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

[Weird Paper]

Wow... what a fascinating train wreck of a thread.

Yeah, it seems that teaching ethics to Mr. Rae is a little bit like teaching a dog to do card tricks.

[drewincanada]

Or teaching pigs to fly.

 

Rae has just said that his ability to right his wrongs is on a par with this aviation feat.

 

In fact, he has the means. Just not the inclination.

[Tony S]

I’ve been following this thread for quite a while now. It’s been going on for over two months– and it feels even longer. Though tempted at times, I have not posted up any comments until today because 1) I collect comics, not art. I only own a few inexpensive pieces of original art to round out my collection, and 2) The people talking were clearly very advanced art collectors. I figured I’d sit quietly, let the grown ups talk and learn something.

 

If you’ve read all 66 (and counting) pages, you know this thread has been all over the place. For those of us that had never heard of blue line or light boxed art, it was informative the first five pages. Then the discussions got rather lively when Mr. Rae himself entered the thread around page 5. At times it’s been just plain weird (such as Mr. Rae posting over and over he was waiting for people to post up questions late in May – pages 22 – 24). At various times Mr. Rae has posted up long explanations that here in the USA we would characterize as “Clinton-speak”. For those not familiar it’s attempting to wordsmith or psycho-babble your way out of a jamb – what President Clinton tried to do when caught in a lie about having an affair. (And please – let’s not have this turn into a political thread. The point here is the linguistic gymnastics of Mr. Rae)

 

But I’d like to summarize a few key points or thoughts:

 

1) For a long time Mr. Rae argued that his descriptions were not misleading. Then he sorta said they could maybe be misleading – and after trying to draw everyone into a discussion on how light-boxed art should be listed says that he’ll list future pieces that way. If anyone has any doubts as to the misleading nature of the art listed by Mr. Rae, you should go to page 62 and look at the ebay link. It’s pretty damning. Anyone reading that would think it was art drawn by Kirby and inked by Royer

 

2) During the two month journey, Mr. Rae has offered that he will make things right with collector Joan, then said he would not because he was being bullied by the posters on the forum – and now most recently maintains he can’t make things right because she has sold the artwork he traded her (little surprise – who would want a reminder of such a poor deal?). Person #1 saying he’ll not do right by Person #2 because of the actions of person #3, 4 & 5 is both illogical and deplorable. As to Mr. Rae’s renewed willingness to make things right if only he could - problem solved – skip to the end ..

 

3) In essence Mr. Rae suggests that he’ll do better in the future with his listings and he’d fix things if only he could – and he’d like for everyone to be nice.

 

BTW – a bit more civility in the forums would be welcome. I’m often amazed at the vulgar name calling and taunting that goes on in these boards. This one’s worse than most (but then it’s longer) but many threads have this. Can we keep it clean?

 

So maybe Mr. Rae is willing to make amends and doesn’t know where to start. So I offer a simple proposal.

 

Mr. Rae

1) Admit your for sale listings and offered trades of your light-boxed artwork were intentionally worded in such a way as to mislead people into believing they were originals by Kirby and thus worth far more than their actual value.

2) Go to any such individuals that you succeeded in getting an unfair deal and make it right. Not by wanting to do a reverse trade or another trade, but by offering actual financial compensation that makes the trade or sale “fair”. If you traded $500 worth of art for $2000 – write a check for $1500.

3) Say you’ve learned from all this, you are sorry and it won’t happen again.

 

Do these things – and likely the criticisms and name calling will quit. Maybe this thread will even close. If you do these things and the verbal criticisms continues, I will post up from time to time saying “give the man a chance – people change..”

Tony

 

One other thing. I loved Kirby and Royer’s 70’s work. It never occurred to me that I could ask Mr. Royer to recreate some of those pages for far less $$ than the originals. I’ve sent him a letter (couldn’t get the contact form his website to work). Who knows what will come of it.

 

 

[Mac Man]

I’ve been following this thread for quite a while now. It’s been going on for over two months– and it feels even longer. Though tempted at times, I have not posted up any comments until today because 1) I collect comics, not art. I only own a few inexpensive pieces of original art to round out my collection, and 2) The people talking were clearly very advanced art collectors. I figured I’d sit quietly, let the grown ups talk and learn something.

 

If you’ve read all 66 (and counting) pages, you know this thread has been all over the place. For those of us that had never heard of blue line or light boxed art, it was informative the first five pages. Then the discussions got rather lively when Mr. Rae himself entered the thread around page 5. At times it’s been just plain weird (such as Mr. Rae posting over and over he was waiting for people to post up questions late in May – pages 22 – 24). At various times Mr. Rae has posted up long explanations that here in the USA we would characterize as “Clinton-speak”. For those not familiar it’s attempting to wordsmith or psycho-babble your way out of a jamb – what President Clinton tried to do when caught in a lie about having an affair. (And please – let’s not have this turn into a political thread. The point here is the linguistic gymnastics of Mr. Rae)

 

But I’d like to summarize a few key points or thoughts:

 

1) For a long time Mr. Rae argued that his descriptions were not misleading. Then he sorta said they could maybe be misleading – and after trying to draw everyone into a discussion on how light-boxed art should be listed says that he’ll list future pieces that way. If anyone has any doubts as to the misleading nature of the art listed by Mr. Rae, you should go to page 62 and look at the ebay link. It’s pretty damning. Anyone reading that would think it was art drawn by Kirby and inked by Royer

 

2) During the two month journey, Mr. Rae has offered that he will make things right with collector Joan, then said he would not because he was being bullied by the posters on the forum – and now most recently maintains he can’t make things right because she has sold the artwork he traded her (little surprise – who would want a reminder of such a poor deal?). Person #1 saying he’ll not do right by Person #2 because of the actions of person #3, 4 & 5 is both illogical and deplorable. As to Mr. Rae’s renewed willingness to make things right if only he could - problem solved – skip to the end ..

 

3) In essence Mr. Rae suggests that he’ll do better in the future with his listings and he’d fix things if only he could – and he’d like for everyone to be nice.

 

BTW – a bit more civility in the forums would be welcome. I’m often amazed at the vulgar name calling and taunting that goes on in these boards. This one’s worse than most (but then it’s longer) but many threads have this. Can we keep it clean?

 

So maybe Mr. Rae is willing to make amends and doesn’t know where to start. So I offer a simple proposal.

 

Mr. Rae

1) Admit your for sale listings and offered trades of your light-boxed artwork were intentionally worded in such a way as to mislead people into believing they were originals by Kirby and thus worth far more than their actual value.

2) Go to any such individuals that you succeeded in getting an unfair deal and make it right. Not by wanting to do a reverse trade or another trade, but by offering actual financial compensation that makes the trade or sale “fair”. If you traded $500 worth of art for $2000 – write a check for $1500.

3) Say you’ve learned from all this, you are sorry and it won’t happen again.

 

Do these things – and likely the criticisms and name calling will quit. Maybe this thread will even close. If you do these things and the verbal criticisms continues, I will post up from time to time saying “give the man a chance – people change..”

Tony

 

One other thing. I loved Kirby and Royer’s 70’s work. It never occurred to me that I could ask Mr. Royer to recreate some of those pages for far less $$ than the originals. I’ve sent him a letter (couldn’t get the contact form his website to work). Who knows what will come of it.

 

 

 

Kudos to you! I think this is probably the most on-the-point post of the thread as it eschews any of the dirt slinging and really cuts to the quick. I think if Richard Rae were serious about placing himself on the high road, you've clearly laid out what it would take to reach that point.

 

[Speedy-D]

BTW – a bit more civility in the forums would be welcome. I’m often amazed at the vulgar name calling and taunting that goes on in these boards. This one’s worse than most (but then it’s longer) but many threads have this. Can we keep it clean?

Usually I'd agree 100% with this sentiment. But not in this case. One of Chuckles McRae's attempted methods of deflection has been to, seemingly civilly, try to turn the conversation in a direction that makes him look good, and look like he's in control. To offer any sort of civil answer to that is to a certain extent to grant him a victory. He's been so callous at times, and played so many folks here & elsewhere for suckers, that I think a little immature name calling is exactly the proper medicine, to let him know how little we think of him.

 

D.I.C.K. offers a 16 paragraph sermon on how great he is? All that deserves is a resounding "YOU'RE A TOOL!!!"

[Tony S]

BTW – a bit more civility in the forums would be welcome. I’m often amazed at the vulgar name calling and taunting that goes on in these boards. This one’s worse than most (but then it’s longer) but many threads have this. Can we keep it clean?

Usually I'd agree 100% with this sentiment. But not in this case. One of Chuckles McRae's attempted methods of deflection has been to, seemingly civilly, try to turn the conversation in a direction that makes him look good, and look like he's in control. To offer any sort of civil answer to that is to a certain extent to grant him a victory. He's been so callous at times, and played so many folks here & elsewhere for suckers, that I think a little immature name calling is exactly the proper medicine, to let him know how little we think of him.

 

D.I.C.K. offers a 16 paragraph sermon on how great he is? All that deserves is a resounding "YOU'RE A TOOL!!!"

 

When you say "YOU'RE A TOOL!!!" - my understanding of the meaning of the word "TOOL" in this context is "stupid" . Translattion - "YOU'RE AN insufficiently_thoughtful_person". That probably doesn't count as polite conversation. However I do not and I think most people would not consider calling someone a tool - or stupid - vulgar. I objected to "vulgar name calling". I will not repeat some of the vulgar terms that have been used in this thread as I don't want anyone to feel they are being singled out. That is not my intent. We all know what vulgar is - right? Indecent, obscene, lewd. In many communities saying these things outloud in public is against the law. It is probably against the rules of these forums as well.

Tony

[drewincanada]

Nothing constructive has been said in this thread in weeks. The case against Rae is clear, but Rae will never change. And he will never compensate anyone for his fraudulent dealings. Everyone here knows it, and I don't think that anyone is continuing to post in the hopes that Rae will have a sudden epiphany.

 

The thread has become an endless game of cat and mouse. At times I'm not sure who is the cat and who is the mouse. Sometimes I think that Rae can't possibly be as thick as he appears to be, and that he's simply toying with the folks here to see how long he can continue to make them rise to the bait.

 

Other times I'm convinced that Rae is completely delusional, and the board members are the ones toying with HIM.

 

I think that the truth is that there are two cats in this game, and no mice. Rae is baiting everyone, and everyone here knows it, and they're baiting him right back, just to see how far he'll go.

 

This thread is all cheese.

[Terry Doyle]

D*i*c*k Rae's purpose in life appears to be as someone who swindles and cheats his way.

 

The scenarios, highlighted here, only concentrate on a number of scams that have become known to us.

 

A post, from one of his fellow Australians who has known of Rae's activities for a lot longer than the rest of us, suggest that his history of deceptions go back a lot longer than we initially realised.

 

As such, I consider him a career thief.

 

That's not name calling (I'll touch on that subject shortly), it's an appropriate assessment of his method of operating.

 

Yes, we would all like to see Rae make make good his (known) wrongs to people like Joan Gispert, Brian Howard and Rich Buckler.

 

Realistically, and judging by the erratic and contradictory nature of the posts Rae has made here, I very much doubt that this is going to happen any time soon.

 

One of the things we can achieve is to warn other collectors of Rae's criminal activities - and try to make life as difficult as possible for him to continue with his deceptive practices.

 

In this respect, Rae is our biggest ally. He wants to see this thread ongoing. That's great. I see no-one else here buying into his lies . . . and he just continues to dig his own grave.

 

He switches from being good guy to bad guy in his erratic posts. Recently, he's even tried to re-invent himself as some kind of reasonable (but misunderstood) guy.

 

He tries to lie his way out of everything and fails to take ownership of the very problems that he alone has created.

 

He was advised last summer (see the e-mail correspondence myself and Glen Gold had going with him, reprinted a short while ago) about the misleading Kirby credits on his Mike Royer artworks.

 

Please don't readily believe Rae's explanation that he changed the descriptions (in his CAF galleries) overnight as a result of the concerns we expressed to him.

 

Rae went through a period of months where he would wipe out any comments attached to his Royer artworks that complained about the misleading attributions.

 

It was only after months of complaints that Rae conceded (partly) to mention the fact that Jack Kirby's pencils did not exist on Mike Royer's artworks.

 

To confirm this contention I make, anyone here who is a member of comicart-l can simply search back through the group's archives to read some of the posts on this subject.

 

However, Rae continued (and keeps on continuing) to describe his Royer artworks as being Kirby/Royer originals.

 

It has been repeated to Rae time and time again, that if Jack Kirby did not physically contribute to the original artwork he is attempting to offload onto other collectors, then it cannot, indeed should not, be classed as a Kirby (or Kirby/Royer) original.

 

The image may look like Kirby, but at the end of the day when we're dealing in original artwork it's all about the physical presence of an artist's hand in the work.

 

Anyone can download a penciled image of an artist's work and embellish the work in ink.

 

Rae (cleverly) uses a fondly remembered Kirby inker - Mike Royer - to aid his attemts at deception.

 

Unsuspecting collectors might buy into a Royer artwork incorrectly signed as Kirby/Royer . . . if you tried to pass off a similarly lightboxed piece of artwork as, say, Kirby/Doyle, no-one would buy into the idea of a Kirby/Doyle original - would they?

 

Rae tries to deflect attention away from himself by attacking others . . .myself, for example!

 

He would try to have people here believe that I have some kind of hidden agenda against him as a result of a failed trade offer he (now) claims I once made to him.

 

How ridiculous.

 

If this was true, surely that would have been one of the first things for Rae to pick up on when this thread first started?

 

I have repeatedly asked Rae to discuss this daft accusation openly on this forum, but he avoids doing so (at least to date). An honest man would have responded instantly with details readily at hand.

 

As for the name calling and taunts . . .

 

Most of us would like to settle our differences in a sensible way.

 

Rae initiated the name-calling through comments attached to one of my CAF images (the cover art to TALES TO ASTONISH # 98). When challenged about this, he tried to make out that I changed this myself. Another lie that came back to bite him on the backside . . . I simply do not have the facility to change CAF comments attached to any of my images. Asking the site's owner will confirm this.

 

Rae also repeatedly makes accusations that I change any e-mail correspondence of his that I quote.

 

He made the same accusation against Brian Howard, when Brian published his own exchanges with Rae.

 

See the pattern in Rae's behaviour?

 

He now tries to deflect attention away from himself by trying to focus on the asking prices of artwork I sold in recent times . . . suggesting that I was somehow responsible for trebling market values!

 

Again, how ridiculous. I am a collector who, for personal reasons (intended to benefit the well-being of my family), decided to have a sell-off of original artwork in recent times. The prices I chose to ask for artwork I was selling was my business. If the prices were as outrageous as Rae would have you believe - I wouldn't have sold anything, would I?

 

Here, I suspect that Rae is exhibiting jealousy. Elsewhere in this thread he has expressed admiration for my tastes in artwork.

 

In the earliest e-mails I received from Rae (reprinted recently on this thread) he broaches the subject of trading (he initiated the idea). I explained to him that (at that time) I was selling artwork only.

 

I can only conclude that he could not afford to pursue any purchases from me . . . which is probably the real reason he (now) expresses sour grapes about my prices.

 

Yes, I expect Rae will read this and concoct some more nonsense in response.

 

Thankfully most people here are wise to those ploys.

 

 

 

[JLA22fan-migration]

So, you're not a fan of this guy then ?

[stinkininkin]

Nothing constructive has been said in this thread in weeks. The case against Rae is clear, but Rae will never change. And he will never compensate anyone for his fraudulent dealings. Everyone here knows it, and I don't think that anyone is continuing to post in the hopes that Rae will have a sudden epiphany.

 

The thread has become an endless game of cat and mouse. At times I'm not sure who is the cat and who is the mouse. Sometimes I think that Rae can't possibly be as thick as he appears to be, and that he's simply toying with the folks here to see how long he can continue to make them rise to the bait.

 

Other times I'm convinced that Rae is completely delusional, and the board members are the ones toying with HIM.

 

I think that the truth is that there are two cats in this game, and no mice. Rae is baiting everyone, and everyone here knows it, and they're baiting him right back, just to see how far he'll go.

 

This thread is all cheese.

 

I am forced to agree with this post. It seems nothing more can be said to highlight the nefarious practices of Rae, and he clearly will not take ownership of his misdeeds or make restitution. He knows he's wrong and doesn't care, and is treating this as a trollish sport. If keeping this thread front and center is the goal as a warning to unsuspecting victims, I would suggest just giving it a daily "bump" and moving on. But that's just me.

 

Scott Williams

[glenbru]

While I agree with you, Scott, that not much more can be said, I think it's important to keep posting. People are lazy, and this thread has a lot of pages to get through to understand the truth about Richard.

 

Since his latest ploy is come come across as someone who is misunderstood, It's important to remind those who come in late to the fresh pages what kind of a guy he is.

 

This is to protect the newcomers, not the old soldiers who've put up with this entire thread.

 

Anyway, that's my view.

 

Glen Brunswick

[bluechip]

 

Few things cause me to shake my head more than when people use that logic. The first time I encountered it was, of course, in preschool, and it forever changed my childish belief that authority figures were usually smart.

 

People who engage in logic this bizarre tend to be rarely, if ever, capable of realizing the logic is flawed.

 

I had a contractor use this on my once, when he took payment for a job and then said he wouldn't do the job until I got a previous customer (complete stranger to me) to pay money that was owed to the contractor.

 

I sought a way to make him realize that was crazy. So the next time he came to the house, I had the lights off. He asked why it was dark and I said "I'm not paying the utility company until they get you to finish the job I paid you for."

 

 

[Terry Doyle]

So, you're not a fan of this guy then ?

 

[Terry Doyle]

While I agree with you, Scott, that not much more can be said, I think it's important to keep posting. People are lazy, and this thread has a lot of pages to get through to understand the truth about Richard.

 

Since his latest ploy is come come across as someone who is misunderstood, It's important to remind those who come in late to the fresh pages what kind of a guy he is.

 

This is to protect the newcomers, not the old soldiers who've put up with this entire thread.

 

Anyway, that's my view.

 

Glen Brunswick

 

That's about the gist of it for me, too, Glen.

 

If Rae wants to re-invent himself as a good guy who made mistakes, he needs to convince people through actions, not words.

 

Hopefully, the message will eventually sink in and we can all move on to better things.

[Mr.Rae]

I see you have added my name to the title of this chat-room...(about time...It might be nice to remove Mike Royer's name and just say: Richard Rae & The curious case of light box original art.

 

While my wings are like a shild of steel,,,it is quite unfair to attack 3rd parties...after all Terry your just upset with me and going by you the rest of the world are all victims...anyway...think about it.

 

Richard

[Mr.Rae]

Opps...Shield of steel...

[comix4fun]

Opps...Shield of steel...

 

 

 

 

Didn't you mean Shield of Steal ?

 

 

The thread title was changed because Mike didn't do anything wrong, no one ever said he did anything wrong, and no one would ever think he did anything wrong.

 

I am sure he would be MORTIFIED to discover someone felt so little of his artwork that actually attached Kirby's name to the title of a piece as a credit, that Kirby didn't touch or work on in order to sell it.

 

Mike should be insulted that you'd take his work and do what you did.

 

The only person in the cross hairs of this investigation is Y O U. So it's only fitting it's on you.

 

Maybe we'll start a new thread, just for artists you've insulted and for whose artwork you've altered the credits in order to sell them more easily.

[Tony S]

I see you have added my name to the title of this chat-room...(about time...It might be nice to remove Mike Royer's name and just say: Richard Rae & The curious case of light box original art.

 

While my wings are like a shild of steel,,,it is quite unfair to attack 3rd parties...after all Terry your just upset with me and going by you the rest of the world are all victims...anyway...think about it.

 

Richard

 

Mr. Rae

More examples of wordsmithing and psycho-babble. “My wings are like a shield of steel” It’s a Non-sequitur – an illogical statement that literally (from Latin) means “does not follow”. Nor has anyone – ANYONE – in the now up to 68 pages of this thread ever remotely attacked Mike Royer. Yet you repeatedly have made reference to such attacks – as though saying it over and over makes it so. So in the space of 40 words you manage one non-sequitur and one misstatement of the facts. You should run for Congress here in the States.

 

I’ve laid out how you can clear your good name and make amends. It is not original thinking on my part. Most of the world’s major religions spell out how to redeem oneself – and how once people have apologized, made amends and changed they should be forgiven, accepted and given a chance to start anew.

Tony

[Khazano]

[Terry Doyle]

Opps...Shield of steel...

 

 

 

 

Didn't you mean Shield of Steal ?

 

 

The thread title was changed because Mike didn't do anything wrong, no one ever said he did anything wrong, and no one would ever think he did anything wrong.

 

I am sure he would be MORTIFIED to discover someone felt so little of his artwork that actually attached Kirby's name to the title of a piece as a credit, that Kirby didn't touch or work on in order to sell it.

 

Mike should be insulted that you'd take his work and do what you did.

 

The only person in the cross hairs of this investigation is Y O U. So it's only fitting it's on you.

 

Maybe we'll start a new thread, just for artists you've insulted and for whose artwork you've altered the credits in order to sell them more easily.

 

Just for the record, the change of thread title was not of my doing.

 

And as also noticed by a recent follower to this thread, no-one here has ever made any attacks against Mike Royer.

 

More contrived nonsense by Rae . . .