All forgeries, right? (1 Viewer)

A guy sent me these pics of 'Bukowski-drawings', claiming he has just inherited them and asking, if they are legit. He didn't mention wanting to sell them though.

Anyways, the colored one is a sure forgery. What about the others?


I would say those are all legit, actually. The colored one is from some drawings he did for Hollywood. We have the other one - two actors fighting - and in a handwritten note to Martin that we got with the drawing, he mentions that out of the two drawings he was enclosing, this one of the woman walking the dogs is the one he prefers.

The sketches all flow, I don't see any hesitation in the lines, and there are a lot of typical Bukowski touches in them. That signature on the color drawing is shaky, but the "Ch" is correct. In the second one the hair is typical Bukowski, and in the third one, the sun and the bird are his style. It would be difficult to fake those. I know they just look like blobs sometimes, but you can definitely see consistent shapes in his sketches, and I think these pass the test. To me, anyway. Put it this way; if they were offered to me for sale I would buy them.
the drawings seem okay but the signature in the coloured one looks kind of wonky.
but the signature of the colored one looks pretty fucked up. "Cha" is good, but what about that "l" and the "B" and the two "k"s?

I agree, that the sketches have a lot of typical Buk.
But what about the crippled head of the 2nd Hank in pic no 3? and the unshaped bottle?
Was he drunk? Could they be 'well done' forgeries?
Could they be 'well done' forgeries?
They could be, sure.

But a forger would likely create something bigger (that he could get more $$$ for) than the fragmented little bits in the "crippled head" drawing. I just think there are too many elements that are consistent with his hand to dismiss these as fakes. The more I look at them, the more I believe they are genuine.
The B in the first (colour) sig looks pretty bad to me - bad like while writing it the writer's brain and hand had a moment of miscommunication...

The coloured dogs look off too.

I have definately seen very very very similar pictures to 1 and 2 before. I can't remember where, and if I had a digital copy then they're lost on my previous drive. Out of the 3, its the last one that looks the most believable. I guess because its the simplest.

But they're all good candidates for being completely genuine. I think, if it were a sale, you'd want some good provenance before paying a premium for them.

OKay, so I'm on the fence.
I've definitely seen number 2 before. Either in Sure or something connected to Joan Jobe Smith.
Okay, from the Groff collection sold through pba in 2007: (click pic to enlarge)

Pretty similar huh? Too similar, while different?

The sig in roni's example's looks very different. Would the Hollywood screen print be hand signed later?
seems strange that he might draw virtually the same "doodle" twice?

looks like roni's is a bad copy of hank solo's

edit - i'm confused - the pba is a color silkscreen? and roni's is hand drawn?
I think they're all forgeries.

mjp, I went back and looked at your picture - it came with a note saying he preferred the one with the pink dogs, right? The dogs in that first drawing are not pink, but the silkscreened one in Hollywood is. His comment would lead me to believe that the original one was pink, rather than possibly someone completely re-coloring them later for the silkscreen.

All of them look almost like a real drawing, but they don't feel right. The signature in #1, the heads in both #2 and 3 aren't right, the arms on the guys in #3, even the bottle in #3 isn't quite right.

My guess is that someone was looking at an actual drawing for all of these and replicating them. That's why they look familiar - but they're not exactly right.
Huh. The Hollywood drawings are definitely different.

Well I was going to use the "table leg" from the 4 poets chap to show consistency with Bukowski's drawing style, but now it looks like part of the second drawing was copied from the 4 poets cover...


The bird, the sun and the dog though...if these are fake they are good fakes, as far as the drawings go. It is not easy to crib someone's style without making the sketch look belabored (see that inscription Roni posted before with the fake sketch and inscription), and these are very, very close.

I've definitely seen number 2 before. Either in Sure or something connected to Joan Jobe Smith.
If that second one can be verified by finding where it was reproduced, then the benefit of the doubt has to be given to the other two. But at this point it isn't looking good. I assume if the second one can be found we'll see differences.
The second one is from a Joan Jobe Smith project (maybe Pearl?) called Men's Liberation. I am sure that i have the broadside here....

Nowhere near the knowledge, but I would have not thought twice at a reasonable price, except for that first signature. That really throws me off. One thing I've always looked for was the end of the "B" having a little bit of an upward slant. However I just realized(I apologize for the bad pic/it's from my iphone) but on this print of a dragon fly drawing I have, the end of the "B" certainly slants downward, so I guess it's possible.

thanks for your input, friends.

I've sent an email to the guy, telling about or different concerns and asking, whether he knows, where his decedent got these from.
ps -
this is going to be funny:

I've just merged the two colored pics together.
Here's what they look like in different stages of 'see-through' (click to enlage):



the guy claims, his uncle, who is supposed to be the decendent, got them during Bukowski's "Hamburg times", by which I guess, he means Hanks visit in 1978. Ha!
Do I need 3D glasses to get the full effect? :cool:
the guy claims, his uncle, who is supposed to be the decendent, got them during Bukowski's "Hamburg times", by which I guess, he means Hanks visit in 1978. Ha!

Not only is that a lame excuse for a story, but it makes their authenticity impossible. That drawing of the lady with the dogs wasn't done until the late 80's - well after any of Bukowski's "Hamburg times".
Very well done fakes. The forger has style and grace; they aren't at all labored as someone said. My first impression was the color one is possibly a good fake, the other two look genuine. Maybe the best fakes I've seen. Scary stuff if you are laying out big money for Buk art. The provenance becomes crucial.

Users who are viewing this thread