drdroom

It's my criteria as well, so I'll offer a defense. The bifurcation only existed in comic books, and not even always there: see Jack Cole and Will Eisner. Kirby always wrote his own work from the beginning (and also wrote stories for other artists in the S&K shop). Stan's dialog & captions over the sixties work doesn't invalidate Kirby's writing claim on that work, come on! He thought up all the characters, everything they did and even approximately what they were saying. He's clearly the primary author of the books. For myself, it's hard to read Stan's writing as an adult. His repetition, bombast and a quality of condescension toward the medium dims the luster of Kirby's great period.

Kirby Tezuka Crumb Herriman

Love this answer so much!

Interesting to me how quiet the bidding is on the GA material comparatively. Is that just because GA bidders are old-school guys that don't show their hand until game day, or is GA really that far behind SA and BA in desirability?

Yeah, exactly, unless it's Jack, in which case they are the best that ever lived. But that reminds me, Joe Kubert! I love him, but if the question is "overrated," you know, I think he might be just a tiny bit. Very limited facial expressions, and certain artistic solutions that he goes back to over and over again, a kind of repetitive feeling that guys named Jack are able to somehow avoid, despite being comparably prolific.

John Byrne. No edge, no soul, his facial expressions are always wrong. John Romita. Solid mid-level comic hack. He stages well, is better than John Byrne, but never as good as prime period Don Heck. Post-1970 John Buscema. All his Conan work is more or less phoned in, like the scripts. The sketches are still great though. Jim Lee. His fetishistic rendering can't disguise his disinterest in the real human form. His facial expressions are more apt than Byrne's but even more limited.

The Royer looks authentic, meaning authentically light boxed by Mike, not touched by Jack.

Two Kats: There are two knockout GA splashes in the auction for my money, Wildcat by Krigstein and Black Cat by Kubert. Any guesses on hammer? Which one goes for more? PS, image add function doesn't seem to work in Safari, so if anyone wants to throw them up for me it will be much appreciated!

A quiet year for me, I could only muster four entries, all panel pages. There's a Colan Dr Strange 1/2 splash from the original run which is a TOTAL ACID FREAKOUT, a Windsor-Smith Conan 1/2 splash from the original run which REEKS WITH THE STINK OF SORCERY, and a Kirby Kamandi 1/2 splash from the original run which THROBS WITH RAW POWER. And then there is my out-of-left-field favorite: a 22 panel story complete in one page, drawn close to print size, by Mr. Steven Clay Wilson. I'm not much of an underground guy, but the (unusual for him) clear line, and the utterly relaxed pace of his cannibal picaresque have simply enchanted me. Adults only... http://cafurl.com?i=21756

It would have to be a whole book, with cover: Mister Miracle 9. I think FMV lines up, roughly.

As to whether Jack was "fleeced" by Marvel, apart from the art return issue, I think there is a strong argument that he was. I can't cite sources, but I've read several accounts, first and second person, stating Jack was promised a percentage of licensing for, for example, animation projects, and general verbal commitments that Jack would share in the success of the properties, and these promises were reneged upon by Martin Goodman, to Ditko as well, leading to the departure of Ditko in '66 and Kirby in '70. Moreover, Jack was from the beginning paid only for pencilling or layouts of the books he appears to have created from whole cloth, while Stan was paid the full scripting fee for books that Jack plotted (by Stan's own admission) and Stan wrote the finished copy for. By any rational definition, Jack did part of the writing of those books and was never paid for that work. Finally, there is Marvel's culpability in the falsification of the historical record regarding the creation of the core characters and settings of the Marvel universe. The world regards Stan as the genius behind this achievement, despite the fact that all the evidence points to Jack for the lion's share of the work. This deception certainly cost Jack money, though no one can say how much.

And here's the 1987 returned to Kirby list: http://ohdannyboy.blogspot.com/2011/04/marvel-worldwide-inc-et-al-v-kirby-et_04.html

Here's the 1980: http://www.comicartfans.com/galleryroom.asp?gsub=38988

Does anyone have a link for the Irene Vartanoff inventory list? Irene herself doesn't have it, at least per her last blog post on the topic.

There is also this: some artwork was apparently returned to Jack in the '70s, prior to either the Vartanoff warehouse inventory list (1980) or the Returned art list (1987). "In July of 1986, Marvel Vice President of Publishing Michael Z. Hobson issued a public statement telling the company’s side of the story: “Marvel has long been willing to give Mr. Kirby such artwork in accordance with its artwork return policy. In fact, Marvel returned hundreds of pages of artwork to Mr. Kirby under its artwork return policy during his last period of employment between 1976 and 1978, and Mr. Kirby signed all release forms submitted to him at that time. " http://www.tcj.com/kirby-and-goliath-the-fight-for-jack-kirbys-marvel-artwork/ Was this just 70's art? Or did it include some '60s art? Was it ALL the 70's art?

Another question has to do with inkers share. Were there pages not returned to Kirby but returned to inkers or their estates?

Thanks. Robert Beerbohm tells a story about buying pages out of Kirby's trunk in the '70s. He got 200 pages for 20 bucks a page, which was a 50% volume discount. As to the '68 page, here's the list of pages returned to Jack by Marvel in the '80s. http://ohdannyboy.blogspot.com/2011/04/marvel-worldwide-inc-et-al-v-kirby-et_04.html In some cases a whole book is missing, so possibly any page from that book that turns up can be considered Kirby family property. Possibly. Other books are problematic because the number of pages returned to Kirby is given, but not which pages specifically.

Pure Awesome!

Thanks for this, Moondog. Do you know if the Marvel page was '60s or '70s? I ask because I believe all Jack's '70s pages were returned. The only remotely plausible claim I can see on any of this (***not a lawyer***) would have to do with silver age pages not returned by Marvel.

Who owns that amazing Daredevil painting?

I don't concern myself with slabbed funnybooks, but it seems to me that this copy is not perfectly cut, the spine is pushed slightly around to the back, and moreover the staples are egregiously right of the spine. I bet I could find an equal or better copy at any large convention.

If Kirby ever did prelims...(no)

Very strange drawing technique on this one.

Because a posted reserve is thought to dampen buyer enthusiasm.