Interesting Kirby debate...

[Sharkey]

As someone who has one of the hotly-discussed Sotheby's 1994 recreations (The TOS 39 Cover), I'd love for the full truth to come out, as I'd like to know if the piece I own was done all, in part, or not at all by Jack himself.

 

If an assistant was responsible for all or some of it, I'd also like to know who it was. After all, I own a piece that was supposedly done by Jack, originally sold by Sotheby's (with a certificate of authenticity -- HA!) as being by Jack, and sold to me several years ago with that implication as well. As the owner of the piece, I'd like to know who did the work.

 

As such, I updated the description of the piece to reflect all the hubbub.

 

TOS 39 cover recreation

 

 

[spideyfan88]

I think for me the biggest point of contention is the signature. It's signed "Jack Kirby" not studio of jack kirby or after jack kirby. Having the signature being solely Jack Kirby implies that he drew it and IF he did not (who am I to say) it would fit the definition of a forgery no matter how good the intentions were of Jack in this case. Was he trying to hurt anyone? absolutely not but that does not legitimize it. In the Studio of Giovanni Bellini case I think its important that this was disclosed from the onset where as this was not, not necessarily for devious reasons but I would imagine that at an auction a Jack Kirby piece would sell for far more than a Studio of Jack Kirby piece. No one is questioning how you are presenting the piece itself on your page. You put studio of Jack Kirby which is accurate to the evidence we have seen but is I think the original sale of this as an original Jack Kirby piece is what is in contention.

 

Arjuna

[bluechip]

An interesting coincidence that shows how protective people can be of their view and how odd the "who did what" debate can be, I got a confusing email that sought to correct a correction I'd had made for a credit on a piece. There had initially been comments made that a piece wasn't worked on by this artist, and I'd heard the artist confirmed it was his. So I asked the artist if he'd worked on it and he said he had. Correction processed. No reason to expect any more confusion or controvery. But then, months later, this week, I get an email saying that somebody had apparently read the correction, along with the artist's comments, and suggested the artist had misremembered. Now, the artist has shown precise memory about details from the period, remembering conversations and tiny corrections he made, etc. And he confirmed he'd worked on it not just once but twice to at least two different people, and knowing he was doing it for attribution. And on top of that, the artist was shown the art -- both times. So he was not just being asked to recall something in the abstract. He also saw the art. So for a collector to say the guy misremembers is not just to say "my ability to evaluate art is better than an artist's memory," it's saying "my ability to identify an artist's work is better than the artist's ability to recognize his own work."

 

 

[artcollector9]

some guys think they know it all, bluechip!

 

I'd go with the artist's memory!!

[glendgold]

Okay, I'll play along. My ability to evaluate art is better than the artist's memory.

 

In 1976, a fan bought a fake Kirby pencil piece, the cover to Cap 200, which he brought to Kirby. Kirby signed it. It's not like he signed it 20 years later. He signed it within months of having drawn the real thing.

 

http://www.comicartfans.com/GalleryPiece.asp?Piece=908937&GSub=132080

 

Glen David Gold

[glendgold]

And btw, I have no idea why the image is sideways. Adjust your monitors accordingly.

[Bronty]

yeah its a mixed bag. some guys remember very clearly some guys do not. I have certainly talked to artists before where I end up telling them about their own work... which is pretty weird. and then some guys remember stuff from 25 years ago like it was yesterday.

[Mephisto]

yeah its a mixed bag. some guys remember very clearly some guys do not. I have certainly talked to artists before where I end up telling them about their own work... which is pretty weird. and then some guys remember stuff from 25 years ago like it was yesterday.

 

Yup. A lot of people I talk to that I knew years ago always bring up how good my memory is for life events after talking to them. My ex girl friends memory was so bad she would watch a movie and tell me it was really bad. 6 months later she would see it on Netflix instant. She would tell me she would want to watch it and I would remind her she thought it was bad the first time, so why watch it again. She said she couldn't remember anything about it. It can vary quit greatly person to person when it comes to memory. I would love to experience what would be like to have a memory like Marilu Henner. Now that would insane.

[bluechip]

Okay, I'll play along. My ability to evaluate art is better than the artist's memory.

 

In 1976, a fan bought a fake Kirby pencil piece, the cover to Cap 200, which he brought to Kirby. Kirby signed it. It's not like he signed it 20 years later. He signed it within months of having drawn the real thing.

 

http://www.comicartfans.com/GalleryPiece.asp?Piece=908937&GSub=132080

 

Glen David Gold

 

 

 

The case you're talking about is a piece that I presume some kid put in front of Kirby and he simply signed it. I don't know if Kirby was asked to evaluable the piece or if he remembered drawing it but if it was a recent cover and he thought about it I'd persume he must have known was not the published piece or it would've been inked. You don't say whether Kirby was asked "is this your work" before signing it. But I know without guessing that he wasn't asked specifically, twice, in writing and that he hadn't replied, specifically and twice, in writing, that it was.

 

A kid put something in front of him and he signed it. Don't doubt that. But the case I am referring to was a published piece for the artist's primary title and he was credited in the issue and the art had copious margin notes and all, and the artist looked at the written question twice, and looked at the published piece itself -- twice, and said in writing, twice, he'd worked on it (which was consistent with the credits for the book itself and the fact he was the primary artist on the book).

 

If your specific anecdote about a fleeting signature by Kirby on an unpublished piece were to mean that, on published pieces, publisher credits and margin notes and artists' memories and artists' in-person evaluations of their own work are all meaningless compared to any collector's evaluation because they think some portion of the art reminds them of some other artist, then I can see the day when original art is put in slabs and we have minor collectors noticing that art was labelled one thing when they owned it and then was labelled something else more valuable when the next guy obtained it.

 

[Nexus]

Okay, I'll play along. My ability to evaluate art is better than the artist's memory.

 

In 1976, a fan bought a fake Kirby pencil piece, the cover to Cap 200, which he brought to Kirby. Kirby signed it. It's not like he signed it 20 years later. He signed it within months of having drawn the real thing.

 

http://www.comicartfans.com/GalleryPiece.asp?Piece=908937&GSub=132080

 

Glen David Gold

 

Clearly some people are Completely. Missing. The. Point., but that's a great example. Bottom line, Kirby signed fakes. Period. It doesn't matter the reason. No one gives a mess about some confusing story regarding some unnamed artist (how ironic). The subject at hand is Kirby. He signed work that he didn't draw himself. Get it?

 

 

[bluechip]

Okay, I'll play along. My ability to evaluate art is better than the artist's memory.

 

In 1976, a fan bought a fake Kirby pencil piece, the cover to Cap 200, which he brought to Kirby. Kirby signed it. It's not like he signed it 20 years later. He signed it within months of having drawn the real thing.

 

http://www.comicartfans.com/GalleryPiece.asp?Piece=908937&GSub=132080

 

Glen David Gold

 

Clearly some people are Completely. Missing. The. Point., but that's a great example. Bottom line, Kirby signed fakes. Period. It doesn't matter the reason. No one gives a mess about some confusing story regarding some unnamed artist (how ironic). The subject at hand is Kirby. He signed work that he didn't draw himself. Get it?

 

 

Kirby knowingly signing unpublished pieces he knows he didn't draw is one thing.

 

Collectors saying that a living artist is wrong when he says he drew a published piece, because the collector looks at it and says I know better than the artist, is something else.

 

They are different points on the same topic. Just because you want to make one point and one point only because you have one goal and one goal only doesn't mean people shouldn't comment on other aspects of it, or point out the collateral damage to the hobby. You can say the bottom line is that Kirby drew something fake, but if you say there is proof in the personage of the artist who freaking DID the fake, then people are going to insist on knowing who that is and the damage you seek to create will not be limited to the value of the pieces themselves regardless of how much you or anyone wants it to be that way.

 

[Nexus]

Kirby knowingly signing unpublished pieces he knows he didn't draw is one thing.

 

Collectors saying that a living artist is wrong when he says he drew a published piece, because the collector looks at it and says I know better than the artist, is something else.

 

Yes, it's something else. Something that has nothing to do with this. Erik isn't challenging a living artist. He's not saying he knows better than Kirby. Kirby is dead. We don't know what Kirby would say about this. Erik is, however, saying he knows better than Rob by offering his well-earned opinion about how much of Kirby's hand he sees in the art. You can choose to pay attention or not, but don't turn this into something else.

 

They are different points on the same topic.

 

No, they're not. One is about Kirby and is relevant to this discussion. The other...I have no idea what the other point is about.

 

Just because you want to make one point and one point only because you have one goal and one goal only doesn't mean people shouldn't comment on other aspects of it, or point out the collateral damage to the hobby. You can say the bottom line is that Kirby drew something fake, but if you say there is proof in the personage of the artist who freaking DID the fake, then people are going to insist on knowing who that is and the damage you seek to create will not be limited to the value of the pieces themselves regardless of how much you or anyone wants it to be that way.

 

I have no point to make and no goal. Just trying to keep this on topic.

 

Also, don't know if you're referring to me, specifically, but I've never said that Kirby drew anything fake with my proof being the identity of the "forger". No one else has, either. That's your own notion that you came up with and haven't been able to let go. You're the only one insisting on it.

 

You know what's more damaging? When people who have a pretty good idea of what they're talking about, choose to keep quiet instead. That didn't happen here. If it did, then all we'd have is the original description for the piece, and most people would still look at it as mostly, if not all, Kirby. If that's what you would prefer, then you and I will never agree on this issue.

[bluechip]

Kirby knowingly signing unpublished pieces he knows he didn't draw is one thing.

 

Collectors saying that a living artist is wrong when he says he drew a published piece, because the collector looks at it and says I know better than the artist, is something else.

 

Yes, it's something else. Something that has nothing to do with this. Erik isn't challenging a living artist. He's not saying he knows better than Kirby. Kirby is dead. We don't know what Kirby would say about this. Erik is, however, saying he knows better than Rob by offering his well-earned opinion about how much of Kirby's hand he sees in the art. You can choose to pay attention or not, but don't turn this into something else.

 

They are different points on the same topic.

 

No, they're not. One is about Kirby and is relevant to this discussion. The other...I have no idea what the other point is about.

 

Just because you want to make one point and one point only because you have one goal and one goal only doesn't mean people shouldn't comment on other aspects of it, or point out the collateral damage to the hobby. You can say the bottom line is that Kirby drew something fake, but if you say there is proof in the personage of the artist who freaking DID the fake, then people are going to insist on knowing who that is and the damage you seek to create will not be limited to the value of the pieces themselves regardless of how much you or anyone wants it to be that way.

 

I have no point to make and no goal. Just trying to keep this on topic.

 

Also, don't know if you're referring to me, specifically, but I've never said that Kirby drew anything fake with my proof being the identity of the "forger". No one else has, either. That's your own notion that you came up with and haven't been able to let go. You're the only one insisting on it.

 

You know what's more damaging? When people who have a pretty good idea of what they're talking about, choose to keep quiet instead. That didn't happen here. If it did, then all we'd have is the original description for the piece, and most people would still look at it as mostly, if not all, Kirby. If that's what you would prefer, then you and I will never agree on this issue.

 

I agree that people should not choose to keep quiet. I just think that those who base their conclusions in whole or in part on knowing the person who did the work should say who that person is, so that there is more information, not less.

 

I am not saying that you personally said you know who the faker was. I don't recall who said it. Somebody did, here, and after that several people joined in to say they knew, too. And at least a couple of those people have also said that the fakes themselves should be exposed, based on the faker's testimony, but that the faker himself should not have to be exposed. And that isn't right.

 

The comparison to other situations merely is to comment on how entrenched some people get about their opinions of a piece even in situations where the artist himself is alive and cognizant and has no financial gain in the piece. Of course all those factors are not the same in regard to the Kirby Sothetby's pieces. But the other instances speak to the lengths that some people will go once they've looked at something and said "looks like someone else to me."

 

The unique factor in this instance, and the one that could clearly take the Kirby Sotheby's pieces out of the realm of "I think-you think" is the supposed confession from the person who did the supposed fakes. Which means that all the people impacted by the fakery should have access to that information.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[glendgold]

"bluechip," as I suppose I have to call you, guess what? It sort of doesn't matter that my point didn't come across (as far as I can tell). Because you wrote that you feared the following:

 

> we have minor collectors noticing that art was labelled one thing when they owned it and then was labelled something else more valuable when the next guy obtained it.

 

DING DING DING DING DING!!!! Yes! That's right! bluechip, if I could lift that paperbag off your head and kiss you on the mouth, I would, you sexy sexy man.

 

Glen

[Mephisto]

I was looking for something else in an old thread when I came across this little story.

 

s/s DeMatteis

 

Anyone know who the cover artist is?

 

 

According to ComicBookDB, the cover artist for both #3 and #4 is

 

Daniel Green - 'Dan Green'

 

 

I know, but he's not. Green told me himself that he only did #3.

He had no idea who the real artist was.

 

Of course, that being said, I had a Sword of Solomon Kane #1 that Bernie did, and you can tell it's his style too. And at Heroes con 2010, and joeypost will back me up on this...Bernie insisted up and down that he did NOT paint that cover.

Well, he signed it...and yes, he DID do the cover.

But I guess so many years had passed that he didn't remember.

But if you're even a little familiar with Bernie's style, you know it's his work.

 

Searched a little a head and when the book came back from CGC it was labeled as a Bret Blevins cover.

 

http://boards.collectors-society.com/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Board=58&Number=5258159&Searchpage=3&Main=108766&Words=sienkiewicz&topic=0&Search=true#Post5258159

[artcollector9]

Felix:

 

Clearly, Erik is saying he knows more than me (Rob).

 

Except 1) I am not saying anything more than the piece is 'Studio of Jack Kirby' and laying out the FACTS.

 

Yes-- obviously I think Jack did SOMETHING on the piece, but I never thought that Erik was 'wrong' about an assistant being involved to some, perhaps great degree. (We may very well be 95% in agreement by the way.)

 

Actually Erik is saying he knows more than everyone, and he speaks in absolutes... ANYONE who challenges his conclusions is just plain wrong.

 

That's what I challenge.

 

I acquired the piece having read Erik's article and speaking with collectors including Glen. I get it. For the price I finally paid, I'm OK with a 'Studio of Jack Kirby' attribution. OF course this is what to call it-- for the millionth time, JACK SOLD THE PIECE. THAT MAKES IT KIRBY STUDIO, even if the 'studio' is one guy who helped him.

 

Erik is saying 'I guarantee no Kirby at all'. Yet, frankly many, knowledgeable, old time and new time, astute collectors say SOME Kirby, and also say we'll never be for sure that it is ZERO, or 10%, or 25%.

 

In fact a major, multi million dollar collector of 45 years told me today 'no way Kirby didn't, at the very least, touch this up, improve it here and there-- he had too much ego'.

 

Another OLDER collector who was friends with Jack told me this isn't news to him, and that Jack ALWAYS finished pieces that assistants created (at the end of his career)...in other words two knowledgeable guys said Kirby would POLISH these pieces at the very least. It's good enough for me.

 

I asked them both to 'come out', but they don't want to. Fair enough. No different than the 'ghost' not coming forward I suppose.

 

But look, no one else has to be convinced, since I'm keeping it. If you disagree, I assert and respect your right to do that. But my opinion doesn't need to be 1000% in line with a few self appointed experts. And I don't think I'm fooling myself after the fact. Can I get the same respect? Not from Erik I gather.

 

Let's agree to disagree then, if you like.

 

My attribution is honest, legal, moral.

 

I have no issue with a difference of opinion, but I (and many many others) find the condescending attitude (not from you) tiresome.

 

Rob

[Nexus]

Felix:

 

Clearly, Erik is saying he knows more than me (Rob).

 

Except 1) I am not saying anything more than the piece is 'Studio of Jack Kirby' and laying out the FACTS.

 

Let's be fair, Rob...you're saying "Studio of Jack Kirby" NOW. The description has been revised several times since you first put the piece up on CAF. In the beginning, it was just "Jack Kirby". You did include an asterisk, but you were also making a case for why you believed Kirby played a "major" role in the piece. That it was unlikely done by an assistant. That you considered it a "great Kirby piece". That's clearly implying the piece is mostly, if not all, Kirby.

 

It also read like a refutation of the last Heritage description. I believe this is what Erik and others were responding to. Maybe if it was "Studio of Jack Kirby" from the beginning, without what seemed like campaigning, then this wouldn't have blown up this way.

 

Yes-- obviously I think Jack did SOMETHING on the piece, but I never thought that Erik was 'wrong' about an assistant being involved to some, perhaps great degree. (We may very well be 95% in agreement by the way.)

 

Actually Erik is saying he knows more than everyone, and he speaks in absolutes... ANYONE who challenges his conclusions is just plain wrong.

 

That's what I challenge.

 

You may not like his style, and he may not be 100% right...but even you concede he may be 95% right. That's close enough for me.

 

I acquired the piece having read Erik's article and speaking with collectors including Glen. I get it. For the price I finally paid, I'm OK with a 'Studio of Jack Kirby' attribution. OF course this is what to call it-- for the millionth time, JACK SOLD THE PIECE. THAT MAKES IT KIRBY STUDIO, even if the 'studio' is one guy who helped him.

 

Then why does it matter how much Jack touched the piece? That seems to be the bone of contention. Erik says none at all. If you're OK with "Kirby Studio", then it doesn't matter, right?

 

We may never know the real story. Speaking for myself, if I talk to an Erik Larsen or a Glen Gold, respected Kirby experts, and they tell me their opinion...I stay away, no matter how "good" the deal looks. Not worth it. I have no problem admitting those guys know better than me about Kirby. It'd be arrogant of me to believe otherwise.

 

Also, if the best thing about a piece is the price...I'm probably not keeping it. Again, just me.

 

Erik is saying 'I guarantee no Kirby at all'. Yet, frankly many, knowledgeable, old time and new time, astute collectors say SOME Kirby, and also say we'll never be for sure that it is ZERO, or 10%, or 25%.

 

In fact a major, multi million dollar collector of 45 years told me today 'no way Kirby didn't, at the very least, touch this up, improve it here and there-- he had too much ego'.

 

Another OLDER collector who was friends with Jack told me this isn't news to him, and that Jack ALWAYS finished pieces that assistants created (at the end of his career)...in other words two knowledgeable guys said Kirby would POLISH these pieces at the very least. It's good enough for me.

 

I asked them both to 'come out', but they don't want to. Fair enough. No different than the 'ghost' not coming forward I suppose.

 

That's all good, but for now, two of the biggest Kirby collectors in the hobby have the opposite opinion. Philippe Queveau agrees with Erik. And both have stated their opinions publicly.

 

There may be just as many "big" collectors who would say "not Kirby" privately. I'd call it a wash.

 

But look, no one else has to be convinced, since I'm keeping it. If you disagree, I assert and respect your right to do that. But my opinion doesn't need to be 1000% in line with a few self appointed experts. And I don't think I'm fooling myself after the fact. Can I get the same respect? Not from Erik I gather.

 

Let's agree to disagree then, if you like.

 

My attribution is honest, legal, moral.

 

I have no issue with a difference of opinion, but I (and many many others) find the condescending attitude (not from you) tiresome.

 

Rob

 

I'm totally good with that, Rob. We'll agree to disagree. Definitely no condescending attitude from me...appreciate the discussion.

[Terry Doyle]

And btw, I have no idea why the image is sideways. Adjust your monitors accordingly.

 

Thanks, Glen, my neck's now very sore . . .

 

[artcollector9]

It's been 'Studio of' since I posted it, with an asterisk.

 

Yes-- I revised the description as more info came-- isn't that good? Honest? So what? I've been fair in showing both sides of the debate-- my original description specifically said this piece is controversial...

 

The best thing isn't the price--- you are putting words in my mouth. I don't know what you collect, but I collect $150 sketches, up to $150K+ Frazetta paintings. It doesn't need to me an 'A+' to be interesting to me. I collect for myself.

 

Relative to what I paid for it, I'm happy...of course price is important to art--W T F?

 

A nice Ditko panel page is fine at 30K, nuts at 300K. If I offered this piece for sale for $250 with all the info, I bet plenty of collectors would grab it.

 

This problematic piece represents less than 1% of my art holdings-- I'm OK relative to what I paid for it, to own an interesting and to my eye, still at attractive piece.

 

Me "campaigning" blew this up? I don't think so. Erik wrote an article prior to me getting this piece. People were talking about it a lot, if you were listening. I did some homework and other opinions prior to getting it. Isn't the market better off WITH the debate? I don't even think this is 'blown up'! Except for the condescension. I think Erik lost a lot with his 'collectors who see Kirby swiggles' comment. My in box lit up with that.

 

What about the Marvel recreations? I nearly picked up 1-2 of these recently. Are they forgeries, which would be valueless and also not important to Kirby's history?

 

Or do they too have asterisks, and value, and worthy of interest? I think so... because I think Kirby has SOMETHING to do with them.

 

Hey Felix, I am an expert of Frazetta art and I've held more in my hands than most anyone on earth except maybe Doc Dave.

 

I've seen forgeries from time to time on CAF and I gently and respectfully write the owners off line and explain my case. Most don't listen. They don't list it with an asterisk. I'm ok with that, no attitude on my part.No 'outing' on my part. No condescending on my part. This Kirby thing has almost been like a witch hunt.

 

I'll let you have the last word Felix if you want it, then I'm done. Holy I've spent waaayyyy too much time on this issue. It is what it is. If me keeping and enjoying the piece regardless evidentially pisses off a few, that's too bad...and who cares. You can't please everyone.

 

Rob

[Nexus]

It's been 'Studio of' since I posted it, with an asterisk.

 

Yes-- I revised the description as more info came-- isn't that good? Honest? So what? I've been fair in showing both sides of the debate-- my original description specifically said this piece is controversial...

 

When you first listed the piece, it was with this title:

Jack Kirby * Silver Surfer and Dr. Doom pencil pin up page!

 

"Studio" was not added until several days later, as the debate grew.

 

The revised descriptions have become progressively more objective, relatively speaking, but they're also in sharp contrast to the first description. I bring that up for those who haven't been following closely. That early description, and the immediate comments that followed, were like bait for Kirby obsessives, if I had to guess.

 

The best thing isn't the price--- you are putting words in my mouth. I don't know what you collect, but I collect $150 sketches, up to $150K+ Frazetta paintings. It doesn't need to me an 'A+' to be interesting to me. I collect for myself.

 

Relative to what I paid for it, I'm happy...of course price is important to art--W T F?

 

A nice Ditko panel page is fine at 30K, nuts at 300K. If I offered this piece for sale for $250 with all the info, I bet plenty of collectors would grab it.

 

This problematic piece represents less than 1% of my art holdings-- I'm OK relative to what I paid for it, to own an interesting and to my eye, still at attractive piece.

 

Don't mean to put words in your mouth. And don't believe I did. I was speaking from my own point of view as a collector.

 

However...you have brought up many times throughout this discussion about how you got a "great deal" and "got it for a song", etc. I don't feel like cutting/pasting them all, but those were your words. What you paid seems irrelevant to this discussion, but you're the one who keeps bringing it up.

 

Me "campaigning" blew this up? I don't think so. Erik wrote an article prior to me getting this piece. People were talking about it a lot, if you were listening. I did some homework and other opinions prior to getting it. Isn't the market better off WITH the debate? I don't even think this is 'blown up'! Except for the condescension. I think Erik lost a lot with his 'collectors who see Kirby swiggles' comment. My in box lit up with that.

 

What about the Marvel recreations? I nearly picked up 1-2 of these recently. Are they forgeries, which would be valueless and also not important to Kirby's history?

 

Or do they too have asterisks, and value, and worthy of interest? I think so... because I think Kirby has SOMETHING to do with them.

 

I know Erik wrote about this piece. The questions surrounding the piece were known prior to the last time it sold on Heritage.

 

I believe there will always be a market for these "asterisk" pieces. They ARE connected to Kirby. No one's disputing that. He just may not have touched them.

 

Hey Felix, I am an expert of Frazetta art and I've held more in my hands than most anyone on earth except maybe Doc Dave.

 

I've seen forgeries from time to time on CAF and I gently and respectfully write the owners off line and explain my case. Most don't listen. They don't list it with an asterisk. I'm ok with that, no attitude on my part.No 'outing' on my part. No condescending on my part. This Kirby thing has almost been like a witch hunt.

 

I recognize, and respect, your status as a Frazetta expert. I suppose an equivalent situation would be if there was a problematic Frazetta in the market, and I consulted with both you AND Doc Dave as part of my due diligence...and got it anyway, because the price was right...and then put it on my CAF gallery, making my case for why it was probably (mostly) Frazetta...then I couldn't honestly call what followed a "witch hunt".

 

BTW, if you and/or Doc Dave told me something was fishy, I respect your expertise enough to stay away. So hope you understand I absolutely respect your knowledge about Frazetta. If the situation was reversed, and the debate was between you and Erik about Frazetta, I would definitely give more weight to your side. Also, the hobby and market would be better of if you did "out" the known forgeries. But that's your choice, of course.

 

 

I'll let you have the last word Felix if you want it, then I'm done. Holy I've spent waaayyyy too much time on this issue. It is what it is. If me keeping and enjoying the piece regardless evidentially pisses off a few, that's too bad...and who cares. You can't please everyone.

 

Rob

 

I don't think anyone's pissed off. I don't get that from reading this thread or the comments. Maybe I'm missing it. What I read are comments grateful for your willingness to discuss this topic. I think many of us have learned a lot.

 

I'll finish with my question from earlier: If you're OK with the "Studio of" attribution, which allows for a work to be completely executed by an assistant...and if you're happy with what it is and will be keeping it...then why does it matter to you how much Kirby touched this piece?