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

[Mr.Rae]

So...then are we all agreed that Mike Royer's name should be taken out of the heading of this chat-room?...after all he is an inocent 3rd party.

 

And once again I never attempted to pass off his art as Kirby's...never have I ever said that.

[Mr.Rae]

Now in regards to the trade deal Terry wanted with me...it was for some of the art that I did pick-up in the deal between Joan and myself...a George Wilson painting cover I believe...if you all check out Terry's gallery you will see he digs Wilson.

 

Anyway...I didn't like the deal he was after and I turned him down...Terry knew that I had picked up the art from Joan and he contacted her to see what kind of trade deal she and I did, I guess just so he could see if he could put togeather a better trade deal in regards to his trade offer to me...and that's when Joan told him that she was guilty of an amazing trade deal that she now felt she got the short end of the stick of.

 

This was a year after her deal with me was compleated and as a matter of infomation it was "years" after the deal I had with Brian...all of these deals are "old".

 

So I hope this info helps everyone

[Mr.Rae]

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

 

,,,Really Terry...that's curious...so who changed the chat-rooms name?,,.

[comicdonna]

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

 

,,,Really Terry...that's curious...so who changed the chat-rooms name?,,.

The OP can't change the name of a thread after 3 days. A moderator (most likely Arch) is the only one capable of doing this.

[Mr.Rae]

Then Arch should have removed Mike's name...don't you agree?

[Mr.Rae]

compensate Joan and any others for the excessive value assigned to your material given in trade. In plain english - you write them a check.

 

Tony

 

 

That was not our deal...I do trades and believe the value of an image is only what someone is willing to trade for it and no more or less...not money...

 

But going by your thinking...does that mean that every original art collector should compensate every person they have ever delt with in the past because the art they obtained from them has increased in value now years later.

 

And before anyone jumps in with I mislead Joan and cheated her, that simply is NOT true...she had no problem with our trade deal until Terry got upset that he did not score the art he wanted and I did not deal with him...so he started this chat-room just to sling mud at me and try and pressure me into working on a trade-deal with him...but I'm not going for it.

 

 

[Terry Doyle]

Now in regards to the trade deal Terry wanted with me...it was for some of the art that I did pick-up in the deal between Joan and myself...a George Wilson painting cover I believe...if you all check out Terry's gallery you will see he digs Wilson.

 

Anyway...I didn't like the deal he was after and I turned him down...Terry knew that I had picked up the art from Joan and he contacted her to see what kind of trade deal she and I did, I guess just so he could see if he could put togeather a better trade deal in regards to his trade offer to me...and that's when Joan told him that she was guilty of an amazing trade deal that she now felt she got the short end of the stick of.

 

This was a year after her deal with me was compleated and as a matter of infomation it was "years" after the deal I had with Brian...all of these deals are "old".

 

So I hope this info helps everyone

 

Well it's took you quite a few days to come up with this nonsense.

 

You don't get any better do you?

 

Just for the record, I bought the LOST IN SPACE # 25 cover from Joan. I paid 2,000 Euros cash for the cover (which, by the current exchange rate works out at the US equivalent of $2,870). It was a personal favourite for me, and once I acquired it, I then proceeded to put up the LOST IN SPACE # 27 cover I owned for sale on Mike Burkey's site (at an asking price of $1,500 - from which Mike received sales commission, once he found me a buyer).

 

Joan gave me the opportunity to buy more LOST IN SPACE paintings, but I had no interest in any of the others (I can get Joan to confirm this if anyone here wants to buy into D*i*c*k's latest lies?).

 

Joan then asked me if I knew anyone who might want to buy any of the others, and I did ask around.

 

Actually I made that offer, on Joan's behalf, on the comicart-l. I can search through the archives for a date of that offer, if anyone here's interested? As I recall, Mark Borello (who many here will know) did express some interest in one of the paintings, but decided not to pursue.

 

Sometime after this, you cheated Joan out of the LIS artwork.

 

If you bother to do your research properly before you make your BS accusations, you will see that I added the LOST IN SPACE painting I bought from Joan to the Comic Art Fans site on December 9, 2009.

 

It's not rocket science to work out that you obtained your two LIS (through deceptive trading) sometime after I'd concluded my deal with Joan.

 

If I had any interest in the paintings you 'acquired', as you now claim, don't you think I would have bought them directly from Joan before you came along?

 

Joan had two more LIS paintings, by the way. One was traded to Wally Harrington. Another one (# 4, I think) is still in Joan's possession.

 

You really are a low-life scumbag, aren't you, D*i*c*k?

 

This the best you can do??

 

Whatever next . . .

[Terry Doyle]

Now in regards to the trade deal Terry wanted with me...it was for some of the art that I did pick-up in the deal between Joan and myself...a George Wilson painting cover I believe...if you all check out Terry's gallery you will see he digs Wilson.

 

Anyway...I didn't like the deal he was after and I turned him down...Terry knew that I had picked up the art from Joan and he contacted her to see what kind of trade deal she and I did, I guess just so he could see if he could put togeather a better trade deal in regards to his trade offer to me...and that's when Joan told him that she was guilty of an amazing trade deal that she now felt she got the short end of the stick of.

 

This was a year after her deal with me was compleated and as a matter of infomation it was "years" after the deal I had with Brian...all of these deals are "old".

 

So I hope this info helps everyone

 

Well it's took you quite a few days to come up with this nonsense.

 

You don't get any better do you?

 

Just for the record, I bought the LOST IN SPACE # 25 cover from Joan. I paid 2,000 Euros cash for the cover (which, by the current exchange rate works out at the US equivalent of $2,870). It was a personal favourite for me, and once I acquired it, I then proceeded to put up the LOST IN SPACE # 27 cover I owned for sale on Mike Burkey's site (at an asking price of $1,500 - from which Mike received sales commission, once he found me a buyer).

 

Joan gave me the opportunity to buy more LOST IN SPACE paintings, but I had no interest in any of the others (I can get Joan to confirm this if anyone here wants to buy into D*i*c*k's latest lies?).

 

Joan then asked me if I knew anyone who might want to buy any of the others, and I did ask around.

 

Actually I made that offer, on Joan's behalf, on the comicart-l. I can search through the archives for a date of that offer, if anyone here's interested? As I recall, Mark Borello (who many here will know) did express some interest in one of the paintings, but decided not to pursue.

 

Sometime after this, you cheated Joan out of the LIS artwork.

 

If you bother to do your research properly before you make your BS accusations, you will see that I added the LOST IN SPACE painting I bought from Joan to the Comic Art Fans site on December 9, 2009.

 

It's not rocket science to work out that you obtained your two LIS (through deceptive trading) sometime after I'd concluded my deal with Joan.

 

If I had any interest in the paintings you 'acquired', as you now claim, don't you think I would have bought them directly from Joan before you came along?

 

Joan had two more LIS paintings, by the way. One was traded to Wally Harrington. Another one (# 4, I think) is still in Joan's possession.

 

You really are a low-life scumbag, aren't you, D*i*c*k?

 

This the best you can do??

 

Whatever next . . .

 

In fact, I still have most of my correspondence with Joan Gispert.

 

First up is an e-mail I received from Joan (there's an e-mail address present, if anyone on this forum wants to authenticate the accuracy of this correspondence?)

 

On 12/3/09, zaal61 wrote:

 

Hi Terry,

 

I have the cash on my account, thanks.

 

The package is on the way, with the tracking number RR20969883 7ES

You can see the status at: http://www.correos.es/contenido/13-MenuRec2/01-MenuRec21/2010_c1-LocalizadorE.asp

 

Please let me know when it arrives. I hope you enjoy it, it’s a great painting in perfect condition.

 

Best,

 

Joan.

 

P.S.- If in the next weeks I decide to sell another Space Family Robinson cover, would you be interested?

 

Next up, my reply to Joan . . .

 

De: Terry Doyle

 

Fecha: Fri, 4 Dec 2009 00:43:46 +0000

 

Para: zaal61

 

Asunto: Re: Package shipped

 

Hi Joan

 

That's great, thanks!

 

Glad to hear that the money transferred into your account successfully. I hope the cash comes in useful for the purchase of artwork high on your wants list.

 

Yes, I'll be sure to let you know when the artwork reaches me.

 

There will be no doubt that I will enjoy the art . . . I have fond memories of buying the LOST IN SPACE comic-books back in the 1960s. The first LOST IN SPACE isue I bought was # 24 (purchased on the strength of the cover painting). When # 25 came out, the painted image was even more spectacular - and it remains my favourite of all the LIS paintings!

 

I'm actually in the process of thinning-out artwork in my collection - and intend to keep a smallish (core) selection of cherished pieces (of which LIS # 25 will be a welcome addition).

 

I will probably sell-off my own LOST IN SPACE # 27 cover.

 

I certainly appreciate you bearing me in mind - should you decide to sell-off any more LIS covers, thanks! At this moment in time, the only other LIS covers of possible interest to me are #s 9, 13, 14, 24 and 31 (#s 13 and 24 especially).

 

If you have any from my list, that you decide to release, I'm interested!

 

Thanks again, Joan, I really appreciate this deal - I'm very, very happy!

 

Best

 

Terry

 

 

[Tony S]

Then Arch should have removed Mike's name...don't you agree?

No, I don't think most people would agree that Mike Royer's name should come off the title of this thread. It's Mike Royer's art that was being passed off - by you - as art by Kirby and Royer. This thread has served as warning to be wary of art listed by you misleadingly indentified as Kirby/Royer art. The way this thread's title is worded identifies what it is about. Only in your mind does it accuse Mr. Royer of any wrong doing.

 

You continue to obfuscate the facts, you make statements that are totally illogical or are not even on subject. You flip flop back and forth between wanting to make things right and then having done no wrong to make right.

 

No one believes you that you have not mislead people. The ebay link on page 62 of this thread is impossible to explain away. You wanted people to think it was work by Kirby. You were trying to sell work light boxed work by Royer from a Kirby photocopy as a Kirby and Royer drawing. You didn't succeed that time - you have other times.

Tony

 

 

[Terry Doyle]

Now in regards to the trade deal Terry wanted with me...it was for some of the art that I did pick-up in the deal between Joan and myself...a George Wilson painting cover I believe...if you all check out Terry's gallery you will see he digs Wilson.

 

Anyway...I didn't like the deal he was after and I turned him down...Terry knew that I had picked up the art from Joan and he contacted her to see what kind of trade deal she and I did, I guess just so he could see if he could put togeather a better trade deal in regards to his trade offer to me...and that's when Joan told him that she was guilty of an amazing trade deal that she now felt she got the short end of the stick of.

 

This was a year after her deal with me was compleated and as a matter of infomation it was "years" after the deal I had with Brian...all of these deals are "old".

 

So I hope this info helps everyone

 

Well it's took you quite a few days to come up with this nonsense.

 

You don't get any better do you?

 

Just for the record, I bought the LOST IN SPACE # 25 cover from Joan. I paid 2,000 Euros cash for the cover (which, by the current exchange rate works out at the US equivalent of $2,870). It was a personal favourite for me, and once I acquired it, I then proceeded to put up the LOST IN SPACE # 27 cover I owned for sale on Mike Burkey's site (at an asking price of $1,500 - from which Mike received sales commission, once he found me a buyer).

 

Joan gave me the opportunity to buy more LOST IN SPACE paintings, but I had no interest in any of the others (I can get Joan to confirm this if anyone here wants to buy into D*i*c*k's latest lies?).

 

Joan then asked me if I knew anyone who might want to buy any of the others, and I did ask around.

 

Actually I made that offer, on Joan's behalf, on the comicart-l. I can search through the archives for a date of that offer, if anyone here's interested? As I recall, Mark Borello (who many here will know) did express some interest in one of the paintings, but decided not to pursue.

 

Sometime after this, you cheated Joan out of the LIS artwork.

 

If you bother to do your research properly before you make your BS accusations, you will see that I added the LOST IN SPACE painting I bought from Joan to the Comic Art Fans site on December 9, 2009.

 

It's not rocket science to work out that you obtained your two LIS (through deceptive trading) sometime after I'd concluded my deal with Joan.

 

If I had any interest in the paintings you 'acquired', as you now claim, don't you think I would have bought them directly from Joan before you came along?

 

Joan had two more LIS paintings, by the way. One was traded to Wally Harrington. Another one (# 4, I think) is still in Joan's possession.

 

You really are a low-life scumbag, aren't you, D*i*c*k?

 

This the best you can do??

 

Whatever next . . .

 

In fact, I still have most of my correspondence with Joan Gispert.

 

First up is an e-mail I received from Joan (there's an e-mail address present, if anyone on this forum wants to authenticate the accuracy of this correspondence?)

 

On 12/3/09, zaal61 wrote:

 

Hi Terry,

 

I have the cash on my account, thanks.

 

The package is on the way, with the tracking number RR20969883 7ES

You can see the status at: http://www.correos.es/contenido/13-MenuRec2/01-MenuRec21/2010_c1-LocalizadorE.asp

 

Please let me know when it arrives. I hope you enjoy it, it’s a great painting in perfect condition.

 

Best,

 

Joan.

 

P.S.- If in the next weeks I decide to sell another Space Family Robinson cover, would you be interested?

 

Next up, my reply to Joan . . .

 

De: Terry Doyle

 

Fecha: Fri, 4 Dec 2009 00:43:46 +0000

 

Para: zaal61

 

Asunto: Re: Package shipped

 

Hi Joan

 

That's great, thanks!

 

Glad to hear that the money transferred into your account successfully. I hope the cash comes in useful for the purchase of artwork high on your wants list.

 

Yes, I'll be sure to let you know when the artwork reaches me.

 

There will be no doubt that I will enjoy the art . . . I have fond memories of buying the LOST IN SPACE comic-books back in the 1960s. The first LOST IN SPACE isue I bought was # 24 (purchased on the strength of the cover painting). When # 25 came out, the painted image was even more spectacular - and it remains my favourite of all the LIS paintings!

 

I'm actually in the process of thinning-out artwork in my collection - and intend to keep a smallish (core) selection of cherished pieces (of which LIS # 25 will be a welcome addition).

 

I will probably sell-off my own LOST IN SPACE # 27 cover.

 

I certainly appreciate you bearing me in mind - should you decide to sell-off any more LIS covers, thanks! At this moment in time, the only other LIS covers of possible interest to me are #s 9, 13, 14, 24 and 31 (#s 13 and 24 especially).

 

If you have any from my list, that you decide to release, I'm interested!

 

Thanks again, Joan, I really appreciate this deal - I'm very, very happy!

 

Best

 

Terry

 

 

And here's my post on Comicart-l

 

May 26, 2010

 

A Spanish collecting friend is interested in selling the cover art to the 1963

Gold Key title, SPACE FAMILY ROBINSON, LOST IN SPACE # 5 by George Wilson.

 

It's a really great early cover example.

 

The asking price is 2,000 Euros.

 

If anyone's interested, shoot me an e-mail and I'll send a scan of the art.

 

Please only enquire if you have serious interest and are willing to meet the

asking price.

 

Late last year I put up for sale the # 27 cover and went through the motions of

answering lots of questions from a would-be-buyer - only to be told, "If you can

accommodate my shipping instructions, how do you feel about accepting (insert

low-ball offer)?"

[Terry Doyle]

And once again I never attempted to pass off his art as Kirby's...never have I ever said that.

 

You must think everyone here is as dense as you are . . .

[Tony S]

compensate Joan and any others for the excessive value assigned to your material given in trade. In plain english - you write them a check.

 

Tony

 

 

That was not our deal...I do trades and believe the value of an image is only what someone is willing to trade for it and no more or less...not money...

 

But going by your thinking...does that mean that every original art collector should compensate every person they have ever delt with in the past because the art they obtained from them has increased in value now years later.

 

And before anyone jumps in with I mislead Joan and cheated her, that simply is NOT true...she had no problem with our trade deal until Terry got upset that he did not score the art he wanted and I did not deal with him...so he started this chat-room just to sling mud at me and try and pressure me into working on a trade-deal with him...but I'm not going for it.

 

 

More obfuscation, more trying to draw off subject, more illogical nonsense.

 

No one is talking about trades where the value of some items go up more than others over the passage of time. They have been discussing your trades where by misreprentation you make it appear you have something more valuable than you actually have. It was an unfair trade to your advantage. And btw - it's actually possible to cheat someone and them not be upset. Maybe they never find out. Maybe they are just forgiving types. But that doesn't mean you didn't cheat them.

 

You've cheated Joan - and you have now stated clearly you have no intention of making it right. You have tried to obfuscate that fact in your past postings. You'd make it right - but then since others picked on you - you changed your mind - and it was their fault. Then you would make it right - but wait she sold the art she got from you so it was impossible to fix.

 

It's not impossible - it's just impossible for you because you don't want to.

 

I didn't really think you wanted to make amends and change. But just in case you did I offered up the path one takes for redemption.

 

Tony

[Terry Doyle]

compensate Joan and any others for the excessive value assigned to your material given in trade. In plain english - you write them a check.

 

Tony

 

 

That was not our deal...I do trades and believe the value of an image is only what someone is willing to trade for it and no more or less...not money...

 

But going by your thinking...does that mean that every original art collector should compensate every person they have ever delt with in the past because the art they obtained from them has increased in value now years later.

 

And before anyone jumps in with I mislead Joan and cheated her, that simply is NOT true...she had no problem with our trade deal until Terry got upset that he did not score the art he wanted and I did not deal with him...so he started this chat-room just to sling mud at me and try and pressure me into working on a trade-deal with him...but I'm not going for it.

 

 

More obfuscation, more trying to draw off subject, more illogical nonsense.

 

No one is talking about trades where the value of some items go up more than others over the passage of time. They have been discussing your trades where by misreprentation you make it appear you have something more valuable than you actually have. It was an unfair trade to your advantage. And btw - it's actually possible to cheat someone and them not be upset. Maybe they never find out. Maybe they are just forgiving types. But that doesn't mean you didn't cheat them.

 

You've cheated Joan - and you have now stated clearly you have no intention of making it right. You have tried to obfuscate that fact in your past postings. You'd make it right - but then since others picked on you - you changed your mind - and it was their fault. Then you would make it right - but wait she sold the art she got from you so it was impossible to fix.

 

It's not impossible - it's just impossible for you because you don't want to.

 

I didn't really think you wanted to make amends and change. But just in case you did I offered up the path one takes for redemption.

 

Tony

 

Welcome to Planet Rae.

 

There is one positive aspect of this thread to consider (or should that be con-cider?) . . .

 

[Turtle]

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

 

,,,Really Terry...that's curious...so who changed the chat-rooms name?,,.

 

Any poster can change it at any time. But as someone said, it's the original post that dictates what thread title is seen from the thread listings and after a certain amount of time has elapsed, that cannot be edited by the original poster.

[Turtle]

Just changing it back so this thread doesn't get even more convoluted.

[Mr.Rae]

you said..."Well it's took you quite a few days to come up with this nonsense."...sorry mate but it's..."Well it has taken you..."...let us all attempt to try and use the right English so the story can be told honestly and not mis-read.

 

...and what are you doing about removing Mike Royer's name from the title of this chat-room...or don't you care?...well Terry.

 

 

[Terry Doyle]

Opps...Shield of steel...

 

Don't you mean, "Oops"?

 

What's "Opps" supposed to mean??

[Mac Man]

Then Arch should have removed Mike's name...don't you agree?

No, I don't think most people would agree that Mike Royer's name should come off the title of this thread. It's Mike Royer's art that was being passed off - by you - as art by Kirby and Royer. This thread has served as warning to be wary of art listed by you misleadingly indentified as Kirby/Royer art. The way this thread's title is worded identifies what it is about. Only in your mind does it accuse Mr. Royer of any wrong doing.

 

You continue to obfuscate the facts, you make statements that are totally illogical or are not even on subject. You flip flop back and forth between wanting to make things right and then having done no wrong to make right.

 

No one believes you that you have not mislead people. The ebay link on page 62 of this thread is impossible to explain away. You wanted people to think it was work by Kirby. You were trying to sell work light boxed work by Royer from a Kirby photocopy as a Kirby and Royer drawing. You didn't succeed that time - you have other times.

Tony

 

 

No horse in the race, but frankly, it's really helpful to know that this unfortunate artist is the person whose artwork is being called into question. Not that HE did anything wrong at all but that the way in which his artwork is be represented by third parties as being something other than what it is. If I had a piece of art that I thought was a Kirby / Royer piece, I'd definitely want to read through this thread to see if it somehow impacted any of my collection.

 

No, I don't think anyone (aside from Mr. Rae) actually wants the thread title changed at all. It seems this thread's aim is to bring certain ambiguities to light and removing the name would only feed into that.

[Mr.Rae]

Easy to say that Tony...you're not the 3rd party are you...

 

 

[Lantern]