IMPORTANT INFO for anyone buying "unused/rejected" covers esp. from Cool Lines

2 2

wow, that is truly terrible. How are these guys still in business???

 

Because people keep buying from them and putting up with their B.S.

 

 

Honestly I don't know of more than 2-3 times in the last 5 years anyone I know has bought anything from them. Their Ebay ID's show little/no sales completed. I don't know who these phantom uninformed or "don't mind getting ripped off' folks are who are supposedly keeping them in business. I think they actually might not exist. Its seems as if the brothers make few if any sales each year, its just i remember these guys as buying a lot back in the 20 bucks a page days. I think they just sank a ton in back then and now can afford to have 2-5 sales a year at insanely over market prices.

 

That's probably why no one can really punish them for their games, they don't need the money more than the art because they effectively have nothing into the art. They can play these games because it doesn't matter to them if they sell or not. Its almost like they have nothing to lose, so you cant really push em so on these antics go for decades.

Except they pay booth fees for SDCC every year, don't they? People buy there, certainly in person I think. East Coast Donnelly seems busy at comic art con.

But back on topic, go get'em Chris! Get damages even if such is really possible!

From my understanding, they are simply rich guys with time and money on their hands who happen to love OA. They do this for fun and to try to trade for art they want. They are not in the OA business to make a living off it, but rather to facilitate the need to get more. So they don't care if any of it sells, and they attend big cons like SDCC as well as small ones all over to show off what they have and maybe work some deals. They can afford to pay the booth fees without making sales, but I am sure they make some sales here and there and at those prices it isn't too bad. So that would explain their 'pie in the sky" pricing that changes each time you ask. They'd rather have the trade bait that might lead to other finds than the money. They clearly have that already.

I know people who have admitted to buying from them, and like others have said, if they have something someone wants and that person is okay with overpaying for it then people WILL deal with them. To each their own. I consider them a black hole where great art goes to die. The price always goes up, even after not selling at the already obscene previous price.

My hypothesis is that they are collectors who present themselves as dealers so that they can take the tax benefits of using their "business" to support their hobby. That is, it lowers their collection costs.

I have no evidence to back this hypothesis, but that's the one that I have.

My hypothesis is that they are collectors who present themselves as dealers so that they can take the tax benefits of using their "business" to support their hobby.

For being dealers, they come across as great collectors.

Chris,

 

In thinking about it, in addition to what I wrote above, you may be able to bring wire fraud and other claims under the consumer protections act and UCC of the state in which your friend lives or, more likely, where the Donnely's are doing business. I am happy to help in any way.

Thanks Jared,

It seems extremely short sighted and illogical on their part to not simply respond to the person who purchased this item due to claims that have turned out to be false and refund their money in full and immediately.

The remedies open to the purchaser against the seller are vast and none are going to be preferable to the seller over a simple and easy refund.

He's discussed this with more than one attorney already.

Chris,

 

In thinking about it, in addition to what I wrote above, you may be able to bring wire fraud and other claims under the consumer protections act and UCC of the state in which your friend lives or, more likely, where the Donnely's are doing business. I am happy to help in any way.

 

 

 

Thanks Jared,

 

It seems extremely short sighted and illogical on their part to not simply respond to the person who purchased this item due to claims that have turned out to be false and refund their money in full and immediately.

 

The remedies open to the purchaser against the seller are vast and none are going to be preferable to the seller over a simple and easy refund.

 

He's discussed this with more than one attorney already.

I totally agree. Please keep us in the loop. My very best to your friend and Happy New Year to you and everyone!!

This piece of artwork coming up at Pedigree is described as a "recreation" by Gene Colan of the Giant-Size Chillers 1 cover.

https://www.pedigreecomics.com/auction/comic_art/056972/giant-size-chillers-1-cover-recreation-large-art

Here's the original cover of Giant-Size Chillers, with the same stats on it:

http://www.comics.org/issue/27476/cover/4/

It looks nothing like the published cover, which was by John Romita. The auction says that Dave did the logo and cover dressing to make it look like a cover. I'm not sure what to think about that. Not saying it's wrong, just....huh.

Glen Gold

This piece of artwork coming up at Pedigree is described as a "recreation" by Gene Colan of the Giant-Size Chillers 1 cover.

 

https://www.pedigreecomics.com/auction/comic_art/056972/giant-size-chillers-1-cover-recreation-large-art

 

Here's the original cover of Giant-Size Chillers, with the same stats on it:

 

http://www.comics.org/issue/27476/cover/4/

 

It looks nothing like the published cover, which was by John Romita. The auction says that Dave did the logo and cover dressing to make it look like a cover. I'm not sure what to think about that. Not saying it's wrong, just....huh.

 

 

Glen Gold

I found that strange as well. It was on Burkeys site for a bit and I was looking at it but it looked nothing like the published cover. So not sure how it's a recreation. Maybe reinterpretation?

This piece of artwork coming up at Pedigree is described as a "recreation" by Gene Colan of the Giant-Size Chillers 1 cover.

 

https://www.pedigreecomics.com/auction/comic_art/056972/giant-size-chillers-1-cover-recreation-large-art

 

Here's the original cover of Giant-Size Chillers, with the same stats on it:

 

http://www.comics.org/issue/27476/cover/4/

 

It looks nothing like the published cover, which was by John Romita. The auction says that Dave did the logo and cover dressing to make it look like a cover. I'm not sure what to think about that. Not saying it's wrong, just....huh.

 

 

Glen Gold

Terrible item description (which has been par for the course with Pedigree's art auction) Jesus, what is it going to take to get them to clean their act up, a lawsuit? Description claims that Colan did the pencils and inks. Gutierrez did the inks. http://abstractrealitystudios.blogspot.com/2006/11/gene-colan-giant-size-chillers-1.html

From what I can figure, it's a commission. Even though Pedigree's description reads "This recreation was drawn larger from the story titled: "Night of the She-Demon!" which i interpreted to mean that the creator selected a panel from the story and had it flipped to be the cover image, that image appears nowhere in the issue. (I've seen people do that with Early Spider-man issues, where the splash page or a panel is more interesting than the cover)

Tried finding it on Burkey's site to see what his description reads, but couldn't find it on my initial scrape.

This piece of artwork coming up at Pedigree is described as a "recreation" by Gene Colan of the Giant-Size Chillers 1 cover.

 

https://www.pedigreecomics.com/auction/comic_art/056972/giant-size-chillers-1-cover-recreation-large-art

 

Here's the original cover of Giant-Size Chillers, with the same stats on it:

 

http://www.comics.org/issue/27476/cover/4/

 

It looks nothing like the published cover, which was by John Romita. The auction says that Dave did the logo and cover dressing to make it look like a cover. I'm not sure what to think about that. Not saying it's wrong, just....huh.

 

 

Glen Gold

The description the Pedigree site uses is a copy/paste from Romitaman - don't mean to split hairs, but this appears to be a mostly reinterpreted cover. The title, logo, masthead, art box and callouts (with the exception of "fearful first edition" being relocated and sub-title missing) are identical to the published cover and from the description are hand inked rather than reproduced as stats or paste-ups. So recreation may be confusing, but I don't think it's entirely inaccurate. Although reinterpreted would probably be less confusing.

I've seen people do that with Early Spider-man issues, where the splash page or a panel is more interesting than the cover

Giorgio Comolo made a few of these reinterpreted covers - in fact, I believe Pedigree has listed a few of them in their auctions. I quite liked a few of them and thought a few were better than the originals. The ASM 122 was probably my favourite.

Much more of a reinterpretation than a recreation. I think Colan is one of the greats, especially when Dracula-themed elements are involved, but we all have off-days. IMO, this was one of his.

Agreed, more of a reinterpretation. However, I think the point of contention is that Gene inked the piece and not Dave.

Yes, the description needs to be changed. There's not any doubt that GC did the pencils only.

I wonder if Colan was asked to do a "reinterpretation" or "recreation" at the time of commission. Looking at the artwork alone, (if the masthead, etc, didn't exist), I wouldn't have suspected he was offering his take on the original published cover.

This doesn't clear up much, but it does give a little context -- it's still up in Dave's CAF, along with a few other commissions he inked from around the same time (2006):

http://www.comicartfans.com/galleryroom.asp?gsub=32891

Not sure how anyone was fooled by this so these dealers HAD to have known better.

That being said if this were my friend I'd protest wherever conventions they set up at with the article in question until I had satisfaction.

Wow. Ludicrous. 

53 minutes ago, Mr. Machismo said:

Wow. Ludicrous. 

You're too nice.  

What a bunch of effin' BS! 

As I've said, I've seen commissions that had trade dress on that was called an unused cover.

What they do actually devalues "real" unused covers out there unfortunately.  But I suppose fake sketches devalues all sketches out there too.

Malvin