We're an eBay affiliate and may be compensated on purchases made through clicks.
Authenticity is Everything
Vintage Charles Schulz "SNOOPY" Chalk Sketch deemed "Print" by JSA
Before I start, let me preface this by stating I am NOT bashing any 3rd party authenticator as I believe JSA is a reputable company.
Ok, about six weeks ago someone contacted me about a large 16x20" Charles Schulz "Snoopy" signed drawing. The drawing and sketch were done in black artist chalk. See image below. I then sent it to JSA . It took five weeks to get back and the result was Not Genuine because they believe it is a "print". Not because the signature or sketch is not that of Charles Schulz.
So, I immedately did my own test on it including taking a Q-tip and rubbing it on a superficial area of the sketch to see if any ink/chalk rubbed off. And it did come off onto the Q-tip quite easily as I would expect from a drawing done with artist chalk. So I called JSA and talked to one of their "expert authenticators" and explained it was original medium, i.e. charcoal chalk, and he said he and others looked at it under microscope and believed it was a "printed copy". So, I am stuck in this bizarre dilemma.
1). Are printed copies done with original ink or chalk?
2). Why would it take five weeks to put under a microscope and conclude it was a print? JSA apparently wrestled with this for several weeks. But, wrestled with the microscope, and/or finally deciding it was a "print"? My impression is I look under a microscope for 10-15 minutes, ask a couple others and that's it. That's what happened to a piece I sent them about five years ago. It was deemed a print and sent back in less than a week. What was going on in house for five weeks?
Note: It only came back in five weeks because I kept calling the last two weeks for status and they responded "it is still being worked on". Then this week , the fifth week, I emailed them Monday and asked to speak to Jim Spence because it did not seem to be gonig anywhere. His employee then said she would "expedite it". And it came back today.
I understand if several people analyzed for authenticity , i.e. signature, drawing matches Schulz characteristics. But, deciding if a print or not?? Should that have taken FIVE weeks plus additional unknown time had I not pressured them for a status and eventually requesting to speak to the head honcho?
Any thoughts? What am I missing here?
And, who might specialize in really confirming if original or a print? Particularly when there seems to be such a contradiction with original ink/charcoal chalk on this vintage heavy stock art paper.
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Dan Gregory on
-
That looks similar to one my brother in law has, which is 100% real and also done in charcoal. How can you copy in chalk, never heard of that but welcome anyone who knows if it's possible.
-
Permalink Reply by Steve Cyrkin, Admin on
-
Kevin,
Contact John Reznikoff and ask if he'd take a look at it for you. He has the expertise and equipment, and John's a JSA consultant and they hold his opinion in high regard. John's dad passed away in June, which may be why it took so long for JSA to handle your submission. I don't know if he's one of their go-to people for Schultz, but I think it's likely that he is but they didn't want to send him anything until he was back at University Archives on his regular schedule.
-
Permalink Reply by kevin conway on
-
OK Steve. That would make sense. I will try and contact him. Thanks
-
-
UPDATE: After further research and help from John Reznikoff, this "Snoopy" was indeed a print.
So, Kudos to JSA for getting it right and detecting an aspect of authenticity that often is missed by dealers, auction houses and seasoned collectors .Just one more example of how important independent, third party authentication is. Back in 2008 a collector paid nearly $3000 for one of these prints from a major west coast auction house that was NOT certified. And another identical print sold a few months ago on eBay for about $1500, again NOT certified, but clearly the same print.
The owner of this one sent to me with agreement I would buy if passed authentication. Hence, I returned it to him and hopefully it will never appear on the market. But, should you ever see one that has the marking you see above, you will avoid a costly mistake.
Thanks John Reznikoff for your help !
-
Permalink Reply by wascher on
-
I did snag the eBay photos, just for the sake of including them in the discussion. I found this conversation interesting and would have thought it was authentic too, due to it looking like a real signed chalk drawing. I believe this is the one your talking about Kevin? It does have a COA with it, not sure who they are though (I can read who they are, but don't know if they are reputable and got stuck on this one too or what). Here those images are.
-
-
When I mentioned "not certified" I meant not JSA or PSA. Not a piece of paper from an unknown dealer.
-
-
Hi Kevin,
I didn't imply differently :) I was sending all the photos in from the eBay sale, and merely mentioned the COA because there was one. I even mentioned "not sure who they are"
I can assume then - this is the one you were talking about?
I wanted others to see it (the photo of the drawing) because you can see that every single line is exact and that they sure both look like they would be authentic. :)
-wascher
-
-
I understand Wascher, just wanted to clarify what I meant by "certified". Didn't think you were commenting on credibility of the COA. I am not either, I've never heard of them before.
-
Permalink Reply by Mike Shepherd on
-
Great story and very valuable. I still do not understand how chalk was used as the medium. Was it traced over the print?
-
-
That I am still baffled about Mike. Possibly the printing process used chalk instead of the typical printing ink
-
-
Excellent point William !
-
Permalink Reply by Tom Schwartz on
-
Very interesting story. I'm unclear about the original source of these prints. Anyone know if they're from a licensed production run wherein the printers used this "chalk technique" for added realism, or are they considered malicious forgeries? The technique is certainly bad news for this area of the hobby, whether that was the intention or not.
Photos
Videos
Groups
© 2024 Created by Steve Cyrkin, Admin.
Powered by
Badges | Report an Issue | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service
