Author Topic: Question for Roger - No.386  (Read 156 times)

Offline Roger Kettle

  • Roger
  • *
  • Posts: 4546
  • Ho! Ho! £$%^&* Ho!
Re: Question for Roger - No.386
« Reply #15 on: February 09, 2019, 02:18:52 PM »
Thanks, Steve.

Offline Tarquin Thunderthighs lll

  • .
  • Posts: 5358
  • AKA Brighty, Steve, Son (Hi, Mum!)...
Re: Question for Roger - No.386
« Reply #16 on: February 17, 2019, 05:23:19 PM »
Sadly, I never did get a reply or acknowledgement, but the listing did disappear from ebay within 24 hours. Hopefully, it won't return.
I apologise, in advance.

Offline Roger Kettle

  • Roger
  • *
  • Posts: 4546
  • Ho! Ho! £$%^&* Ho!
Re: Question for Roger - No.386
« Reply #17 on: February 17, 2019, 08:26:48 PM »
Thanks again, Steve, for taking the time to follow this up. A very strange business.

Offline Tarquin Thunderthighs lll

  • .
  • Posts: 5358
  • AKA Brighty, Steve, Son (Hi, Mum!)...
Re: Question for Roger - No.386
« Reply #18 on: February 17, 2019, 10:47:57 PM »
My theory, for what it's worth, Roger, is that the 'artwork' was probably drawn long ago, shortly after this strip appeared in the paper, by an aspiring cartoonist and fan, then framed by his/her Mum/Dad. Decades later, to land in the hands of an eBay dealer, who assumed it was original, and estimated its value accordingly. I doubt if this was in any way a devious attempt to con anyone, and the lack of response to my message was probably down to embarrassment rather than guilt.

Were it to be more sinister, a lightbox would have been involved and the linework traced far more accurately, with much greater attention to the lettering. Like the fake Beau Peeps I've been selling for years.
I apologise, in advance.

Offline Roger Kettle

  • Roger
  • *
  • Posts: 4546
  • Ho! Ho! £$%^&* Ho!
Re: Question for Roger - No.386
« Reply #19 on: Yesterday at 09:13:46 AM »
The one you sold me was fake?

Offline Tarquin Thunderthighs lll

  • .
  • Posts: 5358
  • AKA Brighty, Steve, Son (Hi, Mum!)...
Re: Question for Roger - No.386
« Reply #20 on: Yesterday at 09:20:13 AM »
 ;D No, no - genuine forgery, that one.
I apologise, in advance.