Interesting Kirby debate...

[Bronty]

c'mon guys, let it go

[artcollector9]

Wise words Bronty!!

 

 

Ok Felix, since you asked:

 

I'd be disappointed if the piece were somehow proven to be ZERO Kirby...which I don't think is possible.

 

I took a chance that Kirby contributed to the piece...

 

I think that if he sold it, he polished it...

 

I think he polish the Marvel recreations too.

 

Again, you aren't happy with 95% agreement with Erik, you keep coming back with I need to agree with Erik 100%.

 

By the way, thank you for the kind words about me and Frazetta.

 

When I write those folks with what I think are forgeries, I tell them 'In my opinion".

 

No, I'm not going to out anyone. That's just plain rude...and possibly could set me up for a lawsuit if I were wrong.

 

Let each buyer beware and do their homework.

 

I would tell third parties writing me for an opinion on a piece (and this has happened) that in my opinion, the piece they are considering buying is a forgery.

 

I'm done with this conversation...thanks for the lively banter!

 

 

Regards,

 

Rob

 

[bluechip]

"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

 

I'll skip on the smooch but glad you see what I was getting at. The latest posts here made some things more clear to me, as well.

 

It seems to me as though people were displeased at what they saw as downplaying the alleged role of assistants in this piece. Some wanted to bring that back in line and others, it seems, got a little caught up in wanting a smackdown of the current owner/describer and, thus, went too far in the other direction.

 

If you're looking to be regarded as a voice of authority, it's important not to come off like you are willing and eager to overstate negatives and recklessly risk saying things that are incorrect because you have an agenda to smack down another collector. Also, it doesn't look good when you cite a personal relationship with someone you say committed a fraud, and then refuse to say who that person is.

 

As for overstating the negatives: It's one thing to say Kirby was obviously helped on a piece, but looking at piece that Kirby said he drew, got his picture taken with it and then sold as his own in a very public way -- and then saying Kirby didn't even touch it? That sounds oppositional and like the expert is less concerned about determining the facts than he is about smacking down the current owner/describer.

 

Remember, it hasn't helped Kirby's legacy regarding his collaboration with Stan Lee that at one point Kirby went all cartoonish and said that Stan didn't write "anything."

 

If you (and I mean the rhetorical "you") are upset at the owner for his description, it doesn't help to get so caught up in smacking him down that you say it's unimportant who the assistants were, and that talking with them doesn't matter because the only important message is that they said, anonymously, that they did the pieces and, once they've come out just far enough to destroy their value, they want to scuttle back into a hole and say no more.

 

Which raises another question. If you're the sort who made an effort to befriend the Kirbys and to do work anonymously so they could sell it, why are you also the sort who would later stick your head out to tell all, and then stick your head back down before it gets caught in the cross-fire?

 

And, why, if you did all the work, and you know that would create a stink, why, of why, didn't you make sure that Kirby did some of the work? Why avoid doing that in the first place and then, only years later, after people have spent hundreds of thousands on the pieces, would you come forward (but not really) to destroy the value of those pieces and tarnish the rep of the artist you claim to love and respect so much?

 

[Terry Doyle]

c'mon guys, let it go

 

I agree.

 

We're going round in circles on this one.

[artcollector9]

I'm done!

 

 

Rob