YOU BE THE JUDGE
A couple of weeks ago, I was perusing a website that featured pulp art, with side-by-side comparisons of the original art next to the published version of the cover art. Well, I noticed one sample featured an "original" that differed significantly from the published version (by Edward Dalton Stevens). Being an artist, I know the difference between editorial changes and a different painting altogether. I also understand that printed versions may be different in color due to the age of the printed material, or due to the printing color formulas, or due to registration shifts, and so forth. But the differences between the original art and the printed version of the art in question had nothing to do with those kinds of things. The two were clearly not that same illustration -- at least not to this artist's eye. 
So I decided to email the website and let the guy know that he possibly had a fake on his hands. The owner emailed me back, agreeing that he looked closer and saw that the two images were not of the same painting. He let me know that the art was not a part of his collection, but that he was just featuring the images on his site for public interest, and that the comparison images actually came from Heritage Auction Galleries. He also sent me a link of the auction page. So off I went to view the page, and there were the images. Seeing that the painting had been purchased, I emailed Heritage to let them know that they possibly had sold a fake to a customer. This was all about a couple of weeks ago. 
This morning at 9:14 AM I received a call from a representative of Heritage Auctions, and the rep assured me that the painting was original. He also assured me that they have "experts" who verified the item. He also expressed incredulity that anyone would find an old canvass frame on which to paint a forgery, and go to all that trouble for only six-thousand dollars (it actually sold for $6,572.50 at auction). Well, which is a better forgery scheme? To forge something like the Mona Lisa, of which everyone knows where the original resides, and which, if it were offered for sale by an individual, would raise eyebrows and be placed under the strictest tests, x-ray exams (or whatever kind of technology they use to see "beneath" an existing painting), and scrutinized to the nth degree? Or would one be more likely to get away with it if one forged a rather obscure work of art, of which no one would likely know where the original resides (if it even survived), and which wouldn't be worth enough money to warrant spending thousands of dollars to subject it to technologically advanced testing in order to verify its authenticity, and which could fetch six grand for a days worth of work? How difficult is it to run down to the local antique shop, purchase a worthless antique painting (of requisite vintage so as to have an authentically aged canvas and canvass-frame), and just paint a forgery on top of the existing painting?
Now, am I 100% certain that this is a fake? Well, no, I'm not God, so I'm not omniscient. I'm also not Descartes, and my suspicions are not indubitable. But I'm also no dummy, and I can see that the two paintings are not identical. And though I am an artist, I don't think it requires an artist to see the difference. But that's just my opinion. The representative at Heritage Auctions wouldn't relent, and I think he took the time to actually call me personally (instead of just emailing me back) because he was duly concerned that perhaps I might be correct, even though he insisted that the painting was authentic. Well, you be the judge.


Note: After I tipped off an acquaintance about the call I received from Heritage Auctions this morning, he started a discussion thread with these same images, only he added indications where the differences are most notable. If you can't see the differences yourself, you may want to check out his thread and see the images there: http://www.munchkinpress.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=969