i hope you didn’t bid on this auction!

i'm 99% sure it is a fake. believe me, i would know....

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=4013&item=3733408501&rd=1&ssPageName=WDVW

From what little I've seen, that does not look like something Russel would do, aren't his works usually more lifelike and less comedic? Actually depicting actual events and what not? Of course I don't know art or how many styles he had so this is just a stab in the dark. Any record of anything similar in the museum?

NuTTy wrote: From what little I've seen, that does not look like something Russel would do, aren't his works usually more lifelike and less comedic? Actually depicting actual events and what not? Of course I don't know art or how many styles he had so this is just a stab in the dark. Any record of anything similar in the museum?

charlie liked to keep it real, but he also ahd a hell of a sense of humor. it the subject matter didn't surprise me too much, but the way it is more like a caricature than a painting did strike me as not quite right. we've got a couple of similar paintings, one called BRONC TO BREAKFAST and another called CAMP COOK'S TROUBLES. both paintings are very similar to each other, and you can see elements of them in this one, but still.......

rd -

hard to judge values. basically, it is whatever someone is willing to pay. if i remember correctly, one russell painting sold in auction this amrch for 60k, but another one was withdrawn from bidding because they could not get any bids over 165k. my numbers could be off by a bit with the second example, but it was an astrnomically high number, yet it was withdrawn ebcause it was "not enough." still another painting that the museum owns was purchased through citizen and volunteer donations for 1.1 million dollars. it's all relatice, but i would guess that a genuine, original CMR watercolor would be in the area starting at 25k and going up to anything from there. waksupi keeps closer tabs on this sort of thing, being an artist himself. perhaps he would be able to give some better numbers. i am still new at this, and don't have enough under my belt to even begin to pretend to be an expert.

Sounds like the guy is being pretty upfront, so it's caveat emptor. The horses look reasonable, but the rest of it doesn't strike me as Charlie's work.

Ron, I'll bet there are a fair amount of Russells over here in the valley the museum is unaware of. For instance, the three that were offered to the Hockaday Museum a few years back, I'm sure no one who hadn't visited the home ever knew existed. I believe another artist family in the valley may have up to six of them. Almost gave out the name, but that probably wouldn't be a good thing to do.

looks like all of the posts after KLALLEN's were lost on this thread. the short answer is "yes!" if any new details pop up, i will be sure to inform you all!

From the end price, it's apparent that not many took it seriously as a Russell. Then again, I bet it will show up in a gallery within the next year as a real one, with an acccompanying high price, say, $25,000 or so. Might even see it at the auction next spring in Great Falls. 

As Barnum said, there's a sucker born every minute!

Hey Ron  >>  Was thinking about something late last week. I thought I'd posted a comment along the lines, but it either got deleted in the switch-over or I simply forgot to get to the post with the holiday break activities and all.  Either way, here it is.

Did the museum take the opportunity to inform the seller that what he was offering was a fraudulant piece?

I fully understand that the museum "eye" can't watch over all, but the way that this fell into your lap, I'm curious if any consideration was given to making sure it was known to those selling and buying that it was not original?

I've been in the sports card end of collectables for some time now and have helped out a couple occasions on eBay where folks have mistakingly  put up for auction what they thought were high dollar cards, valued in the thousands, just to have them proven to be far less valuable variants of a given card.  This proven out based on photo or word description of the cards in question.  The attention brought to the seller was always received with great appreciation.  They were able to contact all the bidders, explain the situation, and appropriately end the auction.  They had so take a bit of embarrassment with the situation, but in the end, no $$$ changed hands and noone got taken for something incorrectly described by someone else, of lesser experience.

Seems like a similar situation to this CMR auction and a decent opportunity for the museum.  I would have to imagine, if noone else thought your opinion valuable, the fello that just dropped $8.6K, thinking he was getting a CMR original, would have loved to hear what you had to say on the topic.  Any thoughts?  >>  klallen

I can see your point, where there would be a liability issue, especially in this sue-happy world we live in.  But if the museum is sure of their belief, as they sound like they are, it would appear as though they would be doing a service to the seller and perspective buyers, rather then open themselves up to any sort of liability issue.

Of course, if they are quesioning their original stance of fraud, I agree, it would be best to steer clear.  I was just going on the assumption they were sure of what they were saying.  Kinda like my involvement with the sports card auctions.  I was sure before I made any move to contact the auction owner their cards were not worth thousands, but the fair market hundreds of the actual cards.  You erase all liability when your sure of things.  >>  klallen 

Ron, did you mean you contacted the seller, rather than the buyer?