# New B-17 Art and B-17G Relic from Ron Cole



## ColesAircraft (Jan 24, 2013)

Hi, friends! After I did my XP-82 commission for Tom Reilly, he sent me a collection of aircraft parts from his past restoration projects, including an original duraluminum panel from the forward fuselage of B-17G 'Campaign Lady' (serial number 44-85813). That meant I had to produce a new B-17G painting to go along with the parts, so here it is:







Since the markings for 'Campaign Lady' were less than illustrious I opted to portray 'Thunder Bird' of the 303rd Bomb Group, 8th AF. 

And I combined the parts with artwork for my display series:






I'm seeking any suggestions or comments. I probably can't do much to the original piece but I could sure use the input to implement in future releases!


- Ron


----------



## Njaco (Jan 24, 2013)

Very cool except...something doesn't look right with the tail. It seems the tail perspective is different than the emblem and is throwing off the whole pic. Maybe.


----------



## Thorlifter (Jan 24, 2013)

Is that a painting or computer art? Either way it's fantastic! Tail does seem a little out of whack, but still........


----------



## Gnomey (Jan 24, 2013)

That is PC art Thor.

Lovely work! Tail does look a little odd though...


----------



## ColesAircraft (Jan 24, 2013)

Hmmm . . . interesting about the tail. Technically, it's correct. But that doesn't mean that it looks right. 

I use a mix of digital and hand painting.


----------



## Njaco (Jan 24, 2013)

I think the tail is too thick and tall...


----------



## ColesAircraft (Jan 25, 2013)

What do you guys think about this revision?


----------



## rank amateur (Jan 25, 2013)

Greta pic! funny thing is, I have seen real footage of b17s where the tail appears to be too big just like your original painting. this distorted effect is usually caused by telelenses. It does bring a lil extra drama to it all.


----------



## ColesAircraft (Jan 25, 2013)

rank amateur said:


> Greta pic! funny thing is, I have seen real footage of b17s where the tail appears to be too big just like your original painting. this distorted effect is usually caused by telelenses. It does bring a lil extra drama to it all.




Yep! And I usually know to look out for that effect, too, but I didn't pick up on it here. Usually, if you're working off of a photo, and the aircraft is being viewed from the 2 or 10 o'clock high angle, a telephoto lens will warp the tail towards you and throw the horizontal stab way out of perspective. It's an easy fix during the sketch phase when you see that. I overlayed the b&w image that Njaco posted to repaint my tail so that it looks less ominous. The advantages of digital editing! 

Better???


----------



## Njaco (Jan 25, 2013)

Yes, much! And I didn't mean to disparage the work - its a great piece!!


----------



## ColesAircraft (Jan 25, 2013)

Njaco said:


> Yes, much! And I didn't mean to disparage the work - its a great piece!!



No - I'm very appreciative that folks pointed it out! That's why I post my new work here, so that I get that feedback early on. When you stare at a piece forever and ever while it evolves it's easy to miss that sort of thing.


----------



## GregP (Jan 25, 2013)

Either one looks pretty good to me, Ron, but teh second one looks better.

I'd love to see a good Lattecoere 631 flying boat! Smacks of elegance and art deco. Should be either in flight or moored with a nude stewardess sunbathing on top of the wings. This being a family-type environment from past history, perhaps in flight, though the other would be applauded by all except the forum rules and good sense.


----------



## Airframes (Jan 26, 2013)

Nice work Ron, and I agree that the second version looks better. I've had the opposite problem, when painting the B-17 almost side on, from slightly above. In this instance, the tail fin/rudder, whilst being 'technically' correct, has looked too small, and had to be enlarged. Just in the process of laying out 'visuals' for another oil painting, so no doubt I'll run into the same problem again!


----------



## Maxrobot1 (Jan 26, 2013)

Great art!
With the bomb-bay doors open a few flak bursts would seem appropriate! Also, it may be just my computer monitor but the B-17s color seems a bit too greenish. B-17s paint started off olive drab and faded to a browner shade. Oh, and maybe a few shell casings coming from the ball turret.


----------



## Airframes (Jan 26, 2013)

I'd agree there. Also just noticed, the bombardier looks a tad too small behind his Norden sight - maybe enlarge him, if possible, so that his 'head' is roughly level with the top of the port side chin gun fairing?


----------



## clinton78 (Feb 11, 2013)

Hi Ron, I have a couple of questions to ask you on behalf of the aviation artist community.

Below is a piece of artwork that was originally created by a French Parisian artist called Daniel Bechennec. It was titled 'Hell below' and was originally painted with gouache on 35cm x 50cm paper.
Below is the original reduced in size artwork as posted by Daniel Bechennec here on Military Meshes on the 26th June 2010:






How is it that you were able to create an exact copy of this artwork. Frame it and then sell it as an original print reputably drawn by yourself and accompanying a piece of twisted metal that apparently comes from the crashsite of the Bf110G 'Nightfighter' depicted in the painting? I'm pretty sure Daniel Bechennac was not painting the Bf110 nightfighter W/Nr 730223 when he created the original.... Below I post your framed version for comparison:






_"Authentic German Luftwaffe Messerschmitt Bf110G-4 night fighter aircraft skin part w/ history - paired with original artwork! 
This aircraft (W/Nr 730223) was shot down by an RAF Mosquito while attempting to intercept a night bombing raid over Langen, Germany on the night of September 12/13 1944. 
This piece of duraluminum from the excavated crash site of this Bf110G-4 of 2/NJG6 shows evidence of a fire. 
This relic is paired and framed with Ron Cole's original print of this aircraft in action. Format is 19 x 13 inches. 
From Cole's Aircraft"_ Source

Below is a piece of digital artwork created by Wiek Luijken.






Can you explain how a framed exact copy albeit photoshopped has ended up for sale on your eBay page here and has also reputedly been used as the cover art for the first Portuguese-language release of Galland's book 'The First and the Last'?

I post below the artwork from your ebay page for comparison:






There is some highly suspicious activity going on here Ron. Are you able to explain how these extreme coincidences have come about?


----------



## ColesAircraft (Jun 20, 2013)

A good friend and client of mine alerted me to your post this evening. I see that this was posted back in early February. I guess you're always the last person to know - or in this case, I am! 

The Bf 110 G painting that you've posted, and that I've edited for inclusion in my display, is not my original piece and I have never claimed that it was so. It is the only example out of 33 displays that I've offered over the years that incorporates the artwork of another artist, which is why I don't typically market it - and it was used with permission, via our mutual friend in Europe who is a big fan of the work that we both do. I'd had those Bf 110 G night fighter parts for some time, never had gotten around to painting my own piece based upon them, and when I was given the chance to use that stunning night scene in lieu of my own I accepted it. 

I'm very specific regarding the relationships between the parts I include in my displays and the accompanying paintings. In several cases the history of the excavated aircraft parts are well known and complete: thus in such cases I'm happy to paint Lt. William Lacey's P-51B, for example, sporting the markings of his aircraft down to the last detail. In other cases, as with this Bf 110 G, I don't know enough about the markings to reliably attempt to paint it. In those cases I have to paint a more generic aircraft, or something similar. You'll note that I omitted the NJG 1 unit badge in the edited painting I used in my display - which was done to better reflect a more generic aircraft. In the case of the Fw 190 D-9 print and display that I just released, for example, I've painted a JG 2 'Dora' attacking RAF Lancasters, while the description associated with the aircraft part states accurately that the 3./JG 2 machine it came from was lost in Operation Bodenplatte. My two Me 262 displays, from two different aircraft, are even more general as in both cases we don't know very much of the history - just the aircraft type. I'm very confident that people know exactly what they're getting from me, and that I explain these specifics regarding each display very specifically - or as specifically as known history permits. 

There is a thread on EHanger.com's forum from about 8 years ago that deals with the Bf 109 composition that you've posted. That was my first ever aviation-related painting that I made at a time when I was a professional designer and architectural artist who was flirting with the idea of moving into the aviation genre'. As such it's actually much older than the 8 years since I posted it on EHanger and was taken to task immediately for it's similarity to Wiek's work. That's actually how Weik and I met. I absolutely followed his composition more closely than I'd ever feel comfortable with doing today - no doubt - but my work was nevertheless done by my own hand. Someone on EHanger actually posted an overlay of our two pieces and showed the differences, which, in the minds of everyone involved, put the matter to rest. I learned a lesson that I've never repeated. I wish that, when calling me out over this piece after so many years, an attempt was made to note the fact that I've painted over 75 original aviation art paintings, and the only one that anyone has ever had an issue with was that one Bf 109 - and it was my first ever piece, painted not long after my now 13-year-old son was born. 

I hope that my explanation is sufficient. I welcome everyone to view my website at ColesAircraft.com, as well as my Blog linked from it. Both detail everything anyone might want to know about me, my process, the origins of my parts, some specific excavation photos, and so on. I also invite anyone to visit my eBay store, through which I've sold my work for many years and have feedback records that I feel accurately reflect the terrific and blemish-free reputation of Cole's Aircraft and the experiences of my clients. 

One more suggestion: I'm also very active on Facebook and post daily upon my own personal page and my Cole's Aircraft art page. The walls of both, as well as within the content of several (actually, all) of Facebook's aircraft art groups, reflect regular 'in-progress' submissions by me that detail my original processes and media, and I've posted related excavation photos from Europe and elsewhere and updates regarding when I get parts coming in and usually from where. I sincerely do believe that I operate a professional, ethical, and transparent business - and I as sincerely invite everyone and anyone to see what I do for themselves. 

Thanks.



- Ron


----------



## A4K (Jun 21, 2013)

ColesAircraft said:


> When you stare at a piece forever and ever while it evolves it's easy to miss that sort of thing.



That is so very true... if I think a sketch or painting is almost done I always ask my fiancées advice... she often notices little things at a glance that I couldn't quite put my finger on while doing. Likewise when stuck on a piece, knowing something's not right but not sure exactly what, I put the work away for a time, then look on it fresh at a later date. Often it's a simple pencil or brush stroke in the right place that changes the whole effect.

As for yours, I agree the smaller tailed version does look much better.


Edit: just read last posts since posting. Alot of my work is based on photos, especially where I am unfamiliar with details. This is a fine line area, but a pencil sketch or painting is atleast different to a photo, and I give credit to the original photo(s) used in the process if asked.
I don't do CG work, but it looks to be a more dangerous are to do this in - easier to copy and harder to tell the difference between, causing the above problems. I do hope for your credibility that the Bf 110 piece is accredited to the original artist, and that future works won't resemble others so closely. Although I can see the differences in the 109 piece myself , the form and prop blur is almost exact ( a credit to your CG skills, but not for winning friends in the art community it seems)
Not a telling off, just friendly advice, and a wake up call for me to be careful how I do my own work in future.

Evan


----------



## ColesAircraft (Jun 21, 2013)

Thanks, Evan.

I didn't start out working in the digital realm, in fact I was intimidated by it and kind of resented the implications of it. It seemed like cheating to me until I realized that it had as many drawbacks as, and was just as demanding as, paint on canvas. I think most 'old school' and variously educated artists like myself are capable of creating our own perspectives of subjects - be they sketched out or painstakingly constructed by placing a grid over a 3-view drawing, drawing the cubes by 3 point perspective, making cross sections of the aircraft (in this case), and so on and so forth. It's time consuming and not necessarily reliable. Most of us use photos to help with accuracy and efficiency. We'll also search through photographs to look for background elements that are appealing, study them, and place them in our compositions. Most of us will also look at how other artists handle certain aspects of similar or identical subject matter - for style, trends, and other elements. 

But as a rule I think it's safe to say that we don't use other artist's compositions. For me, even when it comes to finding a reference upon which to build a particular perspective, I don't use somebody's painting. The reason has less to do with copyright law or moral scruples than it does the fact that such previously used perspectives have 'already been done' and, as in the case of the 109 above, people notice it. 

As an artist it embarrasses me to be called out for the Bf 109 piece in question because I know that, full back story taken into consideration or not, it breaks the rules that I've outlined above. I have defended my work as being the original product of my own hand - which it most certainly is in every way, background and foreground. But at the time that I painted it, and as my first aviation piece, it was done, basically, to see if I could paint it at all. I remember fussing with the blurred propeller for a long time, and the further that I deviated from the piece I was referencing the worse it looked. In the end I only pulled the effect off by succeeding in nearly copying it exactly. I was already an accomplished architectural artist but I'd never painted a moving prop before. 75 paintings and almost 10 years later - it's still hard to get right. 

I think what exacerbated the 109 example was the fact that my piece was commercially successful. That wasn't my original intent, but after the air cleared with Weik and the EHanger debate was resolved, I later released it as a limited edition along with other work of mine. It was later used as the cover of Adolf Galland's book, _The First and the Last_. I believed that my work had been accepted as at least 'original enough' and in retrospect that was perhaps a mistake, but not one that I made maliciously. 

Anyway: I'd frankly hate to see other artists feel that they need to be too "careful" in reaction to my experiences in this area. Being careful stifles experimentation and creativity, in my opinion. Aviation art - all art - would suffer for it. As painters we're not generally impressionists (or worse). We are attempting to recreate more than we are creating. For that we inevitably work off of references, usually photos, and by necessity we copy reality in order to be successful realists. Insofar as that pursuit goes - God's speed! 

But when in search of a perspective or a background - construct it yourself or base it on a photograph. Don't base it on another painting. One simple rule and all will avoid the above 'call out' I've experienced. 






Above: Overlay similar to the one posted on EHanger many years ago. My Bf 109 over top of Weik's 'referenced' perspective. But, lesson learned in any case. 

- R


----------



## No-Kizu (Jun 21, 2013)

I have purchased several of Rons work and talked to the people who excavated the wreckages hoping to receive a photo of them removing the wreckage and showed them the pic of the relic in hopes they would have a greater photo of it still on the plane, they always recognized the items as stuff they sold ron. I have also researched the wreckage and found more info then even Ron had. 'He has some real talent and his website explains his explanation of transparency, I think the first photo would have been better left out because he doesn't need to use others work, and yes, he did not claim it to be his. The picture is exciting and I can see why he would or any of us would re-create it. I think his version is more detailed. The other pic was well explained and it was hashed out years ago from his inspiration artist and it clearly has been changed though the planes exact angle is common. The detail and addition of the third propeller, the intake and exhaust, the lights, wheels, canopy, etc all different and many more.


----------



## No-Kizu (Jun 21, 2013)

One of my favorites


----------



## A4K (Jun 21, 2013)

Cheers Ron - I do hear ya, but like you say, best to keep more distance between others' created work. Lesson for all artists in there I think.

Thanks for the explanation of the CG process too, had no idea how you guys do it! (I'm still old school, don't get on with computers too well  )


----------



## Wuerger190 (Jun 25, 2013)

ColesAircraft said:


> it was used with permission, via our mutual friend in Europe who is a big fan of the work that we both do



Daniel Bechennec happens to be a friend of mine, so I contacted him this week and expressed my concern that I suspected his work was being pirated by Ron Cole. Here is his reply:

*To answer to your question – thanks for the report – you can have serious doubts : I gave no permission to him about such a using...He even didn’t ask me! 
(...) considering the unfair manoeuvre, I doubly do not appreciate the fact.

It’s the second time somebody pirats that pic : First it was someone of an obscure ex Soviet republic , selling posters of it on e bay....I signaled that to e bay (...)

Best Regards. Daniel.*



A few years ago Daniel made the mistake of uploading a high-res scan of his artwork to a public forum, instead of using a web-sized image. Very sad to see it being taken advantage of by dishonest people.

Makes you wonder about the true origin of those pieces of metal...


----------



## clinton78 (Jun 26, 2013)

Very interesting indeed!

The annoying thing about fraudsters is that they think everyone else on the planet is stupid. Now I'm all for people changing their ways and starting a fresh but clearly this is not the case with you Ron. I typically do not like it when fraudsters target the aviation community. A hobby for most people with little, if not any financial return. They work hard doing their day job and then spend any spare cash on what they love and are passionate about. I suppose it should be expected in the current global climate that certain unscrupulous characters would venture into the extremely lucrative world of fake aircraft relics and artwork. So a word of caution ladies and gentlemen, people like Ron Cole are everywhere in this scene so just be careful....

I find it interesting Ron that the only member (No-Kizu) who came to your rescue and backed you up was someone who signed up especially to post into this topic. Even then they took it as an opportunity to promote your artwork. So I suspect that 'No-Kizu' was in fact you Ron or one of your partners in crime. Strange thing is you appear to be reasonably talented at creating photographic montages and digitally touching them up, then selling them for obscene amounts of money. So it certainly is a shame that you chose to steal real artists work and pass it off as your own.

Lets get back to Wiek Luijken's Bf109E artwork above. Now lets not be naive here Ron. You might be able to BS your way through this discussion with people who do not know anything about digital art but I create this stuff all day long and I know exactly what Photoshop is capable of. Trust me I've taught the program at universities. Your Galland image is 100% an exact copy of Wiek's work. All you have done is cut it out from it's background, distorted certain areas and then manually added some details.

Heres the interesting part though: At least you actually acknowledge that you used Wiek's work for perspective reference but sadly this is where you inadvertently prove that some of your art sales from your company are completely fraudulent. Wiek Luijken released the final version of his Bf109 image in *April 2005*. On this aviation art dealer's website here called 'Ozark Airfield Artworks' you appear to be selling 50 (nearly sold out!) limited edition prints of your Bf109 Galland artwork for $225. Amazingly though, I quote, they have been _"Personally autographed by Adolf Galland in dark black ink on the print"._ (Black ink = oldest fake signature trick in the book!) Well you could always blame the art dealer for adding the supposed 'Galland' signatures but here even on your 'Coles Aircraft' company Flickr stream you have your 'Galland' print captioned with your own words: _"BF-109E Autographed by Adolf Galland"_

Time for some mathematics and food for thought:

*9th February 1996*: Adolf Galland sadly passes away, Remagen, Germany.
*April 2005*: Wiek Luijken releases his Bf109 artwork.
Some time after this date Ron Cole copies Wiek Luijken's Bf109 artwork and starts selling it as 'Galland's Bf109E' and also offers "personally signed by Galland himself" prints for $225 each.

Ron how is it that Adolf Galland who had been dead for 10 years before Wiek created the artwork was able to come back from the dead and sign fifty of your Galland prints. Not only that are you seriously trying to tell me that prior to 1996 you created a piece of digital artwork to the level of that Galland artwork. You must be crazy. What program did you use Microsoft paint. Admit it Ron Cole, your busted now go and crawl back under the stone you came from and leave the aviation community alone.


----------



## A4K (Jun 26, 2013)

I like to give a man the benefit of the doubt, but that is some hard evidence. Shame on you Ron if this is true


----------



## ColesAircraft (Jun 26, 2013)

Clinton 78 wrote: "I find it interesting Ron that the only member (No-Kizu) who came to your rescue and backed you up was someone who signed up especially to post into this topic. Even then they took it as an opportunity to promote your artwork. So I suspect that 'No-Kizu' was in fact you Ron or one of your partners in crime. Strange thing is you appear to be reasonably talented at creating photographic montages and digitally touching them up, then selling them for obscene amounts of money. So it certainly is a shame that you chose to steal real artists work and pass it off as your own."

I never passed someone else's work off as my own and no one will ever be able to produce evidence from anywhere that I ever have. Regarding 'No-Kizu', I think he's the client who alerted me to your post originally, but I think your own agenda here is being revealed by such assumptions with no evidence. If you are who I think you are, and I'm pretty confident at this point, you need to make peace. I don't mind being called out if I make a mistake and I deserve it, which has happened and I've answered for it when it does, but what you've presented here as a barrage against me is simply unfounded.

I'm very aware that you are a digital artist, and as such you know that my painting of the 109 E is original - other than the composition which I've openly regretted using. I posted that overlap to reveal this to everyone and I can't imagine anyone - familiar with our process or not - taking the position that it's a copy of another's work. Something 'stretched' is obvious. The nose can match-up but everything else is dis-proportionally different. 

If Mr. Bechennec is refuting my explanation regarding his piece then I need to hear from him right away. In fact I'll contact him myself and via any other means I can think of. 

The only version of this painting that I ever marketed as being personally signed by Adolf Galland is right here:






And his autograph is in pencil on a separate card, for obvious reasons.

I made a business decision many years ago, in 2006, to never deal with autographs at all - at least not on my work in what used to be the traditional sense - because I'd heard too many horror stories about fakes out there in circulation, even among well known artists. Galland's, I understand, is the most copied of them all. Prior to that I'd offered some autographed pieces, mostly from Japan via my childhood best friend who was teaching English there, and that was only because they were far less apt to be suspicious and I knew their origins. I did print Galland's copied signature at the bottom of my painting of his aircraft when I first released it, but it was somewhere listed as 'personally signed' (which made no sense even then, in 2006 - I think - as most anyone would know regarding the best known WWII vet of all time). I moved to correct that immediately then. It was 'caught' by everyone, as you'd imagine that it would be. Again, this was something dealt with an age ago and there was no scandal associated with it. 

I sincerely believe that what is going on here is that we have a person who feels that I slighted them very badly in the past. Instead of being up front and honest about both the slight and their own identity, they are searching the Internet, and in some cases just making things up, to smear me beyond anything that I deserve. I'm reluctant to say that because I know that it sounds like I'm trying to deflect the issue - but I'm really not. I feel that I've tried to answer each accusation very directly. But here's this person mixing a few truths with outright misrepresentations and as an artist and businessman - what else can I do but point this out? Am I ashamed of using someone else's composition in the past? Yes, I've said so. But I didn't steal the work. I've never used the work of another without permission. I most certainly did not try to pass off a 'new' print in 2006 as being personally signed by a famous and well known man deceased for 10 years - and on a public / commercial website! 

As that radio commercial says:_ "It's only a matter of time before someone posts something negative about your business on the Internet." _

I'd like to again invite anyone troubled by anything in this thread to see for themselves what I'm all about and what my full history truly is. I'm on Facebook, Flickr, MySpace, eBay, and I have my own Cole's Aircraft website here: http://ColesAircraft.com and my own Blog here: http://colesaircraft.blogspot.com. My Facebook page (http://www.facebook.com/groups/ColesAircraft) includes snapshots of my work in progress. Please see for yourself that I have over 75 completely original compositions that I've painted over the last several years. All of my aircraft relic displays are explained, and in many cases I've written some great stories that cover the specific excavations with photographs and provenance. All of that reveals me, my business, and everything I've ever done in totality. 

- Ron


----------



## clinton78 (Jun 26, 2013)

Ron, I just don't believe a word that comes out of your mouth. I'm not even going to bother answering you anymore. I know that you are going to back up your established business but the evidence is there for all to see what you have been up to. You have been found out, busted, whatever you want to call it. You can BS all you want. I can assure you I am not who you think I am. I am simply an artist who has noticed a few anomalies with what you have been marketing and I'm not the only one. To put it simply I've got my eye well on the ball when it comes to the digital illustration world especially aviation illustration and there is not a lot I miss. I saw Daniels painting as soon as he finished it and I was in the process of buying a copy from him for my home. When I saw your eBay version I instantly knew something dodgy was going on. I can't even believe that you are trying to dig yourself out of this hole. Well this is where I sign of from this discussion because I'm really not even going to bother wasting my time. I know and you know Ron, as well as a few other people know what your all about. You just think everyone is stupid.


----------



## ColesAircraft (Jun 26, 2013)

The following is my personal email to 'Clinton78'. I was very deliberate in my handling of this situation, between my public reply and my personal reply to him, as I'm not in favor of calling people out too personally on a public forum when it might not serve any public purpose. But after sending it to him and reviewing it . . . I do think I need to share it with the group:

I'm deeply sorry and regret that I copied your composition all those years ago, and I'm sorry if you feel that I was not forthcoming enough or apologetic enough about it at the time.

However: It was not _I_ that chose my 109 E over your 109 E to become the cover of Galland's book. I was approached by _them_. They wanted it and I let them use it. While I empathize with why that would outrage you and perhaps cause you to pursue a vendetta against me - I'm only responsible for having followed your composition, and nothing else. 

By selectively picking bits of long-lost Internet refuse around which to spin your story, you might do my business some harm. But as I know that you cannot possibly believe the story that you've created, how is it that this is any form of justice to you? Is it simply revenge then - for something that I've already acknowledged and apologized to you for? 

If I've learned anything from being alive for 45 years it's this: you cannot escape karma. If it's not already obvious to others, most of whom are being publicly silent but who nevertheless support me and question your own clearly venomous motives, then it will become clear that you're being more than a little unfair. You're not being reasonable or objective. You ignore my persistent refutations, but others don't. All of this reveals a man personally slighted and out for some form of personal vengeance.

We could be colleagues, Weik. That's what we were even after the 109 issue was brought up on EHanger. After that I joined your forum. After that we traded ideas and shared our work. Now I've apologized again. 

I'll keep on defending myself and I believe you'll eventually look the worse for it. Be that as it may I do not wish it. I just want to get along. 


- Ron Cole


----------



## ColesAircraft (Jun 26, 2013)

Well . . . I think we can make a choice here to either make mud or a cake (yeah, I just made that up). Call me naive but I just don't believe any service is being done here. This goes beyond sullying my name. I don't think this does our genre' any honor, either. I'm here with my real name, and I'm backing that real name up with real transparency for all to review. I've offered to you my apologies endlessly for the slight done to you so many years ago - and I meant them. In lieu of taking back something that I cannot, I can only offer a new start - which for years you've refused. 

Everyone else: I know that I'll never please all of the people all of the time, but I do try. This is from my heart: if in doubt, look at what I've offered the aviation, and aviation art, community for a decade. None of that 'digs me out of a hole'. It is what it is: the story of my talents being put towards something that I've believed in since I was a kid. Few aviation artists have a past and process more thoroughly chronicled for all to see. 


- R


----------



## clinton78 (Jun 26, 2013)

I am not Wiek......


----------



## Matt308 (Jun 26, 2013)

clinton78 said:


> I'm not even going to bother answering you anymore.



I think that quote is good advice. Please take this off line from the forum. Thread closed.


----------

