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

One of my favorites

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 )

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

Click to expand...

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...

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.

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

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

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.

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

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

I am not Wiek......

clinton78 said:

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

Click to expand...

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