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

[Weird Paper]

 

At this time I would just like to add to all of those collectors and artists who have contacted me “personally” over the last few weeks offering me there support against the attacks on me via this forum, that I appreciate all of you following my request NOT to enter into this forum actively and only merely observe...it made it easier for me to exposes the truth...thank you all.

 

 

Lots of rich material here... “professional cutesy” ...

 

But this bit is truly classic. I picture the heroic Mr. Rae, burly arms akimbo, holding back his indignant sea of supporters: "No, stay back, let me handle this!"

[drewincanada]

Has anyone noticed that Terry no longer has an active gallery in CAF...or is it just my error?

 

It's just your error. But why does that not surprise me?

 

http://www.comicartfans.com/GalleryDetail.asp?GCat=1865

[BrianHoward]

So just what did all these attacks on me accomplish...let’s re-cap:

 

 

 

 

 

(3) This forum gave the “dealer” Brian a chance to jump on the “whipping-Richard” band wagon and try to blackmail me into giving him an extra $5,000 for a trade deal we completed years ago that in my opinion he was unhappy with because it was more of an “even trade” and as we all know “dealers like to make as much profit as possible...and there is nothing wrong in making a profit however his actions in going public to try and threaten to discredit me in some way to force a re-working of an “old” past deal between us was simply unsuccessful...and it sadly put an end it an future deals we possibly could have entered into where he may of made a greater profit.

 

 

How can you tell when Rae is lying.... His lips (or in this case, fingers) are moving....

 

How dare you, a proven scam artist and liar throw out accusations.. You are scum to the lowest degree... Thankfully you have done a better job of illustrating that then I ever could.. Try and demonize me as a 'dealer' all you like, but everyone can see you for what you are.. Maybe I should post some of the comments from our past emails where you bash other dealers like when you call Mike Burkey a 'tight-" or have a lot to say about Albert Moy.... You're scum tricky Rae..

 

If we had a 'trade' and this was a done deal, then why do I have emails from you asking for the Pitt piece back? If you received those key comics from me and sold them, why would you ask for what is alleged to be my end of the 'trade' back?

 

You and I both know there was no trade... You stole from me Richard.. It seems you have no problem living with that.

 

and here's the email chain to prove it (edited down a bit so this won't be too massive)..

 

 

Hi Brian

 

Thanks for your quick reply.

 

Well I guess from your reply I'm not getting the Pitt original back or even a suitable copy of it to publish(?).

 

One of the reasons I held back from sending you heaps of stuff in one go was just in case this kind of thing happened, yes I know you said you could get the best price for my originals but in my personal dealings I really did much better, also once I sent you stuff I had no control over it...clearly you holding back the Pitt page has proven me right in holding my other art back...saddly.

 

Please note that the Pitt page is worth around US$10,000...so as it's owner I again direct you to not part with it for any less.

 

While the market has dropped and everyone is feeling the hit of hard times, I still ask you to do what you said you whould do originaly...please be the sales man that can sell the art, if you can not then send my original art back so I can sell it ( after I use it in a new publication ) and I'd be more than happy to send you a bonus from my sale, but I was hopping you whould be the seller and take some of the stress off me.

 

 

 

Richard

 

 

 

 

 

----- Original Message -----

 

From: Brian Schutzer

 

To: Narelle Rae

 

Sent: Thursday, March 05, 2009 12:43 PM

 

Subject: Re: Stanley Pitt Original Artwork

 

 

Hi Richard,

 

We’ve spoken about this numerous times. I don’t know why your last email seems to reflect total amnesia of the circumstances.

 

I sent you $3500 (I do recall it was actually much more than that but we’ll use your #'s for argument's sake) worth of comics books years ago. At today’s dollars, those comics would be worth double that. An AF#15 was part of what I sent you and that is the hottest book selling right now.

 

You have sent me VERY few pieces. The combined value of which were nowhere near what I advanced you.

 

For my advance I have the Pitt piece and a $100 colored page you claim was done by Buscema, from a publication nobody can identify.. I would gladly sell both for $3500 which would only be partial compensation for my incurred expenses, time, effort and the use of my books for your personal profit.

 

Our original agreement was that you would consistently send me artwork to sell on your behalf. You sent me one package originally and your prices were so out of touch with the market realities and high that I didn’t sell them for fear of upsetting you. At this point, you had taken the the Key Marvel Silver Age books from me.

 

After much talk and little action from your end, you finally revealed that you did not intend to send me anymore artwork. All this while I had no idea that you sold the advance books I had sent you. I was even working hard to find you talented artists to work with, like Rich Buckler.. Putting my reputation on the line. You admitted at this point that you were going to auction your collection off, I had already heard from fellow dealers that you had been shopping the collection around. It would have been very easy for you to send me a box a month and we could have sold through stuff and I would have been paid back.. For some reason you chose not to do that and instead tried to get me to buy artwork for you and offering trades which were heavily leveraged in your favor, overvaluing your artwork by multiples of true value.

 

You told me to sell what I have and get what I could for it, so that I could recoup some of what I advanced you.. I couldn't even squeeze $1000 out of the stuff you sent me before returning unsolds and had no interest in the Pitt cover.

 

At this point Richard, I am still out. If it’s true that you were able to get over $300k for your collection, then you should have the money to pay for the Key Silver Age comics which were sent to you in advance, which you later sold and made money from.

 

If I am paid the advance back, then I would be happy to mail the Pitt back to you. If you are so sure that Pitt piece is worth so much, it’s a no brainer and a bargain for you to just repay me the balance of my advance.

 

I just can’t lose anymore on this Richard.. I’ve allowed myself to be strung along for years in hopes that one day you would live up to your words.

 

 

Thanks,

Brian

 

 

On 3/4/09 7:42 PM, "Narelle Rae" wrote:

 

 

Hi Brian

 

It's Richard in Australia.

 

I really need to know if you are going to send back to me that original Sci-Fi artwork by Stanley Pitt that I needed to use as the inside front cover of an up and comming publication, as you know I sent it to you under the condition if you could not send back the original art ( because you found a suitable buyer ) then you needed to send me back a suitable scan of the art that could be used for publication.

 

Brian I'm not going to go over with you just what that original artwork is worth, it is a classic rare item and I need to either get a suitable copy that I can use of it or if you can not find a suitable buyer for it then you need to send the original art back to me.

 

Over the "years" we have had a lot of deals that have changed and moved around, but before I sent you this original classic artwork by Pitt you did agree that even if you found a buyer for it you whould supply me with a suitable scan that I could use to publish and we both understood that if you could not supply me with a scan I whould get the original artwork back.

 

I am now ready to publish the artwork and need the original returned "as agreed before it was sent to you" or a suitable copy of the artwork.

 

Also please give me a total of the amount you got from sale of all the original artwork I've sent to you so far, as it has to be more than the cost of the books you advanced to me back then, that going from memory was around $3,500...as you know the one Pitt artwork that I am talking about is worth over US$10,000.

 

Brian, if you are unable to find suitable buyers at the price required then you need to keep me informed and without dought return this "high-end" page to me.

 

I await your reply.

 

Talk soon and kindest regards.

 

Richard Rae

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

-- Thanks,

 

Brian Howard Schutzer

 

Brian Howard Art: http://www.comicartshop.com/neatstuff/

LOOKING FOR ANY Watchmen, V for Vendetta, Preacher or Sandman Original Art

 

 

Neat Stuff Collectibles: http://www.neatstuffcollectibles.com/

 

Big Apple Conventions: http://www.bigapplecon.com/

 

Comic books, toys, and Art from 1900 - to Date

 

We are always paying top DOLLAR for collections

 

Call now !

 

201-861-1414

201-861-1154 (fax)

 

buyingeverything@yahoo.com

 

MAILING ADDRESS:

P.O. Box 7240

North Bergen, NJ 07047

 

Visit our Web Site to see all our Neat Stuff

http://www.neatstuffsite.com/

 

 

[BrianHoward]

Received this through CAF on 5/7/11...

 

Here is Richard using his fake identity in an attempt to trick me into trading a Russ Manning Magnus page for one of his Kirby 'originals'....

 

fraud... how does it work?

 

 

Comicartfans.com :: Comments

 

Magnus Robot Fighter #19 RUSS MANNING Original Art

 

From:

Kerry Pocock

Email:

kerrypocock@optusnet.com.au

Comments:

Hello Brian. I have a really nice Jack Kirby inked by Mike Royer drawing of The Thing pin-up...whould you like to trade it for this Russ Manning page?

 

 

This email has been sent to you from someone visiting www.comicartfans.com. Your email address remains confidential, and is not shown to other Gallery Owners or Site Visitors.

 

© 2003-2010 ComicArtFans.com, All rights reserved.

 

[malvin]

I do find it curious that alot of the defence involves painting the other party as a "dealer", as if that makes them wrong right off the bat

 

Malvin

[Weird Paper]

I do find it curious that alot of the defence involves painting the other party as a "dealer", as if that makes them wrong right off the bat

 

Malvin

It's a somewhat clumsy attempt to create an "us versus them" scenario. His delusion involves the impression that he is somehow manipulating the whole discussion.

[bluechip]

I plowed through this because I had, in the past, gotten incorrect information that ALL of Kirby's late 70s work inked by Royer was lightboxed. So, I opened this thread to learn more and found a lot of back and forth about what is the right way to describe something and what is wrong or even criminal.

 

I come with the viewpoint of a person who has comparatively little comic art (and knows very little about art terminology), but also knows how the terminology of comics collecting can sometimes diverge enormously from the way the average person would interpret some of the terms commonly used, So, on principle, I can understand a guy like this Ozzie saying "I made it clear, but I don't have to use your exact words."

 

BUT -- just as I think some collecting community's definitions diverge from from the average person's interpretation, they are, in this case, dead on.

 

There is no question that the overwhelming majority of civilians out there would see the words "Original art by Jack Kirby and Mike Royer" (or, "Kirby/Royer") and conclude that two people, Kirby and Royer, both physically performed artwork on that particular piece of paper.

 

As I said, I know very little about art. But even the first time I saw the term "lightboxed" I had an idea what it meant. The first time I saw the term "After (insert name of artist)" I wasn't quite sure what it meant, but at least it gave me an inkling that it wasn't the same as "art by..."

 

But neither I nor the vast majority of average people would assume that a term like "Artist A/Artist B Original" refers to a piece that was touched only by Artist B.

 

Setting aside all the recriminations and agendas both open and hidden.. when in doubt, ask a few "civilians" what they think it means, and you have the correct answer.

 

[ciorac]

I plowed through this because I had, in the past, gotten incorrect information that ALL of Kirby's late 70s work inked by Royer was lightboxed. So, I opened this thread to learn more and found a lot of back and forth about what is the right way to describe something and what is wrong or even criminal.

 

I come with the viewpoint of a person who has comparatively little comic art (and knows very little about art terminology), but also knows how the terminology of comics collecting can sometimes diverge enormously from the way the average person would interpret some of the terms commonly used, So, on principle, I can understand a guy like this Ozzie saying "I made it clear, but I don't have to use your exact words."

 

BUT -- just as I think some collecting community's definitions diverge from from the average person's interpretation, they are, in this case, dead on.

 

There is no question that the overwhelming majority of civilians out there would see the words "Original art by Jack Kirby and Mike Royer" (or, "Kirby/Royer") and conclude that two people, Kirby and Royer, both physically performed artwork on that particular piece of paper.

 

As I said, I know very little about art. But even the first time I saw the term "lightboxed" I had an idea what it meant. The first time I saw the term "After (insert name of artist)" I wasn't quite sure what it meant, but at least it gave me an inkling that it wasn't the same as "art by..."

 

But neither I nor the vast majority of average people would assume that a term like "Artist A/Artist B Original" refers to a piece that was touched only by Artist B.

 

Setting aside all the recriminations and agendas both open and hidden.. when in doubt, ask a few "civilians" what they think it means, and you have the correct answer.

 

agreed. calling them Kirby/Royer originals, or Kirby/Royer original art, is at best misleading, and at worst a scam.

 

Nothing about the items in this thread are in any way, shape, or form Kirby originals or original Kirby art. Leaving Kirby out of it altogether is the only honest way to phrase it.

 

I could trace over and them embellish any page from my Kirby artbook, it would be only my work, not Kirby's. What Royer did for these pieces is no different. They are Royer artwork, and only Royer artwork

 

Period.

[glenbru]

Richard is very clever in his method of attempted fraud. He presents you with a piece of art that he calls a Kirby/Royer. A piece of artwork that Kirby NEVER touched. A piece of artwork that is only by Royer, and he wants to trade with you for art that is much more expensive than what he offers. When you ask him what the value of his art is worth, he suggests that YOU put whatever value you think it is.

 

His hope is that you've been taken in and believe that Kirby did in fact pencil the art. If you have a little bit of knowledge, you know that a Kirby pencilled piece is worth more than just a Royer inked piece-- many multiples more than the Royer. This is where he hopes YOU will make a mistake.

 

His hope is that you will value his Royer inked piece as if it was a Kirby drawing. Since he made you come up with the value, he can CLAIM no harm or foul in the transaction once you find out the sad truth that Kirby did not in fact pencil the drawing.

 

This has been my experience in dealing with Richard Rae.

 

He is a prime example of a con man that any collector should stay far away from. He should be

shunned by any one in this fine hobby. Deal with him at your own risk! You've been warned!

 

Glen Brunswick

[drewincanada]

Glen, Richard has also stated (somewhere in this thread) that if a potential buyer asks if a piece has been lightboxed, he will gladly reveal the truth. (At least that's what he claims to do; whether or not he actually does it is another story.)

 

It seems to me that, by stating that he'll reveal this information when questioned, he's acknowledging that there is a substantive difference between lightboxed work and true pencil/ink work.

 

He's acknowledged as much with his other CAF listings, where he takes pains to point out pieces that AREN'T lightboxed.

 

So it's clear that the only reason why he won't reveal the lightbox information proactively is because it will impact his ability to turn a big profit on these lightbox pieces.

 

Inexperienced buyers simply won't know enough to ask, which is what Richard counts on.

[glenbru]

In addition, Richard, claimed to not know the value of the Kirby/royer piece he offered me. He claimed it had been a gift and therefore did not know it's value.

 

Later, it was revealed, that he in fact commissioned a number of these pieces directly from Mike Royer and knew full well what they were worth.

 

His memory seems to fade in and out as it benefits him in his deal.

 

I would have no grudge or desire to railroad someone who had made an honest mistake. No mistake was made here. It's all been quite deliberate.

 

Richard is bad for the hobby.

 

Glen Brunswick.

[Mr.Rae]

All good points made...however some of the art was a gift to me and some vwas not...it might be helpful to read my message again.... So just what did all these attacks on me accomplish...let’s re-cap:

 

(1) No positive debate was conducted or achieved in relation to the creation of light-boxed art by “any” artists...a worthwhile debate that I feel might have helped all future original comic art sellers and buyers in appropriately describing light-boxed art... however to be fair some members came close.

 

(2) Via this forum “for the first time” it was brought to my attention that the art dealer “Joan” was not 100% happy with one of our past trades and even though she herself said that she was to blame I immediately contacted her directly to confirm and attempt to fix any problems she may of had as a matter of priority...without success...now due to the constant “personal” attacks by the members of this so called “board” (in my opinion more like a pack of school yard bullies) I have simply washed my hands of the matter...it must be noted that if Joan had contacted me directly in the first place with her concerns other than going public (under Terry’s direction) I’m certain Joan and I could have worked out some satisfactory solution...even though she had already re-sold the art I sent her in trade.

 

 

(3) This forum gave the “dealer” Brian a chance to jump on the “whipping-Richard” band wagon and try to blackmail me into giving him an extra $5,000 for a trade deal we completed years ago that in my opinion he was unhappy with because it was more of an “even trade” and as we all know “dealers like to make as much profit as possible...and there is nothing wrong in making a profit however his actions in going public to try and threaten to discredit me in some way to force a re-working of an “old” past deal between us was simply unsuccessful...and it sadly put an end it an future deals we possibly could have entered into where he may of made a greater profit.

 

(4) Mike Royer (possibly one of the nicest artists in the industry) must have felt forced to enter this forum to “set the record straight”...one of the worst things about this whole “bum-fight” from Terry against me is in my opinion the negativity it has directed to Mr. Royer and his good name (just read the title of this forum, the wording suggests deception and Mr. Royer’s name is right there)...Mr. Royer did nothing wrong...if Terry’s beef was with me and the way I was selling/trading items then fair enough, but every effort should have been made to limit any negativity towards all third parties...

 

(5) I believe that it was totally inappropriate to use any reference to the late and highly respected artist Frank Frazetta in ANY form within this forum, especially within a joke (very poor taste)...Frank past away not that long ago and many of us who honestly cared deeply for the man and his work are still grieving and I personally extend to his family and close friends my sincere apologies as to the way his name and work were used by “basic” comic collectors and dealers within this forum.

 

(6) Now to Rich Buckler...I never have and never will make ANY comments “public” while a professional arrangement is in place unless ALL parties agree...after reading Rich’s comments in this “public” forum I contacted him directly and immediately fired him for what I believe to be extremely unprofessional conduct on his part...I then sent a formal message/statement to Rich Johnston for his “public” news column at Bleeding Cool to inform him of the details relating to my dealings with Rich Buckler, I also asked that if he wished to publish my explanation in his column then to contact Rich Buckler directly and extend to him the “professional cutesy” to be pre-informed of the contents of my message/statement and give him the chance for comment (more than I was given), to my knowledge Johnston has not published anything yet and he may never publish my side of the story...if not I may disclose it here later in this “public” forum...clearly the details regarding the arrangement between Rich Buckler and myself differ but not really that greatly.

 

In fact why wait I will explain it now...with every artist I deal with I have ALWAYS PAID IN FULL AND IN ADVANCE and I always give very long deadlines, this means that the artists gets the work and he can take his time to fit it around other probably more high paying jobs that he has on his calendar, then when finished they send it to me...I contacted Rich Buckler to do some inking for me and he agreed, we not only talked about the job at hand but we also talked about on-going work that I could send him, much of this was done over the phone...the pencil art for the immediate job I had for him was not ready for him at that time but Mr. Buckler gave me a hard-luck story about having an office across the road from Marvel and they didn’t give him any work, then he asked if I was able to send him money right away because his brother was very ill...so even though I did not have the money to spare at that time, I agreed and sent him the payment for the first job...but the immediate job was not sent to him until well over a year later and by then all the money I sent him was gone and he was pushing for more bucks.

 

We talked about more on-going work and I was more than happy to use him as a regular on my projects and “if I was able” I agreed to pay him the same page rate that the large comic groups like Marvel & DC were paying and “if possible” I would try and send him some kind of bonus down the track because now he wanted more money to complete the first job he had just received from me...I was very keen to show off Rich’s work to possible investors and requested that he send what he had finished on the first job back to me right away and this he did with some panels incomplete...to be honest the investors were not that impressed with his efforts but I still stuck with pushing Rich Buckler as one of my artists that would regularly be hired (and always payed in advance) for my projects...I wanted to wait to re-contact him until I had more funds to send him as I knew he needed the money...I can only guess that he got tired of waiting for me and without warning he made the comments he did about me within this “public” forum, and I believe that was extremely bad and unprofessional judgement on his part...so I fired him as is my right.

 

My personal opinion of Rich Buckler is that he is a nice guy, a very up-front-kind-of-guy and anyone who knows him and has had him do work for them knows that he has been around the traps for decades and that it is totally unrealistic to even consider that he would have done that first job for me (me being an unknown on the other side of the world) without getting full payment in advance...while his memory of our agreement may have...let’s say “changed”...his comments about me made within this “public” forum have destroyed any chance of me sending him any future jobs/money...I’ve worked with lovable but difficult artists in the past, Tom Sutton was always pushing me for more work and asking if could I send him money right away and even if I had no project to send Tom at that time I always sent him what I could just to help him out and then later try and think of some kind of job for him to do...I really miss Tom, one of the most under rated artists ever and a heck of a really nice guy.

 

That is my “official” statement in regards to any suggestion by anyone that I owe and money to Rich Buckler...say what you will but it’s the bloody truth.

 

(7) On the subject of Terry Doyle and this forum...actually I like Terry, he has good taste in art and in the past I’ve known him to be very keen and professional...but we did not see eye to eye on the subject of the Kirby/Royer originals and he basically started sending me emails dictating to me that he was a “big-wig” in the original comic art industry and I had to do what he said...well I told him to p.i.s.s. off and then he got his back up and started this forum and personally attacking me...in my opinion that’s not the best way to address and work out a genuine issue...but to be fair I’ve really and honestly appreciated reading all of the different points of views regarding light boxed originals by all here...I think you could have said things without being so rude and personally hurtful but at the same time I understand the kind of people you all are.

 

At first I really figured that this whole forum was some kind of joke...I mean I’m one of the most easy going and fair guys around...I give original artwork “for free” to people I work with, I think I even sent Rich Buckler a nice original Stanley Pitt page from the 1940’s (I could be wrong there, I may in that case have just planned to send him an original and not gotten around to it yet) the money side of this Original Comic Art Industry does not excite me in the least...over the decades I’ve done many hundreds of trades and sales and when “rarely” any problems have been raised then they just get fixed, simple...I mean it’s not brain surgery...but this CGC forum has honestly made it impossible to sort out and fix any beefs...some people just do not respond to threats and abuse and I’m one of those people...I’m the kind of guy that when I’m walking down the street and see three cops beating the out of one guy I’ll jump in between them and tell the cops to back-off (and I have done)...and I honestly saw and still see (so far) nothing wrong with my description of the Kirby/Royer originals, there is no planed deception here...however I’ve always been more than willing to take into account other peoples point of views, but not when they come with accusations, abuse and child-like name calling...and I think that’s fair.

 

Now I’m not totally innocent here...like I said at first I just figured this forum to be some kind of joke and I was happy to play name calling and play around...but when Mike Royer came in to “set the record straight” I felt that was just something “wrong”...how dare any of “us” bring any form of dispersions to his name...inexcusable.

 

So I figured all of you so called “members of the board” (when in truth this is just a “chat room” run by ego’s and butt lickers) should all take stock of just what making statements “publicly” means to other innocent parties...now I don’t need to stick up for Mike Royer, he is more than capable of putting any of you guy (as well as me) in our place...but mouthing off can cause unpleased outcomes as this forum has just proven...so just like “some” of you guys did by showing some of my private emails out of contexts or just blatantly changing them, I figured I’d chuck a few curve balls...and while you guys like dishing it out gee none of you liked getting it back, your comments were all over the place and then instead of sticking to the facts you were off talking about the French and Aussie beer (oh children).

 

CGC has rules for the people that use it’s forums...it’s just a pity that those rules are NOT enforced.

 

So I figured that with all of the rubbish and name calling that you lot were doing I needed to teach you all a lesson...so with a little prompting from me all of you took the bait and exposed yourselves for what you truly are, just read back some of your own comments...I’m embarrassed for the lot of you...a group of old hens and smart mouths...and you guys are the “members of the board” exposing evil...good grief.

 

With just a little reverse strategy I got Terry and arzach42 to call off the on-going attacks on me via this forum, arzach42 is now calling me “Mr. Rae” and I’ve clearly embarrassed Terry who now calls me “Rae” (what happened to dickie?)...who has the power now?...honest people who refuse to be pushed around by bullies have the power Terry...so now Terry is taking his ball and going home and screaming as he go’s that he’ll get me next time...it’s like an old Get Smart episode...of cause now that I have pointed out that they have given in I’m sure the name calling will start again (like water off a “ducks” back).

 

Well now I will show you “my” power (I hope EVERYONE is sitting down)...I demand that this forum continue!

 

My dealings have always been honest and up-front and very, very transparent...every week I get offers from collectors (just like all of you most likely do)...collectors who want to buy or trade for an original in my/our collection/s...and sometimes the offers are great just like the one Joan offered me and other times they are plain insulting, but we all listen to the offers and then we make up our mind if we will accept them or not...like I said before it’s NOT rock science.

 

Now if we disregard the personal insults that run right through this forum and only look at “the issue” of light boxed originals I honestly believe that something good can come from Terry Doyle’s follies (or “Terry-Gate” as I call it...and that is humour not rudeness for those who don’t know real humour)...seriously we all may be able to do some good here and suggest some clear guidelines for ALL collectors who trade with light boxed originals

 

I promise that I’ll be coming back to this forum regularly to view any “genuine comments” and let’s all hope that this issue gets as much publicity as possible and any future misunderstandings regarding light boxed originals (sold or purchased by anyone) can soon be cleared up and sorted out.

 

At this time I would just like to add to all of those collectors and artists who have contacted me “personally” over the last few weeks offering me there support against the attacks on me via this forum, that I appreciate all of you following my request NOT to enter into this forum actively and only merely observe...it made it easier for me to exposes the truth...thank you all.

 

Kindest regards

 

 

Richard Rae

 

 

P.S. I’m must say that I’m not surprised by the “tall poppy syndrome” that also has been exposed in relation to my fellow Australia mates within this forum.

 

 

[thehumantorch]

What a .

[Mr.Rae]

Hi Brian

 

Very good letters...I wish I could write letters as good as those.

[glenbru]

What did these attacks on you accomplish, Richard?

 

Let's recap shall we...

 

1) the forum exposed you as a fraudulent trader.

 

2) the forum hopefully prevented you from taking advantage of other unsuspecting innocent collectors who are unaware of your deceptive practices.

 

I'd say that's a lot. A job well done.

 

Thanks for asking the question.

 

It was always too much of a stretch to hope that you might make restitution to the poor unfortunate people that you've taken advantage of.

 

Glen Brunswick

[drewincanada]

Is this Groundhog Day?

[Aman619]

Winning!!!!!!!!!

[Mr.Rae]

glenbru

If I just sell the car, I can up my bid...

 

 

Registered: 11/09/05

Posts: 156 What did these attacks on you accomplish, Richard?

 

Let's recap shall we...

 

1) the forum exposed you as a fraudulent trader.

 

2) the forum hopefully prevented you from taking advantage of other unsuspecting innocent collectors who are unaware of your deceptive practices.

 

I'd say that's a lot. A job well done.

 

Thanks for asking the question.

 

It was always too much of a stretch to hope that you might make restitution to the poor unfortunate people that you've taken advantage of.

 

Glen Brunswick

 

 

 

Let's take a look at your "Let's recap shall we"

 

1) this chat-room has only exposed itself...I'm fine...name calling can't hurt me when it is not backed up by facts just personal oppinion (and that's healthy)

 

2) the chat-room has prevented nothing I do...since it started I've compleated a number of new buys, my first Byrne along with some other nice originals (see my gallery)...plus I have a "massive" artist in the States now working for me to replace the one l fired...and I sold one of my originals last week to a collector in the US for well over $10,000...I'm really doing just fine thank you very much.

 

I'd say if exposing you guys for what you really are (and you guys did all the work) then it's a job well done.

 

I really don't think your fellow chat-room mates are "poor unfortunate people"...but if you wish to paint them all as victims so you can still attempt to drum up support then knock yourself out Glen...chat away...I'll never run from bullies...I'm an honest person and the biggest problem to sorting out this mess was your "victims" going public in this chat-room before contacting me directly so I could work out something with then...in truth you dug them the hole they are now in once you guys started the name calling and rude comments.

 

Richard Rae

 

 

[DiceX]

Cue sad violin music.

 

 

[glenbru]

All I've done is presented facts about your attempted fraudulent dealing with me specifically, Richard. I've just presented FACTS about you--not opinions.

 

It is a fact that you tried to trade me art work that you claimed was by Kirby/Royer. It is a fact that the artwork was by just Royer and you did not disclose this to me.

 

It is a fact that you told me you got it as a gift and therefore did not know the value. It is a fact that you had commissioned artwork directly from Royer and therefore really did know the value.

 

It is a fact that you lied to me, both by omission and directly.

 

It is a fact that many people who've come forward on this forum have had similar problems in dealing with you in the past.

 

I think the public should know you for who you are.

 

THESE ARE THE FACTS, MR RAE.

 

I'm no bully. I never heard of you before you contacted me to do a trade. I base my OPINION of you directly on your behavior during our interaction.

 

Have you asked yourself why so many of the people you've dealt with have a severe negative opinion of you? Where there's smoke, there's fire. You've burned too many people, I'm afraid.

 

The more you spout nonsense, the more we will repeat the facts about you.

 

Glen Brunswick