Keskustelujen arkisto

This is just sad :(
I remember few years ago Don Rosa complain how he found drawings on Ebay which he didn't drawn (complitly diffrent art style) yet somebody sing with his name or clame it was made by Don Rosa...

Quote from user: RunnerIs there another version of this motif that is really drawn by Barks so you can compare them ?
This is the finished painting.
http://coa.inducks.org/story.php?c=CB+OIL++51

First of all, that is NOT a "sketch". Secondly, that is NOT remotely reminiscent of Barks' hand (either during his prime, OR during his shaky-handed elderly period (when the real sketch for that drawing was made. That is CLEARLY NOT Carl Barks' work. I find it hard to believe that anyone would believe that it is. There are SO many un-Barkslike elements in that drawing (and signature) that I wouldn't know where to start discussing them. It is totally ridiculous that anyone would have believed that this could pass for a "Barks" preliminary sketch". It looks like some 11-year old drew it, and one of his friends suggested that they try to "pass it off" as a Barks original, just for a lark-to see if the public has a bunch of foolish and ignorant people. I'll curious to learn whether or not anyone is foolish enough to buy it at that price (or any other).

Not totally off topic :

http://coa.inducks.org/issue.php?c=us/WDC+174

On this rather cover from 1955 Donald's eyes look rather atypical have I always thought. I then wondered if someone else had somewhat redrawn Barks' art, especially Donald's head i.e.
From the same period there is a drawing of Scrooge in a U.S comic book story that is really a failure, although I have no link to it.
Now I see that Daan Jippes reinked Barks Donald here (but not the front nephew at least which is by Barks) on a Dutch cover version. Maybe they didn't like the Barks odd style there :
http://coa.inducks.org/issue.php?c=nl/DD1978-41

http://coa.inducks.org/story.php?c=W+WDC+301-00

This cover from 1965 I have always more doubted it was by Barks, even if I had to buy the comic book before that since it was in an earlier index (Barrier's?) of Carl Barks covers.
Now according to Inducks Geoffrey Blum has written a rather new article about this matter which I have not read. But INDUCKS just state pencils Kay Wright (?). No Barks credit. I think Donald except the cap is somewhat Barksish (or even moreStrobl-like?) but the nephwes ugly nonBarksish.

Just for reference from that period this
http://coa.inducks.org/issue.php?c=us/WDC+303
is very typical Barks art. Both the nephews and Donald are drawn as in the comics.

This one from 1969 http://coa.inducks.org/issue.php?c=us/WDC+350
nearly looks more like Jippes work to me, with a little bit exaggerated expressions, even if I realize it must be Barks.
(Jippes has by the way made a nearly 100 % Barks style cover (not 1940's style) that has a snowy motif like several Barks covers from that late 1960's period. I can't find it now though in Jippes index on INDUCKS, maybe it was a forgotten (or in Netherlands published) Barks cover that I have seen on a Dutch comic book ( I have it elsewhere now) ? ;-) )

http://coa.inducks.org/issue.php?c=us/WDC+351
That is an example of very strange Barks credited nonBarksish looking nephews, as if someone else has done the inking (Kay Wright ?, Larry Mayer ? who was credited some covers at that time).

Maybe Larry Mayer had something to do with the cover of Officer For a Day ? Look at expecially the eyes of Donald and compare these :
http://coa.inducks.org/issue.php?c=us/WDC+347
http://coa.inducks.org/issue.php?c=us/DD++126 But the Beagle Boy and the nephew are very Barksish and therefore obviously by Barks.

-------------------------------------

With this I just want to say that even some Barks credited art work look rather strange to me, as well as the drawing discussed above, while most of the master's comic book art work was very consistent although developing over time.

I realize if the signature on it is not a Barks typical one, then it should be a really clumsy fake.

Quote from user: cacouWhat about
http://www.liveauctioneers.com/item/11995761_carl-barks-signed-preliminary-pencil-sketch
http://www.liveauctioneers.com/item/11995762_two-carl-barks-signed-preliminary-pencil-sketches
To me all three sketches there are a lot more Barksish Duck faces than the proposed fake, thereby for me raising the probability of that the "fake" really is not by Barks, although I am not that experienced in this type of art.

Also the signatures seem more Barkslike.

Maybe I really have underestimated the Barks quality in sketches since these three examples I find a lot more consistent in style.

You see that when making fan drawings late in his career (after he had stopped drawing all stories and covers for Western Publishing, his hand was shaky (which can be seen in the lines), and most importantly, he always signed the pages in script writing, as opposed to block lettering (similar style to his comic book text balloon printing). The perpitrator of the fraud, apparently photocopied, scanned, or digitally photoed Barks' original sketch (which came out light). Then, he or she drew lines on a new sheet of paper over Barks' lines while putting both papers over a light table. Anyone selling art purported to be from Barks' own hand should know that he ALWAYS signed his name in script writing, rather than printing. And, anyone who knows much about drawing can see that that is NOT a sketch. The lines do not swing free, but were made in a restricted, forced manner, revealing a likely tracing job.

And another thing I just realized: the fake "sketch" is much too clear. If it really were a sketch, there would be more light pencil lines that build up the characters and the surroundings. You know, like in the model sheets. Now everything is just there, like in a comic book.