• When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.

Real Stan Lee, but fake Kirby?
0

198 posts in this topic

On 5/30/2022 at 9:30 PM, Prince Namor said:

Ghost Writing is not illegal. 

Misrepresentation CAN BE.  And that is, as I see it, what Stan Lee did.

The criteria:

1. a representation was made

2. the representation was false 

3. that when made, the defendant knew that the representation was false (or that the defendant made the statement recklessly without knowledge of its truth)

4. that the fraudulent misrepresentation was made with the intention that the plaintiff rely on it

5. that the plaintiff did rely on the fraudulent misrepresentation

6. that the plaintiff suffered harm as a result of the fraudulent misrepresentation

 

Many people buy those collections, with some notion that they'll be collectible, or that they're reading the 'modern Shakespeare' (they are, if they mean a shyster who didn't actually write his own material, but was a glory hound who took all the credit and became world famous*) and it is the Stan Lee name alone that makes it worthy.

Or what about people who buy the original art? Wouldn't a Stan Lee/John Romita piece fetch more in the market place, than a Roy Thomas/John Romita piece? Couldn't that be construed as misrepresentation? Possibly.

Either way. I was wrong in outright calling it illegal. I do fully believe it to be unethical. 

 

* In actuality I have no stand on the Shakespeare controversy - no clue at all. Not enough proof. 

You are funny. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/31/2022 at 10:53 AM, Troy Division said:

Thank you for your thoughtful response.

Conjecture on my part, but I don't believe Jack was rolling in the dough.
(as someone stated earlier those wealth sites are flawed)
Might have had a nice house, but may have been 'house rich, cash poor'.

I don't think Ayers would lie about the situation.
I'd like to believe that these are authentic signatures.
It would make it easier for me to sell mine when my end of life approaches...

Thank you in return for yours.

It doesn't need to be conjecture; Jack was not rolling in the dough. Part of his motivation at getting his original art back from Marvel- the amount that hadn't been stolen and funneled out to Len and Marv to sell- was so that he had the security of being able to sell it so his widow and Grandchildren might have some extra money.

I wasn't there but other people were who have written at length about this, documented it, and I've interacted with these people. I've had lunches with them, I've been consulted by them, these are subjects that are researchable. Any house is going to accrue in value by 1994 if you bought it in 1971. But it's the same thing as having a 9.8 Incredible Hulk #181- it may be worth something, but if you can't sell it, how are you rolling in profit? What Shadroch said (and then, a few posts later, discounted by admitting that he wasn't even sure/positive about it) was irresponsible and had a touch of snideness to it.

Kirby had to leave comics to take a job at Ruby Spears because he needed medical benefits and a pension. Marvel wouldn't do it. Yeah, he was rolling in it.

When John Byrne drew the big anniversary cover of the FF, Jim Shooter ordered Kirby whited out so that only Stan was standing there. Not Stan's fault at all before the Lee defenders start whining, but it's testimony of how he was treated. A millionaire. It's not just laughable, it destroys the credibility of the person who said it.

James Romberger put out an acclaimed comic of Kirby's war experience a year or so ago and he's a close personal friend of mine. Rand Hoope is the director of the Jack Kirby Museum and the three of us went out to eat in NYC a few years ago and talked about these subjects; Evanier and Royer have also spoken at panels, in print, and in person about how Jack was trying to establish a security net for his family at the end of his life. Hence, licensing some creations to Topps comics.

I also knew and Lindy Ayers and they were incredible people to me. I'd get birthday cards, I couldn't believe it. Mr. Ayers played one of my band's CDs just because he was impressed it had saxaphone on it. He talked at length about the challenges he went through not getting work and how Stan Lee had told DC he had a mental breakdown after Ayers demanded he be given reprint money as they reprinted his work on a regular basis. It took Neal Adams to put his foot down at DC to get Ayers regular work again. Ayers ain't gonna lie. I actually asked him more about that encounter as I was fascinated at him and Kirby hanging out at Kirby's house- again: he reiterated that they lounged by his pool; Kirby told him that when he came out again in a few months he was welcome to bring some of his Grandchildren; and THEN (though I didn't realize the significance of this aside then when he told me in 2004 of whenever it was); he and Kirby signed a "stack" of prints to promote the recreations they were planning to do. Was Ayers an accomplice in this one guy's hearsay accusation? I doubt it. 

Jack Kirby wasn't perfect as no man was. But he also refused to complain about inkers whose work he considered substandard because, as he explained it to Evanier, who was his assistant and who asked this, "I don't want to take work away from a man whose got a family to support". Jack Kirby was a literally a war hero who spoke in interviews about fairness and not screwing someone over to get ahead. I mean that, you can look them up. So I just find it questionable that Jack just sat back and had his wife forge his signature. Any of that stems from the fact that it was revealed that Roz helped ink backgrounds- shading in blacks- a handful of times in the 50s'. It is utter nonsense and I will say it to anyone's face any time, because quite frankly, there's a trollish agenda here and I doubt they'd have such conviction about it in person. Kirby could still write- albeit slowly- but his drawing had declined. (See his last Action Weekly covers from the late 80s)

And Troy, I hope nothing inside of you ever dies and then you change your name to Lew Order. Okay, that was corny but I couldn't resist

Edited by wisbyron
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/31/2022 at 11:37 AM, shadroch said:

  Kirby worked in Hollywood doing animation for about a decade. Animation paid much better than comics. I'd think Kirby made more money doing animation than he did at Marvel.  Why would you think he was cash poor?

He was using a saying (but I know you know this), and this usual tactic of yours of maneuvering things in an argument this way is a tiresome approach- no one is saying he was "cash poor". YOU said he was a millionaire with a million dollar house. Being not-a-millionaire does not constitute poverty whatsoever. But shadroch! I know you know that. You're just pivoting, as we say in Boxing. Why don't you go to Bleedingcool or somewhere else where you can accuse Kirby in a more public, mainstream forum and we can genuinely get more eyes on this and maybe it'll lead to either exposing Kirby and his crooked wife and lead to reimbursement for the defrauded, or the people involved will shed light that exonerates Kirby and we can let it all rest? It's evident YOUR mind is made up, so why don't you report this?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/31/2022 at 2:56 AM, Prince Namor said:

I did say I was wrong.

can you show me where?  all I saw was " ghost writing is not illegal".  I didnt see the words "I was wrong".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/31/2022 at 2:17 PM, kav said:

can you show me where?  all I saw was " ghost writing is not illegal".  I didnt see the words "I was wrong".

He did indeed Kav; he wrote "Either way. I was wrong in outright calling it illegal. I do fully believe it to be unethical."

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/31/2022 at 7:53 AM, Troy Division said:

Thank you for your thoughtful response.

Conjecture on my part, but I don't believe Jack was rolling in the dough.
(as someone stated earlier those wealth sites are flawed)
Might have had a nice house, but may have been 'house rich, cash poor'.

I don't think Ayers would lie about the situation.
I'd like to believe that these are authentic signatures.
It would make it easier for me to sell mine when my end of life approaches...

So no one was talking about him being cash poor.   Got it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/31/2022 at 2:40 PM, shadroch said:

So no one was talking about him being cash poor.   Got it. 

Maybe you're an objectivist like Ditko :D 

He used a phrase, a figure of speech in regards to your blatant lie about Kirby being a millionaire/having a mansion.

You said those things. They are literally untrue. They are literally lies.

No one has spoken about Kirby being "cash poor" once. We said he was not a millionaire and cited evidence that would lend itself to him decidedly not being a millionaire. 

You're old enough to know better, especially as you were saying Kirby autographs "looked okay" to you as recently as 2019. I was reading those threads at the time, as this signature gossip is something I've been aware of for quite some time.

Again: every time we slowly proceed the discussion, or every time some people come together, here's ol' Shadroch to twist something or take something obviously used in passing as an example or figure of speech and make it some literal thing so he can extend his agenda. 

Someone made untrue statements without facts to back them up while also stating his disdain and contempt for that individual. That was you "Shadroch". Got it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/31/2022 at 11:42 AM, Prince Namor said:

I've read a lot of Kirby stuff, never have seen this. Where is it from again?

You've never read he suffered from terrible arthritis? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/31/2022 at 2:42 PM, Prince Namor said:

I've read a lot of Kirby stuff, never have seen this. Where is it from again?

They're speaking about the later years, why he stopped drawing as much, the decline and slant in his art that was evident starting in the mid to late Eighties, and then statements about him being wobbly when holding a pencil and barely being able to sign 30 things a person took for him to sign (though this person still states that he DID sign them); Kirby had such stature that to see him struggle I imagine was very disheartening. But the point is, he still signed. It just took longer and more effort.

I believe that when people are generally proven to have lied, their credibility is in question. Greg Theakson lied and was called out for it by Mike Royer. Much of the spec about Jack needing "unknown assistants" comes from a THEORY and speculation on behalf of otherwise decent blogger Daniel Best, who wrote about it on his blog. Royer has called all of this out and I spoke to him at length about it where he was incredulous at the things people say and that they read too much into things. Royer is outspoken. Daniel Best has a blog; a blog needs content. He read one of Theakson's books and was like "Hmmm..." Okay, fair enough. But then spec like that gets out in the world and becomes hearsay. Hey, maybe Kirby DID use a lightbox to do cover recreations. But he didn't have someone else do it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/31/2022 at 2:51 PM, shadroch said:

I quoted where someone mentions himpossibly being cash poor and you continue to deny anyone said it.   How bizarre.

You're older than me so it's bizarre how you're unfamiliar with how using a figure of speech works. The guy put it like this: 'house rich, cash poor'

That statement literally means you might have a house that has value but it doesn't mean you are wealthy in the bank account sense.

You know as well as I do that he did not mean Kirby was literally without cash. I deny nothing. You're the one who lied; you're the one who had a very different stance about this subject back in 2019. Deflect it and twist it all you want. You claim a guy has a mansion then a few posts later you state maybe he didn't. You're a flip flopper who puts out blatantly dishonest statements and then adopts a petty approach to nitpick and continue arguments rather than try to continue discussions. I'd give anything to meet you at a convention, Shadroch. I'm sure you're much more charming in person.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/31/2022 at 11:46 AM, wisbyron said:

Maybe you're an objectivist like Ditko :D 

He used a phrase, a figure of speech in regards to your blatant lie about Kirby being a millionaire/having a mansion.

You said those things. They are literally untrue. They are literally lies.

No one has spoken about Kirby being "cash poor" once. We said he was not a millionaire and cited evidence that would lend itself to him decidedly not being a millionaire. 

You're old enough to know better, especially as you were saying Kirby autographs "looked okay" to you as recently as 2019. I was reading those threads at the time, as this signature gossip is something I've been aware of for quite some time.

Again: every time we slowly proceed the discussion, or every time some people come together, here's ol' Shadroch to twist something or take something obviously used in passing as an example or figure of speech and make it some literal thing so he can extend his agenda. 

Someone made untrue statements without facts to back them up while also stating his disdain and contempt for that individual. That was you "Shadroch". Got it?

You keep calling me a liar, while making stuff up . Incredible.  There are a lot of Kirby signatures that are good. I own a bunch of them. I also believe there are a bunch of books he was paid to sign that he didn't.  If that makes me a person with an agenda, so be it.   I'm not an expert on signatures, I just go by what people who know more than me have to say about those books.  If someone asks me to get them a Kirby signed book, I'm happy to do it. I have limited prints, I have prints signed by Jack, Stan and Joe.  I have boxes of Kirby comics, and I think as time goes by, he will be the most in demand artist.  It doesn't change my opinion that he and his wife messsed up badly with their D.F. and QVC type deals. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/31/2022 at 2:56 PM, wisbyron said:

You're older than me so it's bizarre how you're unfamiliar with how using a figure of speech works. The guy put it like this: 'house rich, cash poor'

That statement literally means you might have a house that has value but it doesn't mean you are wealthy in the bank account sense.

You know as well as I do that he did not mean Kirby was literally without cash. I deny nothing. You're the one who lied; you're the one who had a very different stance about this subject back in 2019. Deflect it and twist it all you want. You claim a guy has a mansion then a few posts later you state maybe he didn't. You're a flip flopper who puts out blatantly dishonest statements and then adopts a petty approach to nitpick and continue arguments rather than try to continue discussions. I'd give anything to meet you at a convention, Shadroch. I'm sure you're much more charming in person.

I'm used to this in any thread where there's talk of Stan Lee and Jack Kirby. I've gotten this for years. And mainly from two of the same people still here in this thread. It's not a discussion to them. They are here to disrupt. To nitpick. To make their snide remarks. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/31/2022 at 3:01 PM, shadroch said:

You keep calling me a liar, while making stuff up . Incredible.  There are a lot of Kirby signatures that are good. I own a bunch of them. I also believe there are a bunch of books he was paid to sign that he didn't.  If that makes me a person with an agenda, so be it.   I'm not an expert on signatures, I just go by what people who know more than me have to say about those books.  If someone asks me to get them a Kirby signed book, I'm happy to do it. I have limited prints, I have prints signed by Jack, Stan and Joe.  I have boxes of Kirby comics, and I think as time goes by, he will be the most in demand artist.  It doesn't change my opinion that he and his wife messsed up badly with their D.F. and QVC type deals. 

1:  You stated Kirby was a multi-millionaire who had a mansion. That is, in fact, a lie. I'm sorry reality is insulting, but it's not like I'm out to get you or something- you said something that is ridiculous and actually researchable! So yeah- I called you a liar, I'll do it again. When you catch me blatantly lying about something, by all means, call me out. I tend not to lie or say things that are my own guesswork. 

2:   I have made nothing up whatsoever and stand by every statement I say. I have provided context and references to much of what I've posted. Incredible.

3:   I would be the first to agree with you regarding the D.F and QVC deals. You'd be absolutely in the right- but it's just spec, it's not proven. I just need proof of it. 

4:   "I also believe that..." and that's fine, I know you're not a rookie Bill but at the same time- you *believe* it, it doesn't mean it's been PROVEN yet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A simple question-  Do you believe Jack Kirby, and only Jack Kirby, signed the three thousand or so books that were marketed to his fans as being signed by him?

Yes or no?

If I sent a DF signed book in for authentication, would you guarentee it would come back as real?

If your answer is anything but yes to both questions, I'm not sure what you are going on about. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/31/2022 at 3:10 PM, shadroch said:

A simple question-  Do you believe Jack Kirby, and only Jack Kirby, signed the three thousand or so books that were marketed to his fans as being signed by him?

Yes or no?

If I sent a DF signed book in for authentication, would you guarentee it would come back as real?

If your answer is anything but yes to both questions, I'm not sure what you are going on about. 

 

A simple answer- yes I do. 

I also don't know anything about the circumstances or timeline/deadline he had for getting those books signed. Did he have a week? A month? I imagine that even a man with arthritis with a strong will like Kirby's could do a bunch at a time and then return to it later. It just goes against so much of what Kirby said and did that exists in his ledger.

For Kirby to not sign Marvel's contract to get his original art- when he could have used it- and say, "I wouldn't collaborate with the Nazis, I won't collaborate with that"- and then to also publicly state that, "If I sign such a thing, it'll set a precedent to make it that much harder for younger artists to get their stuff"- it just doesn't seem like Kirby to have it in him to scam, blatantly or otherwise.

I do believe he signed them until I'm shown something that strongly casts doubt. Again, did they let him take 3,000 books in a room for one hour?? Then yeah man, I'd consider that's a little difficult. What were the parameters of getting the books signed? Do we know? And QVC has regulations- not because they're so moral, but because of legality. I imagine it's the same with Dynamic Forces. Would they casually allow things to be so unobserved as to welcome the possibility of forgery?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/31/2022 at 2:40 PM, shadroch said:

So no one was talking about him being cash poor.   Got it. 

I used the term 'house rich, cash poor' in describing him living in a 'mansion' BUT also needing to work in animation to get insurance / provide security for his family.
To me this also lends credence that he would sign 3000 comics for QVC / DF to 'secure the bag' for his family.

Saved you a Google...
"Being house-rich and cash-poor means you have more equity locked into the value of your home than you have in liquid assets."


"Secure the bag is a slang expression for acquiring something of value."

On 5/30/2022 at 5:48 PM, shadroch said:

Are you saying Jack didn't live in a million dollar house or that he didn't have an estate estimated at ten million dollars when he dies a few years later?

Also, it appears the house was sold in 1998 for $376,000...nowhere near a million dollar house...

Saved you a Google...
https://opencorporates.com/companies/us_ca/C0886394
https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/2590-Sapra-St-Thousand-Oaks-CA-91362/16483371_zpid/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
0