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

[Mr.Rae]

So Terry...you admit it...finally

[Terry Doyle]

Now Romain mate...clearly your upset that some of the rest of us have solved the light-box issue and you're worked yourself up about something else now...so my question to you is: do you want "us" to work with you here to fix your problem/s OR do you just want to make nasty statements...I'm easy either way but I'd rather solve problems that make them bigger...well pal...I along with the rest of us are here for you, I'm sure even Terry.

 

Kindest regards

 

Richard

 

Romain doesn't need help from anyone, here. Romain's one of the good guys.

 

You, on the other hand, need urgent help.

 

Especially help of the psychiatric kind . . .

[Terry Doyle]

So Terry...you admit it...finally

 

Admit what?

[Mr.Rae]

“Victims should be aware, however, that they can request an ISP to instruct a site to take material down if it is threatening or harassing.”

 

Interesting...don't you think?

[Terry Doyle]

Would it be fair to say then that everyone is happy with the "new" way I (or any other person) should present light-boxed original from now on?...so no future "honest" mix-ups or misunderstandings are possible...?...if that original problem is fixed then I think this chat-room has been worthwhile.

 

Job well achived...of cause this should have been worked out on page two or three, but with all of the name calling that was imposible.

 

Now...let's move on to any other questions?

 

 

'Honesty' and 'D*i*c*k Rae' do not complement one another.

 

You're probably the most dishonest person I've ever encountered.

 

Yes, I know you'd like people to believe that you're the honest one here . . . with people like myself, Glen, Rich Buckler, Joan Gispert, Brian Howard (and god-knows how many other unfortunates out there that we've yet to learn about) are the dishonest ones . . .

 

All the world is dishonest . . . except for D*i*c*k Rae!

 

 

[Terry Doyle]

“Victims should be aware, however, that they can request an ISP to instruct a site to take material down if it is threatening or harassing.”

 

Interesting...don't you think?

 

Yeah, that's real peachy.

 

Now tell me what artwork of yours it was that I wanted so badly, that you turned me down on?

 

I'm intrigued to see what part of your collection it was that thrilled me to bits.

 

Maybe it was one of your own crappy drawings?

 

 

[Terry Doyle]

“Victims should be aware, however, that they can request an ISP to instruct a site to take material down if it is threatening or harassing.”

 

Interesting...don't you think?

 

Yeah, that's real peachy.

 

Now tell me what artwork of yours is that I wanted badly, that you turned me down on?

 

I'm intrigued to see what part of your collection it was that thrilled me to bits.

 

Maybe it was one of your own crappy drawings?

 

I'm waiting, D*i*c*k . . .

[Terry Doyle]

“Victims should be aware, however, that they can request an ISP to instruct a site to take material down if it is threatening or harassing.”

 

Interesting...don't you think?

 

Yeah, that's real peachy.

 

Now tell me what artwork of yours is that I wanted badly, that you turned me down on?

 

I'm intrigued to see what part of your collection it was that thrilled me to bits.

 

Maybe it was one of your own crappy drawings?

 

I'm waiting, D*i*c*k . . .

 

Still waiting . . .

[Terry Doyle]

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

 

 

 

While I'm waiting for you to answer my question, I'll cheer myself up re-reading part of your (otherwise boring) croc of sh*t . . .

 

 

Funniest statement in this whole thread.

 

I wonder what your 'mass of supporters' really think of you?

 

I bet that's a 'mass' of . . . possibly one supporter??

 

Wonder what . . .she (?) might really think of you???

 

[Mr.Rae]

Now just relax Terry...I've clearly hit the mark here...once you settle down a little we all can help you mate...that's what friends are for and we are all friends here...have another drink and relax...I'll reply once I see you have settled.

[Mr.Rae]

Subject 1: Quotation from Terry re: page #1 – “After some further comments were added to his CAF Royer light-box jobs (effectively complaining about the misleading nature of the pieces), Richard finally re-uploaded the artworks (wiping the negative comments in the process) and amended his descriptions to reflect the fact that Jack Kirby’s hand was not present in the Mike Royer pieces.)

 

Now when Terry contacted me he was quite...let’s say “insistent” that light-boxed art was not “real” art, and while I firmly disagreed with his view I decided to give him the benefit that he deserved for being in the collecting business for so many years and I changed my descriptions...it might be interesting to know that this original complaint from Terry (directly to me and not public) came soon after I declined a trade deal with him regarding some of my other original art that possibly left a bad taste in his mouth and got him a little off-side with me...did this have something to do with his attack on me...?...possibly, I don’t know but it’s a freaky coincidence at best.

 

So even Terry agreed that I complied with his description wishes...and now after so many pages in this chat-room it looks like we have finally “all” agreed on how best to describe light-boxed art, and once again I’m happy to comply wish collectors who possibly know far more than I.

 

Subject 2: Quotation from the Joan email also shown on page #1 – “...he didn’t mention that the pieces were not actually penciled by Kirby until the art was on the way to my house...” the simple fact is that I was hardly home during this trade deal with Joan, that she was pushing and in truth so was I, as soon as I was allowed out of hospital I continued “immediately” correspondence personally and filled in any extra details that I had felt had not been covered extensively or had simply been overlooked by both Joan and I in previous emails.

 

Next quotation from the Joan email shown on page #1 – “...I let it go because I was guilty for not asking enough about what I was acquiring...” This is true, but in truth we were both guilty of not spending enough time on the details of this trade...so here is Joan saying that she is guilty and here is me saying “no” it was both of us...I could have said “fine you said you’re guilty so I’m off any hook BUT I DIDN’T.

 

Next quotation from the Joan email shown on page #1 - “...but as I said, I feel 50% responsible..” Now she feels less guilty but has fallen into how I’m seeing this AND FOR THE FIRST TIME I MIGHT AD...she never complained to me directly about our trade deal once, so up until Terry used her words against me as some kind of weaponed in this chat-room I had no idea Joan was not completely satisfied with our trade deal...it was really quite a shock.

 

At any point from Joan receiving the art from me we could have made an immediate trade-reversal...problem easily fixed...but I knew NOTHING of this or ANY problem until the next year when she had either sold or traded off what art I had sent her and I’m reading her letter in this chat-room.

 

Then Terry is calling me names and accusing me of ripping “people” off...good grief I figured it was some dumb joke.

 

Terry had me so focused that this was the greatest disaster that has ever happened in the world that I did something that I will never do again...I not only caved into his bullying but I executed to solve a deal “publicly” and this sadly eventually put a stop to any chance of fixing Joan’s problem.

 

I treated the matter as a matter of “urgency” as more and more rude, unfair and uncalled for comments were listed in this chat-room...pressuring me to fix the problem or be branded a crook...I treated these accusations as a matter of priority and I insisted that Joan did as well...in hindsight I should have simply fixed everything “privately” with Joan via emails over a number of weeks BUT “some” of you guys just kept attacking and making fun what I coincided to be a very serious situation.

 

Finally I realised that if I had worked the problem out with Joan then Terry would just claim some kind of victory that he had all this power to force a crook to reverse a trade deal that he had absolutely nothing to do with in the first place, or if I didn’t work out the problem with Joan then he would just keep calling me a crook...either way I was still being branded a crook...so with no way to clear the matter up and as Joan did not wish to enter into negotiations to do a reverse trade (something that I was more than happy to do) then the complaint was dropped by me and only kept alive by “some” in this chat-room who are happy to condemn but not willing to admit any responsibility.

 

So put simply...that is the Joan saga.

 

Humanly poor judgement on both our parts BUT no criminal action.

 

I hope this helps...next questions please...

 

Kindest regards

 

Richard

 

P.S. This is a question for Terry...what kind of price were you looking for to sell some of that nice original art you own...we both know that you had tripled the market price on ALL of the art you were selling...and you call me names

[Terry Doyle]

Now just relax Terry...I've clearly hit the mark here...once you settle down a little we all can help you mate...that's what friends are for and we are all friends here...have another drink and relax...I'll reply once I see you have settled.

 

[Terry Doyle]

Subject 1: Quotation from Terry re: page #1 – “After some further comments were added to his CAF Royer light-box jobs (effectively complaining about the misleading nature of the pieces), Richard finally re-uploaded the artworks (wiping the negative comments in the process) and amended his descriptions to reflect the fact that Jack Kirby’s hand was not present in the Mike Royer pieces.)

 

Now when Terry contacted me he was quite...let’s say “insistent” that light-boxed art was not “real” art, and while I firmly disagreed with his view I decided to give him the benefit that he deserved for being in the collecting business for so many years and I changed my descriptions...it might be interesting to know that this original complaint from Terry (directly to me and not public) came soon after I declined a trade deal with him regarding some of my other original art that possibly left a bad taste in his mouth and got him a little off-side with me...did this have something to do with his attack on me...?...possibly, I don’t know but it’s a freaky coincidence at best.

 

So even Terry agreed that I complied with his description wishes...and now after so many pages in this chat-room it looks like we have finally “all” agreed on how best to describe light-boxed art, and once again I’m happy to comply wish collectors who possibly know far more than I.

 

Subject 2: Quotation from the Joan email also shown on page #1 – “...he didn’t mention that the pieces were not actually penciled by Kirby until the art was on the way to my house...” the simple fact is that I was hardly home during this trade deal with Joan, that she was pushing and in truth so was I, as soon as I was allowed out of hospital I continued “immediately” correspondence personally and filled in any extra details that I had felt had not been covered extensively or had simply been overlooked by both Joan and I in previous emails.

 

Next quotation from the Joan email shown on page #1 – “...I let it go because I was guilty for not asking enough about what I was acquiring...” This is true, but in truth we were both guilty of not spending enough time on the details of this trade...so here is Joan saying that she is guilty and here is me saying “no” it was both of us...I could have said “fine you said you’re guilty so I’m off any hook BUT I DIDN’T.

 

Next quotation from the Joan email shown on page #1 - “...but as I said, I feel 50% responsible..” Now she feels less guilty but has fallen into how I’m seeing this AND FOR THE FIRST TIME I MIGHT AD...she never complained to me directly about our trade deal once, so up until Terry used her words against me as some kind of weaponed in this chat-room I had no idea Joan was not completely satisfied with our trade deal...it was really quite a shock.

 

At any point from Joan receiving the art from me we could have made an immediate trade-reversal...problem easily fixed...but I knew NOTHING of this or ANY problem until the next year when she had either sold or traded off what art I had sent her and I’m reading her letter in this chat-room.

 

Then Terry is calling me names and accusing me of ripping “people” off...good grief I figured it was some dumb joke.

 

Terry had me so focused that this was the greatest disaster that has ever happened in the world that I did something that I will never do again...I not only caved into his bullying but I executed to solve a deal “publicly” and this sadly eventually put a stop to any chance of fixing Joan’s problem.

 

I treated the matter as a matter of “urgency” as more and more rude, unfair and uncalled for comments were listed in this chat-room...pressuring me to fix the problem or be branded a crook...I treated these accusations as a matter of priority and I insisted that Joan did as well...in hindsight I should have simply fixed everything “privately” with Joan via emails over a number of weeks BUT “some” of you guys just kept attacking and making fun what I coincided to be a very serious situation.

 

Finally I realised that if I had worked the problem out with Joan then Terry would just claim some kind of victory that he had all this power to force a crook to reverse a trade deal that he had absolutely nothing to do with in the first place, or if I didn’t work out the problem with Joan then he would just keep calling me a crook...either way I was still being branded a crook...so with no way to clear the matter up and as Joan did not wish to enter into negotiations to do a reverse trade (something that I was more than happy to do) then the complaint was dropped by me and only kept alive by “some” in this chat-room who are happy to condemn but not willing to admit any responsibility.

 

So put simply...that is the Joan saga.

 

Humanly poor judgement on both our parts BUT no criminal action.

 

I hope this helps...next questions please...

 

Kindest regards

 

Richard

 

P.S. This is a question for Terry...what kind of price were you looking for to sell some of that nice original art you own...we both know that you had tripled the market price on ALL of the art you were selling...and you call me names

 

Yes, it was a boring croc of sh*t first time I skimmed through it.

 

And as Chris points out, you've learned how to cut-and-paste. You must be well pleased with yourself for discovering that little trick!

 

Anyway, you'll excuse me if I disregard most of this c*r*a*p . . .

 

Your ability to tell lies has long since lost its shock value on me.

 

As I say . . . your missive was boring first time round . . . I'm sure nothing's changed since then.

 

Why repeat these things - do you want us all to marvel at your stupidity?

[Terry Doyle]

So tell me about this artwork of yours that I'm supposed to want so desparately?

 

Still waiting . . .

[Terry Doyle]

Now just relax Terry...I've clearly hit the mark here...once you settle down a little we all can help you mate...that's what friends are for and we are all friends here...have another drink and relax...I'll reply once I see you have settled.

 

 

Yep, all relaxed, D*i*c*k. Had my drink of coke and still eating away at my popcorn . . .

 

 

Now, about this artwork of yours . . .

[Terry Doyle]

Now just relax Terry...I've clearly hit the mark here...once you settle down a little we all can help you mate...that's what friends are for and we are all friends here...have another drink and relax...I'll reply once I see you have settled.

 

 

Yep, all relaxed, D*i*c*k. Had my drink of coke and still eating away at my popcorn . . .

 

 

Now, about this artwork of yours . . .

 

Hurry up, D*i*c*k, I'm nearly out of popcorn . . . then I'll become all agitated again . . .

 

[Terry Doyle]

Now just relax Terry...I've clearly hit the mark here...once you settle down a little we all can help you mate...that's what friends are for and we are all friends here...have another drink and relax...I'll reply once I see you have settled.

 

 

Yep, all relaxed, D*i*c*k. Had my drink of coke and still eating away at my popcorn . . .

 

 

Now, about this artwork of yours . . .

 

Hurry up, D*i*c*k, I'm nearly out of popcorn . . . then I'll become all agitated again . . .

 

 

Damn, I'm out of popcorn - and you still haven't answered my question!

 

[Terry Doyle]

There's an old movie from the 1960s. In it, Walter Matthau is caught in bed with another woman by his wife. While his wife goes ballistic, he (and the woman) calmly get dressed and make the bed. All the time he is calmly going about his business, Matthau just keeps asking his wife why she is upset and what she is talking about. The other woman departs and Walter just keeps on straightening up the room and his clothes while calmly denying his wife's assertions. Finally, the wife just runs out of steam and ends up in utter confusion. Matthau gives her a peck on the cheek and goes to work.

 

No idea why I thought of that movie now.

 

The Secret Life of Walther Matthau?

 

Perhaps it reminds you of someone you've encountered on this thread?

 

Everyone knows a Walter Mitty, don't they?

 

But when you mix Walter Mitty with D*i*c*k Rae, you get a story entitled. . .

 

The Secret life of a Lying, Scumbag Thief.

 

 

[Terry Doyle]

Well, I'm getting tired of waiting on D*i*c*k to come back with an answer.

 

He's quick enough to make fanciful accusations, but very slow responding to my questionning of the same.

 

Instead of giving me a prompt reply, he prefers to practice on his new cut-and-paste toy.

 

Okay, while I continue to wait, I'll do a cut-and paste job of my own.

 

Let's remind ourselves of what Rich Buckler had to tell us about D*i*c*k . . .

 

“Hi, Terry

 

I don't know if this helps, but yes, I have had dealings with Richard Rae that were not exactly on the up and up.

 

My experience with him is that he is a good talker, promises a lot, and does not keep his word. Lies and b*u*l*l*s*h*i*t--that's how I see it. That kind of nonsense always results in whoever deals with him getting less money or value than promised.

 

He comes off as likable, sincere and honest in his communications, but the result is always something that involves changing the deal with lots of back peddling and excuses. Maybe he means well, maybe he is actually a hopeless bungler, or possibly a deliberate and conniving swindler--I'm not sure. But my advice is don't do business with him.

 

I know he deals in comic art originals and that he is actively seeking to raise money for publishing. Collectors should beware. I am sorry that I actually did get duped into contributing to one of his publishing ventures. If he is actually not at fault in my dealings with him that went south--well, how come it has been over a year now and he still hasn't straightened anything out yet?

 

Do me a favor, please. Fill me in on more details about the trouble he is presently causing. And before you quote me on any of this, ask me first. I am still feeling sour over my past dealings with him. God knows what damage he is doing now. A shame, since he is a very talented artist and very creative. Such a waste.

 

Anyhow, that's my take on things. Helpful?

 

Take care—RICH”

 

I replied to Rich, providing a link to this thread.

 

Rich subsequently made the following response:

 

“Hi, Terry

 

I checked out that link you gave me. Please be advised that the Steranko/Buckler drawing of Captain America was light boxed by me (from a photstat) and then inked. It is not a Steranko original. It was fun to do, and I am a big Steranko fan--but I never once in my career ever inked a Steranko original, and this was the next closest thing.

 

This was one of the first pieces I did for Richard Rae. It was supposed to be for his private collection and then later used for promotion and to get some attention for his new publishing efforts (which I was helping with in the capacity of inker). If it is ever offered for sale or trade, of course this should all be mentioned.

 

Anyhow, it's not a Steranko original--it's a Rich Buckler re-creation of an unpublished Steranko drawing. Please pass that info on to collectors you know.

 

Feel free, by the way, to bother me if any authentication is needed on other pieces where I might be helpful. To misrepresent art for sale and cheat collectors and fans is pretty "low-life" stuff. And buying and selling stolen goods is downright evil.

 

I have to wonder, though, how and why Mike Royer did those light box "originals." I don't know Mike personally, but I don't think he was deliberately creating forgeries. Maybe he fell for the same pitch I did--that Rae was a big fan and wanted the commission for his own personal collection. This guy Rae is a good talker and can be very convincing. That's how he gets over on people.

 

Hope I have helped out a bit.

 

Take care—RICH”

 

 

[Unca Ben]

 

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).

 

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

I wasn't buying into his efforts, I just got caught up in the moment, sorry.