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

[Romain]

"Royer Lightbox over Kirby" is the accepted terminology...this sounds right to me...is everyone happy with this?

 

:

[seanfingh]

 

I like "Mike Royer inks over photocopied unoriginal Jack Kirby pencils, and oh, by the way, just so we are absolutely clear, Jack Kirby never touched, saw, handled, or interacted in any way with this piece."

[Weird Paper]

I like "Mike Royer inks over photocopied unoriginal Jack Kirby pencils, and oh, by the way, just so we are absolutely clear, Jack Kirby never touched, saw, handled, or interacted in any way with this piece."

Yeah, I think that works for me.

[Terry Doyle]

"Royer Lightbox over Kirby" is the accepted terminology...this sounds right to me...is everyone happy with this?

 

 

Richard Rae the lying, scumbag thief . . . that sounds right to me . . . everyone agree?

[Romain]

+1

 

[Aman619]

Truly amazing is his patient but patently antisocial posting and argumentary stance here in this thread. Never losing his cool. Seeking to out last out wit and portray the ultimate nice guy seeking to "understand" what others are suggesting he do to clear up this "confusion"

 

And so pathetic ! And so narcissistic and blind to laity that he obviously thinks he will pull it off.

 

What's even more pathetic is that this approach usually works around here... When it isn't such an obvious ploy and when there are actually two sides to the issue at hand.

 

Textbook arseholic behavior. Bravo sir!

[Mr.Rae]

So...?...is that the right wording to use to market these kind of originals or not?...I'm honestly asking guys.

 

Richard

[alxjhnsn]

Yes. That would work and it is pretty much what every uses.

 

If it was done over a blue line, I'd say "Royer inks over Kirby blue-line."

[Unca Ben]

So...?...is that the right wording to use to market these kind of originals or not?...I'm honestly asking guys.

 

Richard

Yep, they are "kind of original" ... inks.

 

Mr. Rae,

 

What you really have are "Kirby (copy or trace of Kirby's pencils) / Royer(original inks)".

 

Using the term "Kirby/Royer original" implies both pencils and inks are original.

 

So when you use the term "Kirby/Royer original" it does suggest that Kirby pencils are originally on the piece being described, which goes against what you stated in your second post in this thread.

 

...and I make no suggestion that Jack ever touched Mike's drawings or that there are any of Jack's pencil art under Mike's great light-boxed originals...

 

So, if you are honestly asking, then yeah "Royer Lightbox over Kirby" or "Lightboxed Kirby/Royer" would be more honest wording to market these copies of Kirby pencils.

 

Please let me know if this has been answered to your satisfaction.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Unca Ben]

Yes. That would work and it is pretty much what every uses.

 

If it was done over a blue line, I'd say "Royer inks over Kirby blue-line."

Even better.

[arzach42]

Troll....

 

Ignore...

[Terry Doyle]

Troll....

 

Ignore...

 

I'm amazed that a few collectors here are even buying into the (insincere) efforts by D*i*c*k to try to work out a proper description for his Royer lightbox jobs.

 

Myself and Glen Gold (patiently and reasonably) advised him of all this last Summer (see the e-mail correspondence I reprinted earlier on in this thread).

 

He's (now) trying to give folks the illusion of someone who has 'honestly' been confused over proper description for his Royer art during the time he has been defrauding other collectors.

 

There's no doubt in my mind that D*i*c*k knew exactly how his Royer lightbox jobs should have been described from the git go.

 

But I guess it's true . . . you can fool some of the people some of the time.

 

Thankfully most of us here are wise to D*i*c*k Rae's criminal activities and will not play this game he wants us to play with him.

[arzach42]

Troll....

 

Ignore...

 

I'm amazed that a few collectors here are even buying into the (insincere) efforts by D*i*c*k to try to work out a proper description for his Royer lightbox jobs.

 

Myself and Glen Gold (patiently and reasonably) advised him of all this last Summer (see the e-mail correspondence I reprinted earlier on in this thread).

 

He's (now) trying to give folks the illusion of someone who has 'honestly' been confused over proper description for his Royer art during the time he has been defrauding other collectors.

 

There's no doubt in my mind that D*i*c*k knew exactly how his Royer lightbox jobs should have been described from the git go.

 

But I guess it's true . . . you can fool some of the people some of the time.

 

Thankfully most of us here are wise to D*i*c*k Rae's criminal activities and will not play this game he wants us to play with him.

+1 (thumbs u

 

 

 

[drewincanada]

Yes, he clearly knows the difference. And he's clearly being disingenuous (to put it mildly and politely) with his recent posts here.

 

I posted this very early in this thread, but I think it's worth a re-post.

 

Interesting (but not surprising) that, in the description of his Gene Colan Cap OA, Richard takes pains to point out that it is NOT a light box piece, and that the inks are directly over Gene's pencils.

 

He's more than willing to point out the difference between light box pieces and true pencil/ink originals when it's to his advantage to do so.

 

Description from Richard's CAF listing for a Colan Captain America page:

 

This is NOT a light-box drawing...it's inked right on Gene's art ( how cool )... It's Colans pencils under the inks (not light-box). The art is large-size, about 14" X 20". The inker is Steve Mitchell who worked with Gene on a lot of stuff in the 80's/90's, most notably Gene's run on Wonder Woman...the original art is big...no really it's large...what the heck it's HUGE!!!!...just great.

 

Gene Colan Captain America from Richard's CAF gallery

[glenbru]

No one should engage Richard in any discussion EXCEPT for how he intends to make things right for the collectors he's taken advantage of.

 

There's nothing else to be said to him. We should just keep hammering this home to him.

 

He has no right to any access to this community's ear until he addresses this problem.

[Terry Doyle]

Yes, he clearly knows the difference. And he's clearly being disingenuous (to put it mildly and politely) with his recent posts here.

 

I posted this very early in this thread, but I think it's worth a re-post.

 

Interesting (but not surprising) that, in the description of his Gene Colan Cap OA, Richard takes pains to point out that it is NOT a light box piece, and that the inks are directly over Gene's pencils.

 

He's more than willing to point out the difference between light box pieces and true pencil/ink originals when it's to his advantage to do so.

 

Description from Richard's CAF listing for a Colan Captain America page:

 

This is NOT a light-box drawing...it's inked right on Gene's art ( how cool )... It's Colans pencils under the inks (not light-box). The art is large-size, about 14" X 20". The inker is Steve Mitchell who worked with Gene on a lot of stuff in the 80's/90's, most notably Gene's run on Wonder Woman...the original art is big...no really it's large...what the heck it's HUGE!!!!...just great.

 

Gene Colan Captain America from Richard's CAF gallery

 

Excellent reminder . . . you should refresh everyone's memories as and when required. (thumbs u

[Romain]

No one should engage Richard in any discussion EXCEPT for how he intends to make things right for the collectors he's taken advantage of.

 

There's nothing else to be said to him. We should just keep hammering this home to him.

 

He has no right to any access to this community's ear until he addresses this problem.

 

 

 

+1

 

 

[Mr.Rae]

I went to pains to point out that it is NOT a light box piece AFTER you contacted me and made such a fuss about light boxed art...as you know now I also do the same regarding the Kirby/Royer originals and make it clear that they ARE light boxed...see Terry I do listen when people are not being rude and just name calling.

 

If you quote me I believe it's important NOT to present my words out of contex.

 

By the way, I just had that Cap/Colan original framed and it looks fantastic.

[Mr.Rae]

Problem has been addressed Romain.

[Mr.Rae]

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