lordbyroncomics

Yes, I think about the Lone Ranger novels quite frequently actually. So, this news is.... unsettling. In all seriousness, I don't think it's bad whatsoever but I'm glad I made you laugh. You're either missing the point which is quite possible or purposely using cheap lawyer tactics to sidestep and put words in my mouth: I am not only aware of the ghost industry in both novels, pulps, comic strips, etc.- I am indifferent to them. The Spider-Man comic strip is going to be worthless no matter who writes it. I shared what I did because it had (wait for it) context to the greater discussion. You want to be selective to serve your initial faulty statements and accusations. You can't be selective- since you, y'know, care about fairness so much. So let's go look at who is dishonest and unethical since you're so into it.

Assuming Kav is referring to Spider-Man, technically he's not even considering that Spider-Man wouldn't have been published at all if not for the success of the Fantastic Four to begin with. (Likely because Kav doesn't know that) This Spider-Man thing is one of the most valid points of proof that Stan couldn't have been the generator of concepts and plots, unless you think Ditko is a liar. Because Stan gave Ditko's Jack's plot which involved a kid who becomes Spider-Man and Ditko told him it was similar to The Fly. If Stan had done the plot, wouldn't he know about that?? Why would it change from Jack's plot (confirmed by no less a Stan defender than Jim Shooter, who saw his pages) to what we eventually got? Oh, and Stan's tall tale of "Jack couldn't draw a nerdy character to save his life, everyone looked so heroic so I gave it to Ditko..." is disproven by this page of a sci-fi story that came out the same month as Hulk #1 in 1963. (Ignore the 'Peter Parker' which someone photoshopped in to magnify the point)

Which book is that, dare I ask?

There is no taking one side or the other. Anyone who says Stan didn't contribute is an insufficiently_thoughtful_person. Anyone who says Jack didn't contribute is an insufficiently_thoughtful_person. To put it simply; it is about Stan taking credit he didn't earn and it is about intricate and complex legality that began when Chemical bought Marvel from Martin Goodman. It continues with every other owner of Marvel up to Disney. Think of it like this: why would Stan Lee accept a flat $1 million a year salary and a lifetime guarantee of being employed if he created everything? Stan is a figurehead because of the complexities of work-for-hire and a freelancer (Kirby) being the main generator of ideas and concepts at Marvel. It became necessary for Stan to start this "I created" etc. narrative- because the people above him needed it. I wonder if the real frantic ones ever read Stan's views on creator rights in 1971 where he said: "I would say that the comic book market is the worst market that there is on the face of the earth for creative talent, and the reasons are numberless and legion. I have had many talented people ask me how to get into the comic book business. If they were talented enough, the first answer I would give them is, why would you want to get into the comic book business? Because even if you succeed, even if you reach what might be considered the pinnacle of success in comics, you will be less successful, less secure, and less effective than if you are just an average practitioner of your art in television, radio, movies, or what have you. It is a business in which the creator, as was mentioned before, owns nothing of his creation. The publisher owns it… … Unfortunately, in the comic field, the artist, the writer, and the editor, if you will, are the most helpless people in the world. - Roughly one year later when Marvel was bought and Stan was made into Manager/Publisher/Figurehead, he changed his tone and never said such things again. So again, when you simplify it into "STAN IS BAD, JACK IS GOOD" you are putting in terms of little kids arguing about Superman racing The Flash. This is a complex matter with many layers of history, all researched, all documented. Stan's legion of easily impossible stories to charm college reporters and such (Sgt. Fury was a "bet" with his Publisher, Spider-Man was "snuck into" the last issue of AF, etc.)- this stuff is dangerous because people who don't research believe that it happened. And often when that occurs? PROPER CREDIT IS STOLEN. That's wrong. There's something called setting the record straight. I know that's not as fun for the Merry Marching Society, but it's important.

You can't challenge these middle aged men who desperately need the myth. They pathologically can't take it, they don't do research and they are either contrary or literally exceedingly stupid.

The mistake is in simplifying it into a "Stan vs Jack mentality"- this is one of the common things people do to avoid serious discussion about the flaws within the Marvel Method kickback scheme by suggesting at the forefront that one is diminished somehow or that pointing out things somehow means you are completely saying one is perfect and one is not or that Stan deserves no credit and so forth. This is flawed and misleading. Stan deserves lots of credit. But it's the credit that he took that he *didn't* deserve that is problematic.

It's also fraud if someone buys a special anniversary issue because Stan is advertised as writing a special 10 page story in the back or something. It's false advertising so how would it not be fraud?

It's not speculation when Keya Morgan is videotaped "directing" Stan's hand- Jim Shooter also ghost wrote the Spider-Man strip. The upcoming issue of BACK ISSUE states quite publicly (if you'd like to confirm for yourself) that Jim Salicrup was ghost writing it before Roy got it- not speculation. Someone that works for POW! told me and someone from ReedPop that Danny Fingeroth wrote any "special occasion" Marvel stories under Stan's name. Ed Piskor stated publicly on Cartoonist Kayfabe that Stan's reps would have all of his introductions and essays ghost written and then they would approve it if it sounded like Stan enough. It's possible Piskor made that up but it didn't sound like it and it aligns with everything else I've just reiterated above.

What's funny to me is how "outraged" and judgmental some board members are about an accusation yet say nothing about other things that "defraud your fans"; Stan Lee used ghost writers for decades- Roy Thomas, Danny Fingeroth and Jim Salicrup are the major ones (so if you're enjoying those introductions to the Marvel Masterworks, I hate to break it to you, true believers- Stan didn't write those), to say nothing of Keya Morgan literally moving Stan's hand to complete autographs in view of these pure hearted fans- I guess some aging fanboys feel it's hip and subversive to be anti-Kirby but even if you liked nothing that he did, he was so defrauded and disrespected by Marvel that it's staggering. And to casually make s**t up like he lived in a "million dollar mansion" so flippantly- have these guys ever read an article, ever attended a panel, ever asked a question before spouting off BS?

" the website future billionares read every day" ...can't make it up

I remember a guy a couple years ago had a plan to buy as many copies of stuff like X-Force #1 and Superman #75 etc etc and then burn them in a bonfire and put it on YouTube with the logic that he'd slowly but surely make them less copious and therefore less "clogging up the pipes" as he put it. I asked him if he thought this would increase value and he claimed that wasn't his intention, but just to make these things less common when flipping through boxes. Not sure if he ever did it but I'd be curious what the response would be had he did.

I joined because I wanted to be somewhere where I (perhaps unfairly on my part) assumed there'd be a host of people who were well steeped in comics history and knowledgeable about comics publishing and such. I've met some great folk I look up to and respect but also have experienced guys who say "I don't know much about this" but then proceed to argue things that are easily researchable- which I'm used to with topical events but not with comics! So the discourse on comics publishing history has been slow. But, I've been genuinely enriched and educated just by reading and not responding to great advice and stories sharing the experience of many sellers on this board which is both invaluable and appreciated.

Shadroch has an agenda. To casually provide disinformation like "a couple living in a million dollar mansion..." and then, later in the same thread says "mansion or not..." just displays the blatant resentment or agenda if you're going to throw off assumptions and then confirm you don't even know if they're factual. "Well, it's up to you to provide proof that the thing I don't know is factual or not isn't true!" LOL Shadroch get into politics immediately What's bemusing is how many comic savants are suddenly outraged at injustices based on an accusation that you can't even back up. Where's the outrage for all of the other misdeeds done in comics? Len Wein and Marv Wolfman- and this is documented- sold hundreds and hundreds of pages of stolen Marvel art in 69-70 at specific comic conventions. They had advertisements placed and sold the stolen (Kirby) art out of a hotel room and were photographed both there and at the convention itself. Why aren't the *documented* things more of an outrage than stuff that's speculated? Because it allows and enables people to make such comments they wouldn't make in person, plain and simple.

I don't need to speculate, pal. No idea why you're yelling at me. Kav, in the past when Prince Namor and I were discussing specific history you stated that you were uneducated on the things we were talking about- nothing wrong with that, there's all sorts of stuff I've yet to study up on myself. But I'm amazed that you assume other people are speculating because you are. Also, both of those sites are wildly_fanciful_statement and predicated on faulty bot-driven logic. I'd wager they're operating under an assumption that the MCU films are generating Kirby's perceived "worth". I don't need to speculate. Evanier wrote a biography about Kirby. Read it. I've spoken with Neal Kirby extensively. Countless interviews with Kirby and his wife, associates, other comic professionals have appeared for decades in The Comics Journal, Alter Ego, The Jack Kirby Collector- go start reading up and cross reference everything and absorb it. All I'm saying is that Jack Kirby was not a millionaire in his lifetime. It's common knowledge that part of the reason Kirby was so prolific and productive was partially because of his need to provide for his family. Kirby went to work at not even a leading animation studio just because he needed health insurance as he was getting older; would a guy with $10 million need to do that? If you're going to go all caps at somebody, know the score and come prepared with years of interaction and research in your pocket. Go ask Mark Evanier, go ask Rand Hoope, go ask the Kirby family, I admit they'll have more credibility than I do. Or believe Kirby was a multi-millionaire if you want, that's fine. I don't want to ruin your faith in useless websites.

Isn't the general thought behind bulk collections of thousands of books that the vast majority of said collections consists of 90s' speculation books and such, and there's only a small percentage of anything worthwhile?

I know I can't convince you of anything Sir, but- this is one thousand percent untrue. It's literally laughable. "wealthygenius.com" says Kirby was worth $20 Million Dollars. So does that invalidate your simple google search of Kirby's apparent fortune? If Kirby was indeed a millionaire he wouldn't have had to leave comics to go into animation as he did to be treated with respect and to finally get health benefits and a pension. Because the comics industry would not give him those things. If Kirby was a millionaire, strings wouldn't have had to be pulled to get Roz Kirby a pension for slightly over two years until her own death. There is so much collected evidence to be researched, so many things to read and study to cross reference and expand one's knowledge of how things were. How can people just cite things or speculate when they haven't put the time in?? And don't read one comment on a message board. Don't read one article, read every article, read every interview, read every book and then, only then, compare and contrast- do the research so you know what you're talking about. Kirby a millionaire- no. Now, if you're speaking of Disney's settlement/his Estate- could be, I don't know- that has not been made public. But Kirby did not have 1 million, much less 10 million, or 20 million at the time of his death in 1994.

In all seriousness, I do want to stress that I should have been more responsible in sharing what Bird informed me about as I didn't mean to misrepresent the advice he gave me. I did hit him up for advice, which he took the time and patience to give me, so- if anything I posted made it seem like he gave me shoddy wisdom, that's all on me and how poorly I explained that anecdote. Won't happen again, happy hunting frantic ones

Once again, I apologize for all of my short-comings!

Hey, it was two months ago. I thought you told me that you couldn't mix and match Silver Age with a modern slabbed book or something- unless I'm misremembering. But that warrants a face palm, got it

Ah, thanks Axe Elf. I should have researched more before making such a suggestion but I appreciate this

I know eras are thread specific for selling but is there an area of the forums for selling complete collections? I believe Bird told me it had to be divided into age which makes sense but perhaps a specific forum just for selling collections/lots whole might be effective.

NO. You WILL buy Sleepwalker, because otherwise your collection will be worth NOTHING without books like this. Listen to reason, blast it!!! Do you want to be a laughing stock within the collecting community?? Or do you want to be taken seriously, like a big baller?! You're just trying to rebel for the sake of rebellion- everyone here knows you will cave and get the first appearance of Secret Defenders before the year is out. THAT is what collecting comics is ABOUT, dude. Getting HOT comics. That will be WORTH something.

Here is what you want to look for in collections: - Secret Defenders (this title never goes down in the speculator market) - Sleepwalker (big spec on this sleeper series, as recently revealed on YouTube's own Very Gary Comics) - Nomad (not the mini but the ongoing series) - Non-Marvel Stan Lee comics (hugest investment in comics right now, these are getting scarce. I'm talking Soldier Zero, Stan Lee's Mighty 7, Chikara the Invincible, etc. etc. Solarman #1 which WAS from Marvel is a big sleeper right now) I don't mind sharing what I've been observing in the Market. These other posters are being really snarky and I just wanted to help, you know? Happy Hunting!

I was sadly not there with ol' Glen and Kirby, especially as I was 10. My point is, I know what you refer to and it's being taken out of context. Kirby's arthritis had made his drawing sketches and such decline by the late Eighties, but he still had to sign legal documents and such and would make loose sketches for his Grandchildren up to 1992. What Glen said was about a specific instance. But you think what you want- a guy that created the vast backbone of the industry you all can't let go, a guy who literally killed Nazis in the second World War, by all means, put the unproven speculation out there and infer that he's a despicable millionaire. The irony is fantastic.

Oh, you're concerned about fraud and it's Kirby you target. Interesting. Kirby was certainly not a millionaire and this is factually documented so it's factually researched. It's dangerous to just put out false stuff based on hearsay or something you heard a guy say once; but it's a very attractive narrative to disparage Kirby in every way so none of this is surprising.