[Chock]

That example you posted does look suspiciously similar to the other pic, but I suppose you have to say a SPAD looks like a SPAD and give him the benefit of the doubt, in spite of it certainly looking a bit fishy. However, what is not in doubt is that there are inaccuracies on his pics, and from a quick look at his stuff, the composition is not always very good either in my opinion either, which, having spent four years studying art and design, I think I'm at least somewhat qualified to have an informed opinion on. That is nevertheless just my opinion of course, and if people like his stuff and want to buy it, good luck to them, but regardless of that, I would like to think that anyone with a true interest in WW1 history would be horrified at the notion of someone having scribbled on an original MVR signature, either artistically or otherwise.

It's another interesting point you raise with regard to whether using CG stuff as inspiration of pose assistance for paintings is 'cheating' or not, and whether the 'paintings' are not actually paintings at all in the strictest sense. Personally I regard using such aids for composition as no worse than using an artist's pose mannequin for figure drawing, or a scale model to help you suss out how things will look, although there is no doubt a lot of the skill and artistry goes out of the window when such methods are overused. A painting is not meant to be a photograph, and millimetric accuracy is not so important as feeling and composition when it comes to painting, so all the CG in the world will not imbue that into a work of art, and is no substitute for artistic ability or simple drawing skill. That said, I am not opposed to anybody using CG in any way they like, far from it, since it is in fact part of my job to train people on many of the software packages used for that kind of work, but if you want to capture a mood, then a paint brush and a good eye still takes some beating, and if CG stuff is being passed off as paintings, then that too is questionable in my opinion, at least from the standpoint of honestly representing what it is you are selling if you claim it to be something more than a tarted up CG image.

These opinions aside, there would have been nothing wrong with the guy framing a sketch of a Dr1 with that autograph also in the frame, and nothing wrong with him using a computer generated image to assist him in creating such a sketch, but to actually draw on the original piece of paper which bore the signature itself is bordering on criminal vandalism in my opinion, and he ought to be ashamed of himself for having done so. I actually have quite a few historic aviation artifacts in my possession, but where things like that are concerned, one should always remember that one is simply the custodian of such things, and when we are pushing up daisies, such artifacts should still be around in their original condition for historians to study, so I personally feel that it is not our right to mess around with them despite the fact that we might be their present owner, and whatever our opinions of his artwork, you are right to be appalled by him having done such as thing, as indeed am I.

Al