Interesting Kirby debate...

[Bronty]

No one will ever know, but I agree that quoting anonymous assistants is sketchy.

 

I find the enormous amount of cloak and dagger in regards to information in the field of comic OA to be an absolute joke.

 

Hi Josh,

 

Not sure if you mean in general or with regards to these pieces, but IMO when information has value people tend to not want to give it away. So to me these pieces aside the cloak & dagger stuff makes all the sense in the world. Maybe I can just afford to be more philosophical about it since I collect a little differently than most.

 

 

[glendgold]

This is as much as I've scanned today. I'll keep adding stuff and trying to clean up those blurry close ups, but I think it's sort of interesting to see these. I'll have more to add in the coming days. My thought is not to draw any conclusions yet, but just to throw out evidence of what the finished pencil work in the later years (including many Surfer examples) looked like.

 

http://www.comicartfans.com/GalleryRoom.asp?GSub=132080

 

 

[glendgold]

Oh, and Bronty, I think the information in that gallery has value and I'm giving it away. Because I'm contrarian.

[Bronty]

Oh, and Bronty, I think the information in that gallery has value and I'm giving it away. Because I'm contrarian.

 

hehe touche. I'm not saying everyone is going to act one way or another. But I do think that some people protecting their info isn't a shocker.

[glendgold]

You're right. That makes sense.

 

Also, this is a work in progress and I haven't IDed stuff yet, it's disorganized, but there are some great images in there I'd forgotten about.

[bluechip]

. Now there is this issue, which, in much the same way, threatens to make my head explode. Why? Because while I understand wanting to protect buyers and I also understand someone wanting to get the truth out, and I also understand someone wanting to protect an assistant who worked with Kirby, those are all completely contradictory goals and values, and I can't understand why some here seem unable to realize that and insist on holding fast to all them simultaneously.

 

 

I think an individual can hold all these principals without any contradiction.

 

1) The Truth. It’s important that the truth be known - this way the OA community can learn from the mistakes of the past.

 

2) Protecting the Buyer. No one want to pay top dollar to buy something that pretends to be something grander.

 

3) Protecting the assistant/ghost artist that actually did the piece. Makes sense to me. The individual probably would like to be better known for their own body of work and not as the "Kirby ghost". Most likely the artist did it as a favor to the King given his financial woes.

 

3 is incompatible with 1, because 3 necessitates leaving out essential truths.

 

3 also undermines the effectiveness of 2.

 

As for the justification of protecting the ghost, are we talking about a person who stayed silent when the initial buyers purchased the art for tidy sums and then later revealed he had ghosted the art, knowing full well that it would cause those initial buyers to be unable to sell for what they paid?

 

That kind of behavior needs protecting? Really?

 

Does doing a favor to Kirby also require doing a giant rogering of the buyer later on?

 

If you are going to lie about something like that in the first place, then you should keep said secret to the grave. Especially if revealing the lie damages other people financially and damages the rep of the person you did the favor for --- and all the while you want to keep your little butt protected by not even revealing who you are, as you "come clean" about your sin?

 

To be the person most responsible for people paying too much for something and, later on, be the person most responsible for making sure they couldn't resell it.

 

It does not alleviate the transgression to reveal it anonymously in this manner. It compounds it,.

 

 

 

 

 

[Mephisto]

No one will ever know, but I agree that quoting anonymous assistants is sketchy.

 

I find the enormous amount of cloak and dagger in regards to information in the field of comic OA to be an absolute joke.

 

Hi Josh,

 

Not sure if you mean in general or with regards to these pieces, but IMO when information has value people tend to not want to give it away. So to me these pieces aside the cloak & dagger stuff makes all the sense in the world. Maybe I can just afford to be more philosophical about it since I collect a little differently than most.

 

 

I mean in general. I am talking about information that really isn't going to effect any values and isn't even trade secrets, yet many collector's like to pretend they are.

[Bronty]

good point, there is some of that too!

[Bird]

My recent frustration is "ask for the price". Only the people who ask get the price? If there is a price, let it out. If you want offers, that is fine by me and very different but if it has a price why is it secret? In what businesses that you patronize would you accept this? Prostitution, drug selling maybe? Well, convention sketches from Bill Sienkiewicz I guess but that is so special it is alright. I see this "ask for a price" as the type of inner circle BS that I can't abide. The Dude does NOT abide. If you make me ask I won't, even if I want the piece. Next piece is right there, with a price too.

 

But by and large I find most people in this hobby are honorable and willing to share info. Even people who make others ask for the price are generally good people. I just wish they would refrain from the secrecy for secrecy's sake.

[NelsonAI]

Sorry for the typos in my previous post.

 

For those that are attending SDCC this year, I'm sure Mike T. will be bombarded with questions about this subject in person. Go easy on him. .

 

Cheers!

N.

 

[Bird]

I was at a show recently with Greg Theakston, Joe Sinnott, Mike Royer, hmmm...I forget the others. But it was billed as having all of jack Kirby's bigger inkers and I was tempted to see what I could find out. But since this is my only Kirby page

sean's kirby Captain America page

 

and I never expect to get any more Kirby unless it is willed to me, I figured it would just be rude trying to know for knowing's sake.

 

I would check the guest list, it wason the con site, nycbm.com , but it is down lately.

[dem1138]

Randall Glass made a .gif:

 

http://www.nailbiter.net/comicart/kirby_ss_compare.gif

[Bronty]

My recent frustration is "ask for the price". Only the people who ask get the price? If there is a price, let it out. If you want offers, that is fine by me and very different but if it has a price why is it secret? In what businesses that you patronize would you accept this? Prostitution, drug selling maybe? Well, convention sketches from Bill Sienkiewicz I guess but that is so special it is alright. I see this "ask for a price" as the type of inner circle BS that I can't abide. The Dude does NOT abide. If you make me ask I won't, even if I want the piece. Next piece is right there, with a price too.

 

But by and large I find most people in this hobby are honorable and willing to share info. Even people who make others ask for the price are generally good people. I just wish they would refrain from the secrecy for secrecy's sake.

 

 

I think "ask for a price" is just a ploy to force the buyer to show his interest. Nothing more nothing less. The other case when it could come in handy is if your asking price is so high that you don't want to publish for fear of scaring people away/ seeming like an expensive seller. But for the most part, I think its just a ploy to start the negotiations on the seller's terms / to the seller's advantage.

 

Let's assume you do really want the piece and will pay a high price. Your ability to talk the piece and the price down has taken a hit just by taking the time to inquire. The seller knows you like it just by the fact you are asking about it, and can guage your email for other clues too.

[Bird]

My recent frustration is "ask for the price". Only the people who ask get the price? If there is a price, let it out. If you want offers, that is fine by me and very different but if it has a price why is it secret? In what businesses that you patronize would you accept this? Prostitution, drug selling maybe? Well, convention sketches from Bill Sienkiewicz I guess but that is so special it is alright. I see this "ask for a price" as the type of inner circle BS that I can't abide. The Dude does NOT abide. If you make me ask I won't, even if I want the piece. Next piece is right there, with a price too.

 

But by and large I find most people in this hobby are honorable and willing to share info. Even people who make others ask for the price are generally good people. I just wish they would refrain from the secrecy for secrecy's sake.

 

 

I think "ask for a price" is just a ploy to force the buyer to show his interest. Nothing more nothing less. The other case when it could come in handy is if your asking price is so high that you don't want to publish for fear of scaring people away/ seeming like an expensive seller. But for the most part, I think its just a ploy to start the negotiations on the seller's terms / to the seller's advantage.

 

Let's assume you do really want the piece and will pay a high price. Your ability to talk the piece and the price down has taken a hit just by taking the time to inquire. The seller knows you like it just by the fact you are asking about it, and can guage your email for other clues too.

 

well, that is exactly what I mean. Forcing buyer's is not a good business model. ploys are not a good business model. It is akin to bait and switch almost to me, "come on in and see what I have...but wait, it is sooo expensive...but since you're here let's talk a bit". More people will be interested if the terms are disclosed up front. like I said, not interested.

[AtlasFan]

. Now there is this issue, which, in much the same way, threatens to make my head explode. Why? Because while I understand wanting to protect buyers and I also understand someone wanting to get the truth out, and I also understand someone wanting to protect an assistant who worked with Kirby, those are all completely contradictory goals and values, and I can't understand why some here seem unable to realize that and insist on holding fast to all them simultaneously.

 

 

I think an individual can hold all these principals without any contradiction.

 

1) The Truth. It’s important that the truth be known - this way the OA community can learn from the mistakes of the past.

 

2) Protecting the Buyer. No one want to pay top dollar to buy something that pretends to be something grander.

 

3) Protecting the assistant/ghost artist that actually did the piece. Makes sense to me. The individual probably would like to be better known for their own body of work and not as the "Kirby ghost". Most likely the artist did it as a favor to the King given his financial woes.

 

3 is incompatible with 1, because 3 necessitates leaving out essential truths.

 

3 also undermines the effectiveness of 2.

 

As for the justification of protecting the ghost, are we talking about a person who stayed silent when the initial buyers purchased the art for tidy sums and then later revealed he had ghosted the art, knowing full well that it would cause those initial buyers to be unable to sell for what they paid?

 

That kind of behavior needs protecting? Really?

 

Does doing a favor to Kirby also require doing a giant rogering of the buyer later on?

 

If you are going to lie about something like that in the first place, then you should keep said secret to the grave. Especially if revealing the lie damages other people financially and damages the rep of the person you did the favor for --- and all the while you want to keep your little butt protected by not even revealing who you are, as you "come clean" about your sin?

 

To be the person most responsible for people paying too much for something and, later on, be the person most responsible for making sure they couldn't resell it.

 

It does not alleviate the transgression to reveal it anonymously in this manner. It compounds it,.

 

 

As long as the "truth" is disclosed that it’s not a Kirby, what difference does it make as to who the ghost artist really is? Kirby or not Kirby - that’s all that really matters as far as the current owner is concerned.

 

In the end, the auction house should investigate and engage an independent art specialist to verify if it’s a Kirby or not. If it’s not a Kirby, the current owner should be reimbursed for the piece by the auction house and the piece should be surrendered to the auction house for destruction.

 

This would require the auction house to take a big one on the chin as this would no doubt call into question additional pieces from that house as well. Never the less, in the end -- its the right thing to do.

 

[Shepherd]

Interesting. It seems the right leg was changed, you can see the marks in the paper, to make it look different from the '77 Kirby.

[artcollector9]

Hi Guys,

 

The correct attribution is "Studio of Jack Kirby".

 

Since Kirby definitely sold the work, it fits the Sotheby's definition as follows:

 

"Studio of Giovanni Bellini-- In our best judgement, a work by an unknown hand executed in the style of the artist under his direct supervision".

 

I think everyone can agree on this long used description, whether they think Kirby had a hand in it or not, since Kirby's direct involvement is not required for the work to fall under this attribution, and clearly Jack Kirby sold the work and profited from the sale, and the piece uses his designs, and he must have approved of it since he sold it to Graham Nash.

 

Rob

[bluechip]

. Now there is this issue, which, in much the same way, threatens to make my head explode. Why? Because while I understand wanting to protect buyers and I also understand someone wanting to get the truth out, and I also understand someone wanting to protect an assistant who worked with Kirby, those are all completely contradictory goals and values, and I can't understand why some here seem unable to realize that and insist on holding fast to all them simultaneously.

 

 

I think an individual can hold all these principals without any contradiction.

 

1) The Truth. It’s important that the truth be known - this way the OA community can learn from the mistakes of the past.

 

2) Protecting the Buyer. No one want to pay top dollar to buy something that pretends to be something grander.

 

3) Protecting the assistant/ghost artist that actually did the piece. Makes sense to me. The individual probably would like to be better known for their own body of work and not as the "Kirby ghost". Most likely the artist did it as a favor to the King given his financial woes.

 

3 is incompatible with 1, because 3 necessitates leaving out essential truths.

 

3 also undermines the effectiveness of 2.

 

As for the justification of protecting the ghost, are we talking about a person who stayed silent when the initial buyers purchased the art for tidy sums and then later revealed he had ghosted the art, knowing full well that it would cause those initial buyers to be unable to sell for what they paid?

 

That kind of behavior needs protecting? Really?

 

Does doing a favor to Kirby also require doing a giant rogering of the buyer later on?

 

If you are going to lie about something like that in the first place, then you should keep said secret to the grave. Especially if revealing the lie damages other people financially and damages the rep of the person you did the favor for --- and all the while you want to keep your little butt protected by not even revealing who you are, as you "come clean" about your sin?

 

To be the person most responsible for people paying too much for something and, later on, be the person most responsible for making sure they couldn't resell it.

 

It does not alleviate the transgression to reveal it anonymously in this manner. It compounds it,.

 

 

As long as the "truth" is disclosed that it’s not a Kirby, what difference does it make as to who the ghost artist really is? Kirby or not Kirby - that’s all that really matters as far as the current owner is concerned.

 

In the end, the auction house should investigate and engage an independent art specialist to verify if it’s a Kirby or not. If it’s not a Kirby, the current owner should be reimbursed for the piece by the auction house and the piece should be surrendered to the auction house for destruction.

 

This would require the auction house to take a big one on the chin as this would no doubt call into question additional pieces from that house as well. Never the less, in the end -- its the right thing to do.

 

It makes a lot of difference who the ghost is if the whole point of the discussion is that something wrong occured and that consequences, including destruction of value, must result.

 

I know that if I were Sothebys I sure as hell would not "take it on the chin" without holding all deceptive parties responsible. And if I were a buyer ten years ago simply "getting my money back" would not be adequate to make me think all is okay, considering, among many other things, what else I could have done with that money that would have been so much better. I think some good people are talking themselves into the idea that these goals are separable, and they simply aren't. You can't just throw a grenade into a room and think you will destroy only the things you want to destroy.

 

 

 

[glendgold]

Hey Rob --

 

I know I was on the "Studio of Jack Kirby" train and I still might be but there's something I don't like about it. It makes it sound like the "studio" is a real thing. It's not. Not yet. As of now, it's a piece of art with Jack's name on it that he sold as if he'd done it. The attributions like "Studio of Herge" came about because of years of direct knowledge and research and attribution by the estate. A friend of mine (who might pipe up here momentarily) indicates that it was known during his lifetime that Herge had assistants. The factory worked that way. As of yet all we have for Kirby are our eyeballs and the underground knowledge that passed among dealers and collectors that the late pieces were problematic. Until there's something official from the estate, I'm not going to refer to "the Studio of Jack Kirby." In a year or ten, that might be a thing, but I'm not yet comfortable with it.

 

That's just my two cents.

 

Glen (David) (Gold) (just in case the name ain't clear)

[artcollector9]

Well, Jack was an artist, he had assistant(s), he sold the work.

 

I think I understand that you mean he didn't have a (large) studio of guys cranking out work, like Shuster or Eisner or Kane or others may have?

 

But legally and morally, I think the attribution fits it nicely...in fact it's more than my opinion, it's how the auction houses treat works like these (this isn't the first!)

 

Forgery is too harsh, since it usually means a piece cranked out in some guys basement and sold as an original, cheating the artist and the buyer.

 

This piece, and the other Marvel cover recreations, aren't that at all...the artist himself sold them-- and that makes all the difference in the world.

 

Rob