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

[mowkwurst-migration]

Howdy.

Just like to say that I have never passed off the drawings in question as being inked over Jack's actual carbon. I've stated verbally and in writing on the card on each framed piece (when displaying them publicly) that they are RECREATED PENCILS inked by me. Over the years when I've set up at a convention with my Disney art (the art done in the last 7 yrs as a full time free lancer for the Disney stores. I never signed a work for hire contract and the actual drawings were mine) people have often asked why I don't capitalize on my association with Jack for almost a decade. Well, I'm proud of the work I created for over 21 1/2 years as a character artist for Disney, either on staff or as an independent contractor, and frankly, if anyone knew me at cons it was as Jack's letterer and inker, and I was getting a little tired than no one knew what I had done for 21 1/2 years FULL TIME after Jack Kirby. So, at the urging of a couple folks I picked out about 2 dozen or more of Jack's hero pin-ups that he'd done years ago for fans, sized them the way I wanted, traced the pencils (with a little fine tuning) and then inked them. I offered them via email to a couple collectors (who spread the word) @ $250.00 each or $200.00 each if someone wanted 2 or more. I didn't think that was an outrageous price. I signed the pieces Kirby & Royer because they were Jack Kirby drawings that I recreated and it would have been stupid and rather egotistical to just sign them Royer. I only have a few of them left. Everyone that bought from me KNEW that I had recreated Jack's pencils on a light board and then inked them. I never passed them off as anything else. And, let's face it...if Jack's carbon was actually under my inks on those 11X14 pieces of Strathmore, the price would have been one hell of a lot more than what I was asking. Another thing...I tried to ink the pieces as I would have done in the 1970s. It takes a little while to recapture that "mind-set." I priced the pin-ups according to the time invested. Excuse me, but I seem to be suffering from an overactive blather and am rambling, but I don't want to be tared with the same brush that is being wielded upon others. There are fans of Jack Kirby who don't like my inks on him. All well and good. MY favorite Kirby inker is Joe Sinnott. But I would like to take this opportunity to point out that I was the only inker who ever KEPT UP with Jack Kirby. That meant lettering an entire book in less than 2 days and then inking 3 pages a day. Even Colletta and his stable of assistants couldn't do that. Yeah, I would have liked to have had the time to "pretty" up Jack, but I had a wife and 3 little kids to support and those generous folks at DC finally let Jack have his way to let me letter and ink on the West coast, but only for LESS than they were paying Vinnie. At least I have the satisfaction that after he retired and didn't have to worry about "politics" Jack told people that I was his favorite inker. And if I ever really did anything for Jack, it was to prove to DC that he COULD produce complete books away from the "old world" that they believed ended at the Hudson River. DC hoped and expected me to FAIL...but I DIDN'T. Oh well, I've gotten off the topic. Anyone remember what that was? Jeeez, while I'm at it, let me get something else off my chest. The Green Arrow postage stamp. Way back, sometime in the last decade, DC asked me to take a drawing of Jack's (one of his 1950s cowboy characters...Bullseye, or something like that) which had been inked by someone with no empathy for Jack's pencils and turn it into Green Arrow in the style of 1970s Kirby/Royer. I took Jack's composition, redrew the costume completely and tried my best to do Jack's 1970s line and then inked it. It's always pissed me off that whenever the stamp art (which was first done for a trade pb collection) is discussed it's referred to as pencilled by Jack Kirby and inked by Mike Royer. Let me show you the source material and I defy anyone to say I JUST inked it. Okay...as Stan would say:"'Nuff said." I'm outta here. Thanks for the forum.

I remain, as always,

COMICLY,

Mike Royer

Medford, Oregon

[comix4fun]

Hi Mike,

I don't think anyone has accused you of doing anything wrong.

You have no control over what any person, whether they be of high or low scruples, does with your piece or how they handle the attribution.

 

It's clear that when you took the copy of Jack's pencils created your pieces that the piece that was finished was entirely you. The original piece was all you. The issue that people here have is with what a seller decided to do with the credits for that piece once you were done with it.

 

The completed pieces were all Royer. They weren't original Kirby pieces at all, and that's where the issue and the problem lies, and not with you Mike.

 

Best,

Chris

[Mr.Rae]

Thanks Mike...I fully agree.

[Mr.Rae]

I've recived the reply from Joan.

[Mr.Rae]

The matter will now be delt with directly and out of this forum, the name calling has not helped matters.

[Royd]

Good to hear that the situation will (hopefully) be resolved.

 

The name calling was likely a result of the use of the name "Tessa" although it should probably be "Tezza" or even "Tel" which is used by Aussies (and others?) as a short form or a friendly nickname for people with the name, Terrence or Terry.

 

However, I only use a nickname or short-form if I know the person well.

 

 

The matter will now be delt with directly and out of this forum, the name calling has not helped matters.

[Mr.Rae]

Royd...the situation was a result of Terry, I don't shorten names...my emails were re-worked and no one has a problem with this?...

[lb jefferies]

Royd...the situation was a result of Terry, I don't shorten names...my emails were re-worked and no one has a problem with this?...

 

Okay, this thread officially turns my stomach.

 

Richard, go look at your comment on this piece:

 

http://www.comicartfans.com/GalleryPiece.asp?Piece=198519&GSub=97144

 

Terry cannot alter your comment. That's what you said.

 

You're obviously trying to sell cheap pieces for more money than they're worth by not providing full disclosure. Not one person on these boards is going to believe otherwise.

 

Just drop it. You're giving Australians a bad name.

 

Simon

 

 

[tth2]

Royd...the situation was a result of Terry, I don't shorten names...my emails were re-worked and no one has a problem with this?...

Then why don't you post your version of the unedited emails so we can see them?

 

All we've seen are the versions that Terry posted, and in the absence of evidence to the contrary, there's no reason for us to think that he "re-worked" them in any way.

[Royd]

Thanks for the link Simon! The denials are confusing so that helped *Sigh* Best,

 

Royd

 

 

Royd...the situation was a result of Terry, I don't shorten names...my emails were re-worked and no one has a problem with this?...

 

Okay, this thread officially turns my stomach.

 

Richard, go look at your comment on this piece:

 

http://www.comicartfans.com/GalleryPiece.asp?Piece=198519&GSub=97144

 

Terry cannot alter your comment. That's what you said.

 

You're obviously trying to sell cheap pieces for more money than they're worth by not providing full disclosure. Not one person on these boards is going to believe otherwise.

 

Just drop it. You're giving Australians a bad name.

 

Simon

 

[Mr.Rae]

Royd...you out of all these people I'm most surprised with you...with someone like Terry I can understand his negative actions but you...for you to enter into this attack is simply...well enough...Joan along with anyone I have done deals with have always been offered returns, but these attacks on me have hurt...so I now re-tract any promise made to Joan or anyone regarding Kirby/Royer "originals"...so if Joan or anyone wanted to trade back she along with anyone else can thank this forum for me now not having any more contact with them...or this forum...so I hope all of you "fair" judges (ha) are now happy.

[Eric Seffinga]

so bizarre.

[comix4fun]

Royd...you out of all these people I'm most surprised with you...with someone like Terry I can understand his negative actions but you...for you to enter into this attack is simply...well enough...Joan along with anyone I have done deals with have always been offered returns, but these attacks on me have hurt...so I now re-tract any promise made to Joan or anyone regarding Kirby/Royer "originals"...so if Joan or anyone wanted to trade back she along with anyone else can thank this forum for me now not having any more contact with them...or this forum...so I hope all of you "fair" judges (ha) are now happy.

 

 

"Someone like Terry" ??

 

Terry is a respected member of the collecting community. He's known to most, if not all, of us. His reputation in dealing is top notch and without blemish. To my knowledge he's never had a single person, much less four distinct people from various points around the globe, simultaneously call him out for the same suspect behavior, mis-attribution, and failure to disclose.

 

This isn't just Terry. Terry doesn't need your help and you DON'T speak for the rest of us. Your attempts to make this sound like Terry alone has a problem and you have just come down from the cross to give us your wisdom, simply and plainly, turns my stomach.

 

And frankly, I call wildly_fanciful_statement on your "offer" to Joan, and your subsequent "retraction of your offer" to Joan.

 

An honest man clears his name, an honest man does the right thing, and honest man DOES NOT refuse to do the right thing, correct his mistakes, and give proper recompense for his failure to properly disclose all details about the artwork he sells or trades.

 

It has not gone unnoticed that you have failed , despite being given several opportunities in this thread, to explain your Ebay auction where you call a Royer piece, and ROYER ONLY, a "Kirby art, Royer inks, ORIGINAL". I guess that's because you can't. Or has someone on this forum prevented you from posting?? You seem to have no problem posting responses to everyone else. I can see you have no defense for that auction and its contents, but it's a coward's move to try and ignore it and hope it goes away.

 

I am glad you "TOTALLY AGREE" with Mr. Royer's post. You missed the fact that HE WASN'T DEFENDING YOU. In fact he seems pretty annoyed that someone would sell his Royer lightbox after Kirby pieces as Kirby penciled/ Royer inked pieces.

 

Can you explain why you tried to sell a completely Mike Royer piece as a "Kirby Royer piece" on Ebay? Him stating that he created his pieces all on his own doesn't mean that you did the right thing in your deals on CAF and Ebay as they have been exposed on this forum.

 

 

You never had any intention of doing the right thing. That's clear now.

 

This hobby is not as big as you seem to think it is. I know you used an alias to try and do a second deal with Brian Howard. You might need a few more now.

 

 

[jeremyslawsky]

Really? Just because of the actions of people not involved in these deals you shouldn't take that offer back. This makes it sound like you never intended to trade back in the first place, which is becoming more and more clear as this thread goes on. I was never involved and may not know the whole story but don't let the parties involved not get a chance to get a fair deal. I'm not taking sides but you need to leave that offer open to make things right. In all this I feel bad for Royer and for him to be connected to this ordeal.

[Royd]

Richard,

 

As a comic art collector and comic art dealer, I strongly believe in accurate descriptions, particularly with pages being offered for sale (whether it's a lightboxed or blue-line inked piece or condition issues).

 

I recently completed a large sale where I thought I'd given an accurate description regarding condition but the buyer wasn't totally happy so I gave him a discount and he went away happy with the transaction. This does not appear to be the case with at least some of your own transactions which should surely suggest that you're not "playing the game" or dealing in the correct manner.

 

If my attitude surprises you then that's fine but to use it as a paltry excuse to back out of your (apparent or claimed) offer of a "trade-back" is spurious at best! I was willing to believe that, while mistaken with your descriptions, you were genuine in your offer of a "trade-back" but this most recent post causes me to doubt whether the offer was sincere in the first place.

 

Don't try to level your backing out of what you claim was a "trade-back" offer on me Richard, I'm only a "bit-player" who was disappointed in your failure to accurately describe work for sale. I've chatted with Terry many times over the years and have the utmost confidence in him.

 

Royd

 

 

Royd...you out of all these people I'm most surprised with you...with someone like Terry I can understand his negative actions but you...for you to enter into this attack is simply...well enough...Joan along with anyone I have done deals with have always been offered returns, but these attacks on me have hurt...so I now re-tract any promise made to Joan or anyone regarding Kirby/Royer "originals"...so if Joan or anyone wanted to trade back she along with anyone else can thank this forum for me now not having any more contact with them...or this forum...so I hope all of you "fair" judges (ha) are now happy.

[ashsaytr]

Royd...you out of all these people I'm most surprised with you...with someone like Terry I can understand his negative actions but you...for you to enter into this attack is simply...well enough...Joan along with anyone I have done deals with have always been offered returns, but these attacks on me have hurt...so I now re-tract any promise made to Joan or anyone regarding Kirby/Royer "originals"...so if Joan or anyone wanted to trade back she along with anyone else can thank this forum for me now not having any more contact with them...or this forum...so I hope all of you "fair" judges (ha) are now happy.

 

i'm confused here... so because he's mad at persons on this board for exposing him... he is still going to continue screwing the people he F'ed over instead of fixing it!?! ...Mr. Rae...so instead of being misunderstood... you are a thief... thanks for putting that out there for me~ jesse

[stinkininkin]

Royd...you out of all these people I'm most surprised with you...with someone like Terry I can understand his negative actions but you...for you to enter into this attack is simply...well enough...Joan along with anyone I have done deals with have always been offered returns, but these attacks on me have hurt...so I now re-tract any promise made to Joan or anyone regarding Kirby/Royer "originals"...so if Joan or anyone wanted to trade back she along with anyone else can thank this forum for me now not having any more contact with them...or this forum...so I hope all of you "fair" judges (ha) are now happy.

 

Whatever credibility you've had was something less that razor thin. You've now shown yourself in the clearest possible way with this post. Sometimes, clarity is more satisfying than resolution. You are now fully exposed. Clearly.

 

Scott Williams

[Terry Doyle]

First off, sorry for this late reply . . . it was night time over here in the UK (and I was, naturally, asleep), so I missed out on all the flurry of activity.

 

Dickie is pathetic.

 

Instead of holding his hand up and saying, "Okay, I did wrong and I'll try to make amends", he continues to blame everyone else but himself.

 

He calls me 'Tessa', by way of two comments he made to one of my CAF pieces (which I don't have the facility to alter), and also in some private e-mails sent directly to me, then doesn't like it when I call him Dickie.

 

I don't really have a problem with him calling me 'Tessa', by the way.

 

Dickie, or D*i*c*k', is a shortened form of Richard. I remember some artist called Richard Ayers signing his work 'D*i*c*k Ayers.

 

But as a concession for Dickie, I'll start calling him 'D*i*c*k Rae'.

 

I'm sure people here will find that appropriate?

 

My thanks to Chris and Royd for their comforting thoughts.

 

This has proven to be a real can of worms . . . but if it helps prevent other collectors from being ripped-off by this sorry excuse for a human being, then I guess it was a can that needed opening.

 

My only worry is that D*i*c*k Rae doesn't try to bully Joan with his heavy-handed and totally bizarre style of writing . . .

 

Joan tells me that two e-mail were received from D*i*c*k Rae, but has not had time to respond more fully to either of us.

 

I will update as and when I hear anything further.

 

The only positive thing that have come from D*i*c*k's posts, here, is that he has done a marvellous job of digging his own grave.

[Romain]

Joan along with anyone I have done deals with have always been offered returns, but these attacks on me have hurt...so I now re-tract any promise made to Joan or anyone regarding Kirby/Royer "originals"...so if Joan or anyone wanted to trade back she along with anyone else can thank this forum for me now not having any more contact with them...or this forum...so I hope all of you "fair" judges (ha) are now happy.

 

Hmm. While not a betting man, I was pretty confident that your trade back would never go through (based on your posts here)

 

 

Wow away for three days and so much happened on the thread ..........

 

The ending is quite frustrating and disappointing indeed .?!!!!

 

While I think you are all generating tons of bad faith regarding the accuracy of the Royer lightbox pieces it is obvious some people got deceived in their deals with Richard ...

I'm glad Mike Royer spoke on the board, I believe he would agree with me ..?

 

Still it would have helped to know about the back offer to Joan !!! You see everytime something is posted the truth remains quite hard to figure when we simply follow the thread and even harder when we jump in ....For instance a trade offer of a lightbox toward Glen Bruswick's $20K cover never happened !!! clearly...

 

Also I understand the feeling of someone against everyone and honestly while we could see the guy defends himself you would just jump harder ...

 

So I was the only one to try ...because the community is big enough to have me and him some common friends ...quite simple...

 

One day I'll tell of my very first deal/trade on CAF...which remains an awful experience to me ........!!!!! and still I'm not sure I'd find back up on the board just like on my last thread ....

Then I had other deceiving experiences with HIGH ESTEEMED CAF members and I'm pretty sure the blame would still fall on ME ...That's how it works unfortunatly ...justice is not always the common thing when we share our different points of view...

 

Back to the lightbox pieces, when you're no huge seller and you need to sell you're compelled to use Kirby, or original art as key words or you won't raise a $ ...That's the truth, the dread truth where selling a Royer original without the use of Kirby original doesn't sell properly...while there is no specific description regarding the actual REAL thing ( a Kirby pencil underneath ) it is not fair from people actually dealing THOUSANDS on comicart to claim the description to be false or misleading ...( it can be misleading to a newcomer but not to an experienced collector and well that's how we grow experienced anyway...)

 

As for the nicknames ...personnally Terry makes me laugh out loud when he uses the nicknames I guess he got the british tone that makes it funny ...that wouldn't work for everyone ...I guess no one should feel bad with that but to be called a thief is another thing ...

 

Richard as the only member trying to help I would advise you to reconsider your last post, for once I think it doesn't sound right to blame it on them and that sure doesn't help your case ...

 

 

 

 

 

 

[ashsaytr]

...i said "thief"... and from my perspective someone who lies or deceives for money or anything else falls into that category... but in case i'm wrong... i dug up the definition for everyones benefit...

 

thief   

[theef] Show IPA

–noun, plural thieves.

a person who steals, especially secretly or without open force; one guilty of theft or larceny.

Use thief in a Sentence

Origin:

before 900; Middle English; Old English thēof; cognate with Dutch dief, German Dieb, Old Norse thjōfr, Gothic thiufs

 

—Related forms

un·der·thief, noun, plural -thieves.

 

—Can be confused:  burglar, mugger, robber, thief (see synonym note at the current entry ).

 

—Synonyms

burglar, pickpocket, highwayman. Thief, robber refer to one who steals. A thief takes the goods or property of another by stealth without the latter's knowledge: like a thief in the night. A robber trespasses upon the house, property, or person of another, and makes away with things of value, even at the cost of violence: A robber held up two women on the street.