Author Topic: Question for Roger - No.386  (Read 541 times)

Offline Rob Baker

  • .
  • Posts: 660
Question for Roger - No.386
« on: February 06, 2019, 11:29:52 PM »
I just saw this piece of original Beau Peep artwork on eBay -- only £799.99 !!


 
A question for Mr Rockefeller, er,  Kettle:    I’m very intrigued (sad like I am!) to know why it’s slightly different from the one published in the Star (in February 1982),  which I’ve posted here for comparison.   

And it doesn’t look like Andrew’s usual style of lettering..



By the way, who DID invent the ironing board?

Offline Roger Kettle

  • Roger
  • *
  • Posts: 4563
  • Ho! Ho! £$%^&* Ho!
Re: Question for Roger - No.386
« Reply #1 on: February 07, 2019, 09:39:06 AM »
Rob, for some reason, whoever owns this has re-lettered it. Pretty poorly. I would also suggest they are being more than a little optimistic with their pricing!

I have no idea who it belongs to or how they came by it. I also have no idea who invented the ironing board!

Offline Mince

  • .
  • Posts: 6483
  • Utter Waste of Time
Re: Question for Roger - No.386
« Reply #2 on: February 07, 2019, 02:27:23 PM »
Well, if it sells for that price, I'm going into forgery.

Offline Tarquin Thunderthighs lll

  • .
  • Posts: 5412
  • AKA Brighty, Steve, Son (Hi, Mum!)...
Re: Question for Roger - No.386
« Reply #3 on: February 07, 2019, 05:47:28 PM »
 I hope you’re not suggesting it’s not worth every penny!  ???
I apologise, in advance.

Offline Mince

  • .
  • Posts: 6483
  • Utter Waste of Time
Re: Question for Roger - No.386
« Reply #4 on: February 07, 2019, 07:06:40 PM »
I hope you’re not suggesting it’s not worth every penny!  ???

It's worth just as much as this other one I've got. I hate to part with it but if owning one means that much to you ...

Offline Egg

  • .
  • Posts: 272
Re: Question for Roger - No.386
« Reply #5 on: February 07, 2019, 08:42:25 PM »
The question has to be......... Rob, how on earth did you find the ‘same’ strip from February 1982!!

Offline Tarquin Thunderthighs lll

  • .
  • Posts: 5412
  • AKA Brighty, Steve, Son (Hi, Mum!)...
Re: Question for Roger - No.386
« Reply #6 on: February 07, 2019, 09:11:47 PM »
Now that I can see this on a large screen, rather than with the wrong glasses on my phone, this 'original art' is neither original, nor art. It's what is often called 'fan art' these days. Clearly a forgery...or "tribute" as they like to call them.
I apologise, in advance.

Offline Rob Baker

  • .
  • Posts: 660
Re: Question for Roger - No.386
« Reply #7 on: February 08, 2019, 12:20:01 AM »
The question has to be......... Rob, how on earth did you find the ‘same’ strip from February 1982!!

Egg, I'm very lucky, nay proud,  to have a copy, bar a handful, of every Beau Peep strip   8)   
And thanks to Mr Kettle, and the recent Xmas competition , a few pieces of original artwork too.   (y)

Offline Rob Baker

  • .
  • Posts: 660
Re: Question for Roger - No.386
« Reply #8 on: February 08, 2019, 12:26:42 AM »
Now that I can see this on a large screen, rather than with the wrong glasses on my phone, this 'original art' is neither original, nor art. It's what is often called 'fan art' these days. Clearly a forgery...or "tribute" as they like to call them.

Fake Beaus?
Hmmm, I'm not so sure Tarqs....I reckon the artwork looks very much like Andrew's from that era, but it's definitely a different version from the published piece.  The style of lettering is very unusual though. 



This reminds me of a very old post from Roger which always makes me smile:

"I was once explaining to someone about the process of producing Beau Peep -- I was the writer and Andrew Christine was the artist.
"That's all you do?" came the reply "Andrew draws the whole thing, and you fill in the bubbles?"
He genuinely believed that Andrew handed me a completed strip and that I then popped a few words into the empty balloons.
I didn't bother telling him otherwise."


By the way Tarqs, didn’t some smart-arsed Star reader spot the subtle style differences when you took over the reigns on a few Beau strips when Andrew was poorly ?   ;)
« Last Edit: February 08, 2019, 12:30:10 AM by Rob Baker »

Offline Roger Kettle

  • Roger
  • *
  • Posts: 4563
  • Ho! Ho! £$%^&* Ho!
Re: Question for Roger - No.386
« Reply #9 on: February 08, 2019, 09:31:00 AM »
The awful lettering jumped out at me---so much so that I didn't pay much attention to the artwork and there IS something weird about it. Maybe some tracing went on?

Offline Mince

  • .
  • Posts: 6483
  • Utter Waste of Time
Re: Question for Roger - No.386
« Reply #10 on: February 08, 2019, 09:36:50 AM »
I didn't pay much attention to the artwork and there IS something weird about it. Maybe some tracing went on?

See! That's why I wrote 'forgery'!

Offline Tarquin Thunderthighs lll

  • .
  • Posts: 5412
  • AKA Brighty, Steve, Son (Hi, Mum!)...
Re: Question for Roger - No.386
« Reply #11 on: February 08, 2019, 11:15:14 AM »
Fake Beaus?
Hmmm, I'm not so sure Tarqs....I reckon the artwork looks very much like Andrew's from that era, but it's definitely a different version from the published piece.  The style of lettering is very unusual though. 



By the way Tarqs, didn’t some smart-arsed Star reader spot the subtle style differences when you took over the reigns on a few Beau strips when Andrew was poorly ?   ;)

Aye, indeed, Rob  :P, which is partly why I'm surprised you're still puzzled about this one. There's no tracing involved - if there had been, the proportions at least would be the same, and the classic schoolboy error of not having enough space to fit in the uniforms (above) would be avoided. The other big schoolboy error is to think the lettering doesn't matter - that was actually the hardest part for me when ghosting Andrew's style, and I think I'm right in saying was the biggest clue for the afore-said smart-arse?

But it's a pretty good copy, presumably by a fan and aspiring cartoonist. I used to do these things all the time as a kid - copying Giles, Thelwell, Reg Smythe and many others as I taught myself to draw cartoons, learning from their highly skilled lines.

What I didn't do was ever try to sell the results, and certainly not attempt to pass them off as the work of the original artists in the process. That shouldn't happen (assuming the seller here is the person who drew these). I'd be inclined to blow the whistle, but I almost admire the cheek here, and should anyone be daft enough to part with 800 quid for a clear forgery (ooh, well done, that amazing genius, Mincey!) then more fool them. Had they been genuine Kettle & Christines though, I don't think that would be an excessive price for three strips at all. But then perhaps I would say that, wouldn't I?

Anyone want to buy some Bananaman artwork....?  8)
I apologise, in advance.

Offline Roger Kettle

  • Roger
  • *
  • Posts: 4563
  • Ho! Ho! £$%^&* Ho!
Re: Question for Roger - No.386
« Reply #12 on: February 08, 2019, 06:17:14 PM »
You're right, Tarks---tracing doesn't make sense and, as you say, it's a pretty good copy. VERY strange.

Offline Mince

  • .
  • Posts: 6483
  • Utter Waste of Time
Re: Question for Roger - No.386
« Reply #13 on: February 08, 2019, 08:15:41 PM »
Maybe it's Andrew making money on the side.

Offline Tarquin Thunderthighs lll

  • .
  • Posts: 5412
  • AKA Brighty, Steve, Son (Hi, Mum!)...
Re: Question for Roger - No.386
« Reply #14 on: February 09, 2019, 11:27:55 AM »
Looking at the seller's other listed items, I suspect they are not the creators of this copy, and that they probably believe it to be genuine, and not the iron pyrite version that it is. My conscience got the better of me, thinking some poor sucker might actually pay 800 quid for this, so I've dropped the seller a line.

If he gets back to me, agreeing to buy my James Bond car for 600 grand, I'll let you know.
I apologise, in advance.