Next HA Auction ! 4 4

[drdroom]

Another question has to do with inkers share. Were there pages not returned to Kirby but returned to inkers or their estates?

[zhamlau]

Thanks. Robert Beerbohm tells a story about buying pages out of Kirby's trunk in the '70s. He got 200 pages for 20 bucks a page, which was a 50% volume discount.

 

As to the '68 page, here's the list of pages returned to Jack by Marvel in the '80s.

http://ohdannyboy.blogspot.com/2011/04/marvel-worldwide-inc-et-al-v-kirby-et_04.html

 

In some cases a whole book is missing, so possibly any page from that book that turns up can be considered Kirby family property. Possibly. Other books are problematic because the number of pages returned to Kirby is given, but not which pages specifically.

 

 

I have a friend who actually bought kirby pages out of the trunk of mark evaniers car as well I believe at a San Diego Con in the 70s. Jack wasnt signing art at the time because so much of it was stolen, but he ended up signing my friends pages because mark gave him the OK since they came from them. I was shocked when I heard the story, but apparently thats how it went back in the day.

[RICKYBOBBY]

Thanks. Robert Beerbohm tells a story about buying pages out of Kirby's trunk in the '70s. He got 200 pages for 20 bucks a page, which was a 50% volume discount.

 

As to the '68 page, here's the list of pages returned to Jack by Marvel in the '80s.

http://ohdannyboy.blogspot.com/2011/04/marvel-worldwide-inc-et-al-v-kirby-et_04.html

 

In some cases a whole book is missing, so possibly any page from that book that turns up can be considered Kirby family property. Possibly. Other books are problematic because the number of pages returned to Kirby is given, but not which pages specifically.

 

 

I have a friend who actually bought kirby pages out of the trunk of mark evaniers car as well I believe at a San Diego Con in the 70s. Jack wasnt signing art at the time because so much of it was stolen, but he ended up signing my friends pages because mark gave him the OK since they came from them. I was shocked when I heard the story, but apparently thats how it went back in the day.

 

Should have asked for a receipt

[Nexus]

Here's an article that deals with the Kirby art issue from over 3 months ago:

 

http://www.pipelinecomics.com/the-mystery-of-60s-marvel-jack-kirby-original-artwork/

 

Never talked to this writer before, beyond exchanging a couple of tweets where he commented on the podcast. He pieced together everything in the article on his own. (By his own admission, it's all speculation on his part.) Not bad, as far as guessing goes.

 

He sent me a link when the article went up. I had forgotten about it and didn't check back...and missed the spirited comment thread that developed. Of particular interest are the posts by long-time dealer Hans Kosenkranius (Tri-State Original Art). Worth a read!

[suspense39]

By someone, The Kirby's or their legal representative, not publicly releasing thier intent, I can only see this affecting and tarnishing Kirby values until they do. Hopefully one of the auction houses or a dealer ( I know you're here) will come forward and inform the rest of us with some factual information and/or what's contained in any legal letters they have recieved.

Edited December 28, 2016 by suspense39

[zhamlau]

Considering how many years its been, and likely there was never any police report filed for stolen goods...I'm not sure how exactly the Kirby estate could actually strong arm anyone into paying a rake on anything they are selling. Maybe media based shame tactics, but really how much would that really hurt?

[The Shoveler]

Here's a copy of the email from Todd Hignite to my friend who sold 2 Kirby pieces in the last auction. Rumors regarding this action have been floating around for awhile but it appears they're gaining some traction. He sold one Marvel page and one DC page.

 

I hope this finds you well—and I hope you were satisfied with your results in our November auction. We’ve recently been approached by the Kirby family as they are actively investigating the provenance for all Jack Kirby artwork being currently offered on the market. So we need to investigate in as much detail as possible all artwork by Kirby we sold in our November Signature sale, including your lots. Would you happen to remember the sales history on the two pages (any receipts/invoices would be great as well)?

 

Thanks a lot,

 

My best,

 

Todd

 

Todd Hignite | Vice President

HERITAGE AUCTIONS

 

Considering how many years its been, and likely there was never any police report filed for stolen goods...I'm not sure how exactly the Kirby estate could actually strong arm anyone into paying a rake on anything they are selling. Maybe media based shame tactics, but really how much would that really hurt?

 

I have great sympathy for the extensive and pervasive indignities and unfairness endured by Kirby regarding his artwork. However, doesn't the accuser need to provide some evidence of proof that an item is stolen?

 

I'm disappointed to hear that Heritage is shaking down its clients and customers. It's hard to imagine how concerns over this corporate practice would not influence the decision of potential clients/customers in any potential future business.

 

 

What Brian Peck said: I'd love to see the family documentation to support any of their claims.

 

Below is a draft response to Heritage's inquiry...feel free to use/modify as you see fit. Please note: I'm not a lawyer, high-powered auction house, or a dealer:

 

 

 

Todd,

 

I hope this finds you well. I'd be happy to assist Heritage Auctions and the Kirby family in determining provenance of Kirby artwork. Please forward me a copy of Marvel's complete inventory of the relevant Kirby artwork; Marvel's inventory of artwork returned to Kirby; Marvel's internal and external audit and inventory reports and all associated documentation, including internal correspondence and all associated memorandum, for each period in which Kirby art was in corporate possession; Marvel's documentation on Kirby artwork destroyed, damaged, modified, gifted, and/or otherwise unaccounted for through the production process, promotional activities, education and training purposes, fire, flood, and/or other disaster(s), theft and/or neglect, and other uses/misuses; Marvel's internal and external theft reports and all documentation concerning such; the theft reports and complete file records of all involved investigation and/or law enforcement agencies; Kirby's personal inventory documentation for each page of art returned to him from Marvel; all of Kirby's documentation concerning the disposition of each individual piece of artwork, including sales, gifting, items damaged or destroyed through the production process, promotional activities, education and training purposes, fire, flood, and/or other disaster, theft and/or neglect; Kirby's receipts for any sales transactions; and official theft reports and complete file records of all involved investigation and/or law enforcement agencies for any items stolen from Kirby's possession and/or that of his agent(s) or intermediaries.

 

For any questions regarding Kirby artwork from DC or other publishers/sources, the same documentation as the above will be required.

 

Please ship all files and documentation through certified mail to the attorney's office courtesy-copied on this message. Please notify, in advance, me and the attorney of any shipments at least five business days prior to delivery. In the notification, include all tracking numbers for each individual package or shipping container.

 

Additionally, please include your billing authorization number or credit account number to be used for proper reimbursement of all labor; materials; overhead and administrative costs; fees; and expenses associated with this effort.

 

We're pleased that you've contracted this legal research project with us. And we look forward to receiving the requested items from your organization. Cheers,

Edited December 28, 2016 by The Shoveler

[Ironmandrd]

Here's an article that deals with the Kirby art issue from over 3 months ago:

 

http://www.pipelinecomics.com/the-mystery-of-60s-marvel-jack-kirby-original-artwork/

 

Never talked to this writer before, beyond exchanging a couple of tweets where he commented on the podcast. He pieced together everything in the article on his own. (By his own admission, it's all speculation on his part.) Not bad, as far as guessing goes.

 

He sent me a link when the article went up. I had forgotten about it and didn't check back...and missed the spirited comment thread that developed. Of particular interest are the posts by long-time dealer Hans Kosenkranius (Tri-State Original Art). Worth a read!

 

Hans sounds very reasonable in that discussion, he makes a lot of sense.

 

Yes and his Comment detractors much less so.

[drdroom]

There is also this: some artwork was apparently returned to Jack in the '70s, prior to either the Vartanoff warehouse inventory list (1980) or the Returned art list (1987).

 

"In July of 1986, Marvel Vice President of Publishing Michael Z. Hobson issued a public statement telling the company’s side of the story: “Marvel has long been willing to give Mr. Kirby such artwork in accordance with its artwork return policy. In fact, Marvel returned hundreds of pages of artwork to Mr. Kirby under its artwork return policy during his last period of employment between 1976 and 1978, and Mr. Kirby signed all release forms submitted to him at that time. "

 

http://www.tcj.com/kirby-and-goliath-the-fight-for-jack-kirbys-marvel-artwork/

 

Was this just 70's art? Or did it include some '60s art? Was it ALL the 70's art?

Edited December 29, 2016 by drdroom

[drdroom]

Does anyone have a link for the Irene Vartanoff inventory list? Irene herself doesn't have it, at least per her last blog post on the topic.

[Funnyslover]

Does anyone have a link for the Irene Vartanoff inventory list? Irene herself doesn't have it, at least per her last blog post on the topic.

 

Go to :

http://boards.collectors-society.com/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=9560404&fpart=1

and from page 1 go to the very first link wherein the 3rd & 4th images contain Irene Vartanoff's list.

 

G'nite

[Superhero]

Setting aside the evidentiary and legal hurdles, and there are many here, what affect does this have on the Kirby market? What effect does this have on people who own Kirby art from the 60's and 70's?

[Filter81]

I had two Kirby pages I was thinking of consigning somewhere that I think I'll hold off on until it becomes a little more clear what exactly this all means. In the meantime, if a Kirby page I wanted came up for sale this would not stop me from bidding. I would guess less supply = temporarily higher prices on whatever does hit the market? But I'm definitely no art expert.

[Mighty Hal]

I would guess less supply = temporarily higher prices on whatever does hit the market? But I'm definitely no art expert.

 

My thought was legal hassles = lower prices, as few collectors will be excited at the thought of legal fees in the future. All this will do in the short-term is to drive more pieces underground, leading to more private sales. Filter81, I imagine your PM box will be filling up shortly.

 

For most OA fans, Kirby is king, but there are thousands of other artists worthy of interest. If his estate became increasingly aggressive -- demanding the return of "stolen" art, as a hypothetical example -- who would want the grief? A hobby is supposed to be fun! When that joy is diminished, fewer people want to play and prices fall.

 

Or so I imagine. If there are any BWS collectors out there, maybe they can offer some thoughts. Once Windsor-Smith introduced legalese (and a percentage of future sales) into his art sales, were prices affected?

[delekkerste]

if this gains any traction Neal Adams won't be far behind.

 

As long as it's not Boris, you got nothin' to worry about.

[ThothAmon]

Here's an article that deals with the Kirby art issue from over 3 months ago:

 

http://www.pipelinecomics.com/the-mystery-of-60s-marvel-jack-kirby-original-artwork/

 

Never talked to this writer before, beyond exchanging a couple of tweets where he commented on the podcast. He pieced together everything in the article on his own. (By his own admission, it's all speculation on his part.) Not bad, as far as guessing goes.

 

He sent me a link when the article went up. I had forgotten about it and didn't check back...and missed the spirited comment thread that developed. Of particular interest are the posts by long-time dealer Hans Kosenkranius (Tri-State Original Art). Worth a read!

 

Hans sounds very reasonable in that discussion, he makes a lot of sense.

 

Yes and his Comment detractors much less so.

+1. After reading the linked article, its comments, this article https://itsartlaw.com/tag/nazi-looted-art/, and this article https://itsartlaw.com/2012/10/18/seven-year-saga-of-bakalar-v-vavra-ends-in-victory-for-current-owner-of-schiele-drawing-and-settles-concerns-over-application-of-the-laches-defense/, I am firmly on the side that the Mr. Kirby's heirs have a difficult path. The referenced Bakalar case on Nazi stolen art shows us that the

 

"case ultimately turned on the defense of “laches,” an equitable doctrine asserted by Bakalar that bars title actions in which there has been a lengthy delay in filing a claim. Ultimately, the district court ruled in favor of Bakalar. It stated that to prevail in asserting the laches defense, a defending party must show that (1) the claimant was aware of the claim (or had reason to know of the claim), (2) the claimant inexcusably delayed in taking action, and (3) the defending party was prejudiced as a result. The district court held that Vavra and Fischer’s “ancestors were aware of–or should have been aware of–their potential intestate rights to Grunbaum property,” and that the ancestors “were not diligent in pursuing their claims to the drawing.”

 

This thread is full of reasons why a laches defense would apply to Kirby art. Here's another reason, the mid 90's I purchased 6 pages from a 1962 kirby pencilled Marvel from a purchaser who had bought them at a Christy's auction in the early 90's. I would argue that the fact that a highly visible public auction was held without any claims of stolen artwork being made effectively scrubs the provenance clean. The same could be argued for pieces having sold on Ebay and Heritage in the past. Obviously, without knowing all the facts this must be determined on a case by case basis. All original art, not just Kirby's, faces the same issue and prices will most likely chill as a result.

[batman_fan]

I have one 1960s page and one 1970s page. Both are on CAF and I have no intention to pull them down.

[RICKYBOBBY]

I have one 1960s page and one 1970s page. Both are on CAF and I have no intention to pull them down.

 

Good for you. And I don't think any collectors should be. I don't think the average collector has anything to worry about at all.

I know the Kirby family loves the fans and wouldn't want to ruin that reputation.

If they feel they need to get 10% of the 10% commission that was taken by the auction houses on the Kirby pieces, all the power to em.

 

Prices will continue to go up.. no doubt on that.

 

[Bronty]

if this gains any traction Neal Adams won't be far behind.

 

As long as it's not Boris, you got nothin' to worry about.

 

Its about the subject matter, a lot more than the people around here realize sometimes I've done well with the right borises and julies. The ones I have left were paid for by the gains on teh couple I sold.

[Bronty]

if this gains any traction Neal Adams won't be far behind.

 

As long as it's not Boris, you got nothin' to worry about.

 

btw, thanks for the reminder.... the red alarm light went off in my man cave when Tim complimented chris' pencil drawings in the boris thread. I'll have to go fix that, STAT