Richard Rae & The curious case of the Mike Royer light-boxed artworks . . .

[Duffman_Comics]

I love these Boards

 

First up, a big thank you to "thehumantorch" for alerting Comics General folk to the existence of this thread.

 

Now, I don't have much OA, and I am not a member of Comic Art Fans.

 

I have, however, been "bumping into" Richard Rae for more than 30 years.

 

I've never had any "professional dealings" with Richard, but I do know first hand that the vast majority of his "transactions" end with one party being "disappointed" - and that party is never Richard.

 

Richard has always been a "chancer", who plays fast and loose with the truth and never misses an opportunity to talk himself up. He's a liar and a braggart and here's a concrete example of his inflated sense of self importance.

 

He did not organise the first Comic Convention in Australia.

 

He had a hand in running (disastrously) the fourth.

 

The first two were in Melbourne and the third in Sydney - here's the Wiki.

 

I have no doubt he'll now bluster on about how his was the first "professional" (whatever that means) Convention, and the others just don't count

 

The foregoing is a minor matter, but it goes to the heart of what makes Richard tick.

 

Never mind the truth, it's what advances Richard's cause or improves Richard's profile.

 

Fair Dinkum, he could hide behind a corkscrew, he's that bent.

 

 

[Mr.Rae]

Answer the board...why?...what power has this "board"...it's simply a group of collectors who wish to act like God who can't even stay on the subject at hand...now you guys are picking on the French...at this rate I'm sure it won't be long before you start on Black people...

 

Now, as promised I said I'm happy to reply to any question/s...however I will not reply to stupid attacks...if you guys want to go down that path then I'm happy to also be just a rude.

 

IMPORTANT FACT:

(1) I did change all infomation regarding the Kirby/Royer originals, making it very clear what they were...then once I did that Terry started this attack...so what was the point.

 

(2) I will not talk about any dealings with artists until those dealings have been compleated...however if artists wish to comment then that's up to them,..however I will be contacting Rich regarding assorted comments made...in saying this my dealings with Mike have been compleated so I'm happy to make any comments regarding those dealings.

 

(3) In regards to the "dealer" Brian...I'm of the understanding that he is upset that I did not like the final deal he offered me so I pulled out...it's still a free country...well Australia is anyway...keep in mind that I'm always will to listen to any complaint from anyone I have dealings with and do my best to fix any problems,..but if I just get attacked in public I will not reply...I have never and will never be bullied.

 

(4) Since I have to repeat myself...the first I found out about any problems regarding Joan was when Terry used her comments against me here...all she had to do was contact me directly but this never happened...I even offered her a second chance under the condition that this issue was given priority, but clearly attacking me was better than fixing the problem.

 

Now...any questions?

 

 

[Mr.Rae]

I organised Australia's First International Comic Convention at the Sydney Opera House on the 17th, 18th and 19th of January 1986...this once again IS A FACT! and not some collector just commenting with lies.

[Speedy-D]

Now...any questions?

Why do you keep coming back here?

It's an honest question, I'd really like to know.

[Mr.Rae]

Good question Speedy-D...the answer is you guys make me laugh...

[Duffman_Comics]

I organised Australia's First International Comic Convention at the Sydney Opera House on the 17th, 18th and 19th of January 1986...this once again IS A FACT! and not some collector just commenting with lies.

 

[DiceX]

Now...any questions?

 

 

Would you like a piece of candy?

 

[Speedy-D]

Now...any questions?

 

 

Would you like a piece of candy?

 

YOU SHOULD BE COLORING!!!

[DiceX]

Now...any questions?

 

 

Would you like a piece of candy?

 

YOU SHOULD BE COLORING!!!

 

I forgot again!

 

 

[comix4fun]

Answer the board...why?...what power has this "board"...it's simply a group of collectors who wish to act like God who can't even stay on the subject at hand...

 

 

I can answer that. Several dozen of the most well connected, well networked, deeply rooted collectors, dealers and professionals are members of this board.

 

The "power" of the board is in the ability to shine a light so brightly upon how you choose to conduct yourself in business that you will be left with 2 choices in how to do so 1) Correctly, or 2) not at all.

 

 

 

(2) I will not talk about any dealings with artists until those dealings have been compleated...however if artists wish to comment then that's up to them,..however I will be contacting Rich regarding assorted comments made...in saying this my dealings with Mike have been compleated so I'm happy to make any comments regarding those dealings.

 

 

Wonderful strategy, by not talking about dealings until they are "compleated" you can refuse to pay Rich what you promised him forever and will have thereby exempted yourself from having to discuss it.

 

You can't fail to live up to your end of a bargain and then clam up because the deal's not done. Mostly because your actions seem to be the reason it's left undone.

 

 

 

 

(3) In regards to the "dealer" Brian...I'm of the understanding that he is upset that I did not like the final deal he offered me so I pulled out...it's still a free country...well Australia is anyway...keep in mind that I'm always will to listen to any complaint from anyone I have dealings with and do my best to fix any problems,..but if I just get attacked in public I will not reply...I have never and will never be bullied.

 

 

 

Pulling out of a deal leaves both parties in the same position they were when they started. You taking Brian's books as an advance against art sales and then selling the books left you with more cash and more compensation than you were due. The correct thing to do was to give Brian back his books or pay him the cash equivalent, you did neither. Calling him a "dealer" doesn't mean anything and it certainly doesn't help your case.

 

YOU TOOK MORE THAN YOU WERE ENTITLED TO, in simple terms. You aren't allowed to sit in a car on a dealer's lot, become angered with the price he's asking and then drive off in the car anyway.

 

That's not pulling out of a deal even in the Willy Wonka world you seem to inhabit.

 

(4) Since I have to repeat myself...the first I found out about any problems regarding Joan was when Terry used her comments against me here...all she had to do was contact me directly but this never happened...I even offered her a second chance under the condition that this issue was given priority, but clearly attacking me was better than fixing the problem.

 

Now...any questions?

 

 

Honest people, who make honest mistakes, and who care about their reputation don't stand on ceremony of being contacted the proper way in some mystical correct sequence.

 

Honest people do the honest thing the first time, without having to be told. Honest people also correct the errors and problems in their dealings when those problems are discovered.

 

Honest people DO NOT refuse to make thing right for the people they have wronged because they don't think the wronged party made the proper sequence of bows and curtseys beforehand.

 

You've chosen NOT to correct the dealings that went wrong because of your failure to live up to your end of deals, or from your failure to accurately and honestly describe the products you are selling and trading.

 

The rest is all obfuscation, rationalization, and deception.

 

At least through this thread and your comments these aspects of your personal ethics set have been shown crystal clear.

 

Congratulations to illuminating, and then immediately alienating a gigantic portion of your potential art sales market. I know they appreciate what you've shown here. You are a walking talking PSA for Caveat Emptor.

[thehumantorch]

I love these Boards

 

First up, a big thank you to "thehumantorch" for alerting Comics General folk to the existence of this thread.

 

Now, I don't have much OA, and I am not a member of Comic Art Fans.

 

I have, however, been "bumping into" Richard Rae for more than 30 years.

 

I've never had any "professional dealings" with Richard, but I do know first hand that the vast majority of his "transactions" end with one party being "disappointed" - and that party is never Richard.

 

Richard has always been a "chancer", who plays fast and loose with the truth and never misses an opportunity to talk himself up. He's a liar and a braggart and here's a concrete example of his inflated sense of self importance.

 

He did not organise the first Comic Convention in Australia.

 

He had a hand in running (disastrously) the fourth.

 

The first two were in Melbourne and the third in Sydney - here's the Wiki.

 

I have no doubt he'll now bluster on about how his was the first "professional" (whatever that means) Convention, and the others just don't count

 

The foregoing is a minor matter, but it goes to the heart of what makes Richard tick.

 

Never mind the truth, it's what advances Richard's cause or improves Richard's profile.

 

Fair Dinkum, he could hide behind a corkscrew, he's that bent.

 

 

Glad to help. Thanks for adding one more piece to the collective 'thief' label.

 

Notice that Mr Rae hasn't had anyone contribute postitive feedback for him.

Even good old Russ of Comic Supply had his supporters.

[Terry Doyle]

I relation to Jack's signature...I have no idea as I didn't commision the art.

 

Any other stupid questions please just ask...while your "trying" to give me a hard time at least your leaving some else alone.

 

 

Interestingly, I checked through some correspondence I had going with D*i*c*k Rae of last year.

 

D*i*c*k forwarded me a copy of an e-mail he sent to Glen Gold (which came about as a result of D*i*c*k posting a CAF image of a Royer lightbox job of a Kirby Red Skull drawing that Glen owned).

 

In the (above) quoted text, D*i*c*k tells us that he had nothing to do with commissioning Mike Royer.

 

'Fraid not . . .

 

Here's an abridged e-mail sent by D*i*c*k to Glen Gold, which was then forwarded to me (and if D*i*c*k tries to make out that I've altered anything, I'll be happy to ask Glen to confirm that - other than to delete superfluous text - everything is accurate):

 

Message Received: Jul 28 2010, 08:10 PM

From: "Kerry Pocock"

To: terencedoyle@fsmail.net

Cc:

Subject: RE: reply from Richard re: Kirby/Royer

 

Hi Terry

 

With respect I believe you are making to much out of this and I ask you to “stop”

 

Below is my recent reply to Glen, who now is happy.

 

Regards

 

Richard

 

Hi Glen

 

In the new run of comic books I’m working on I’ve employed a number of overseas artists like Buckler, Royer and heaps of others, all mostly inking my own pencil art, even Al Williamson inked one of my cover drawings...you can see some examples of the artists I’ve used so far in my CAF gallery...with Royer available to do more art for me it was impossible for me not to ask him to also do some of my favourite Kirby drawings for me...however now he will just be working on my pencil art for my stories.

 

Some original art I have at the moment I have had great scans made so I can sell those originals now...for example the Red Skull inked drawing...I already have suitable scans to use in the article so if you wish you can just buy it off me or trade some other art you have for it...I’m easy...I’ll most likely keep the Dr. Doom...plus Royer did two other Kirby/Royer drawings for me, one of KAZAR and the other of Captain America.I really love Mike Royer’s inks...did you know that you can reduce any of his original art to the size of a stamp and you can still see every line clearly...just amazing.

 

Kindest regards

 

Richard in Australia

 

Let me bring back to everyone's attention the above earlier post from this thread.

 

Interestingly, D*i*c*k would now like folks here to believe I started 'attacking' him after he made changes to the descriptions of his Royer lightbox artworks . . .

 

B*u*l*l*s*h*i*t

 

I was in talks with the person_having_a_hard_time_understanding_my_point about his Royer lightbox artworks some time before pressure from myself and others made him change the descriptions in his CAF.

 

Actually, it was Glen who pointed me in the direction of D*i*c*k' s CAF gallery as a result of the above.

 

And the fact that D*i*c*k keeps referring to his Royer lightbox artworks as being 'Kirby/Royer' originals clearly demonstrate that he hasn't changed his ways.

 

Bottom line is that he's a con-man, thief, and a liar.

 

And his mental state is a serious cause for concern.

 

He can't even keep to a simple promise made to Chris Caira that he was going to disappear from CAF (we should be so lucky).

 

Maybe we should just stop indulging this p*r*i*c*k?

 

 

[Royd]

Good to hear from someone who seems to have a long-term knowledge of Richard and can comment with experience.

 

Thanks for the clarification as regards his involvement with the "first" comic con in Australia. I wasn't aware of the earlier cons (Comicons 1-3) and, as a young collector, only heard of the con Richard was involved with which included Eisner and Steranko as guests.

 

Best,

 

Royd

http://www.comicartfans.com/GalleryDetail.asp?GCat=111

 

 

I love these Boards

 

First up, a big thank you to "thehumantorch" for alerting Comics General folk to the existence of this thread.

 

Now, I don't have much OA, and I am not a member of Comic Art Fans.

 

I have, however, been "bumping into" Richard Rae for more than 30 years.

 

I've never had any "professional dealings" with Richard, but I do know first hand that the vast majority of his "transactions" end with one party being "disappointed" - and that party is never Richard.

 

Richard has always been a "chancer", who plays fast and loose with the truth and never misses an opportunity to talk himself up. He's a liar and a braggart and here's a concrete example of his inflated sense of self importance.

 

He did not organise the first Comic Convention in Australia.

 

He had a hand in running (disastrously) the fourth.

 

The first two were in Melbourne and the third in Sydney - here's the Wiki.

 

I have no doubt he'll now bluster on about how his was the first "professional" (whatever that means) Convention, and the others just don't count

 

The foregoing is a minor matter, but it goes to the heart of what makes Richard tick.

 

Never mind the truth, it's what advances Richard's cause or improves Richard's profile.

 

Fair Dinkum, he could hide behind a corkscrew, he's that bent.

 

[thethedew]

Now...any questions?

Why do you keep coming back here?

It's an honest question, I'd really like to know.

 

Speedy has a valid point.

 

I'm not pretending to be any sort of moderator, but it seems like his current behavior of posting on the thread are the actions of a garden-variety internet troll. Piling on every time he posts something isn't going to change his mind, and I think the rest of us have had our opinions cemented for all time by now.

 

I think this thread has done an admirable job of exposing RR's commercial tactics. For that, I personally am grateful. I hope that it will continue to do so as new information and experiences with him come to light.

 

Take that for what it's worth,

 

Best,

Andrew

[Mr.Rae]

Please continue...let's not let little things like "facts" stand in the way of attacking a person.

 

A number of comic cons happened in Australia before mine, none with any overseas guests, that's why mine was "the first INTERNATIONAL comic con"...good grief, this is just a simple matter of record.

 

I do come back in here because you guys really do make me laugh...any time anyone wants to get back to the original person_without_enough_empathy I can solve your problems one by one...if I was guilty then I would not re-enter this wank...now...about the Kirby/Royer original, shall we stick to that "original" problem then move on to the next...or how about not giving me a fair go...well...

[Terry Doyle]

Please continue...let's not let little things like "facts" stand in the way of attacking a person.

 

A number of comic cons happened in Australia before mine, none with any overseas guests, that's why mine was "the first INTERNATIONAL comic con"...good grief, this is just a simple matter of record.

 

I do come back in here because you guys really do make me laugh...any time anyone wants to get back to the original person_without_enough_empathy I can solve your problems one by one...if I was guilty then I would not re-enter this wank...now...about the Kirby/Royer original, shall we stick to that "original" problem then move on to the next...or how about not giving me a fair go...well...

 

A Kirby/Royer original would have physical involvement by Kirby on the artwork (i.e. Royer would be inking directly over Kirby's pencil art).

 

If Jack never touched or handled this type of 'orginal', then it's not a Kirby/Royer original, is it?

 

It's a Royer original (based on a separate Kirby original drawing).

 

I know that, everyone else here (or anywhere else), knows that . . . but, guess what?

 

You don't know that.

 

As long as you stand to profit from your (obviously intentional) misleading descriptions . . . you, no doubt, don't want to know that.

 

Problem solved.

 

Learn from it, D*i*c*k.

 

 

[Terry Doyle]

Next problem to be solved . . .

 

How about paying Rich Buckler for the work you conned from him?

 

It's all very well saying that you intend to do this further on down the line.

 

Actions speak louder than words.

 

Why not pay him off now from the proceeds of the considerable amount of cash you told Brian Howard you made from an auction?

[Mr.Rae]

So...it's a "Royer" original...fair enough...let's be clear...It's a "Royer" original...with respect Terry it either is part

[Mr.Rae]

...as I was saying...it's either all Royer or not...so you say that Kirby had no part in the images...fair enough...lets do it your way....they are ALL Royer originals...let's totally chuck out any involvement by Kirby...GEE...then I'm the crook like you say....they look like Royer drawings don't they (think not)....your just like others...where did Kirby get credit in the Spider-Man movies....well...your all such "blue-blood" Kirby know it alls...where did Kirby get credit in the Spider-Man movies?...but you would say why should he?...and rightly so...he only ever drew the first cover on a comic with Spider-Man on it, oh...and well... he also co-created the hero (Silver-Spider)...but where is his credit on the Spider-Man movies?...really...you guys pick your villians like J.J.J.

[drewincanada]

You are a walking talking PSA for Caveat Emptor.

 

 

One of the best lines I've read on the boards in ages. Thanks.