a number of items from this seller many years ago when I was an eBay seller, and I never once received a purchase I was unhappy with.
I would say that the restoration is surely extensive, and may well cover large portions of the original, and I would be astounded if the restorer referred to an original (or a digital image of the original) when they performed their restoration, which is why I thought there was zero chance it was original.This is a case where seeing an image of the unrestored original would be worth many thousands of words.
Agreed. I posted a couple of months ago somewhere else on this forum a photo of this artist in his studio, but unfortunately i couldnt find any images of this particular original and unrestored artwork.
There are photos of poster artists with their original art ( like Anton Grot with his Thief of Bagdad
Now..imagine finding this original artwork) faint2.gif
Anton Grot with his original artwork
(http://i1356.photobucket.com/albums/q737/Hope_Emerson/design3_zpspjw3rlko.jpg)