• 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

2 minutes ago, Volcano1991 said:

I think he's referring to the books sold on HSN.

he said jack kirby and wife.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, kav said:

Many authors and others do this.

I'm not aware of one's that charge a hefty premium and then have some one else do it, but even if there are, it's still fraud and a despicable practice. Jack was a millionaire, many times over, and certainly didn't need the money.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, shadroch said:

I'm not aware of one's that charge a hefty premium and then have some one else do it, but even if there are, it's still fraud and a despicable practice. Jack was a millionaire, many times over, and certainly didn't need the money.

I dont know much about it but if they were selling fake sigs that is just plain wrong.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, James J Johnson said:

What was a Jack Kirby signature's value in 1991-4? A nice, historical addition, but of little value other than ceremonial at that time. Autograph's on comics and books really had little value in this hobby until (and thank you once again, CGC) the advent of CGC signature series witnessed autographs. At that point, as did the rest of the hobby market values, the autographs gained in value and significance, witnessed or otherwise.

These books weren't given away. People paid big premiums to get them for Dynamic Forces, QVC or wherever. 

As far back as 1974, Marvel was charging premium prices for limited editions signed books.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, shadroch said:

If CGC is correct and all COAs are worthless, wouldn't that include their own? 

No. A yellow label CGC signature series slabbed book bears an autograph of a creator that was eye-witnessed by a CGC representative. The yellow label is like a notary's stamp on a document. This transcends the typical autograph COA, which doesn't necessarily refer to an eye-witnessed signature, but one that was not witnessed and is being issued a COA based on the opinion of an authenticator, who can be right or wrong, the margin of error differing from one to another depending upon their level of expertise with authenticating specific signatures.

CGC's COA transcends authenticating. It's not an opinion. It's fact based. Real time. A rep sees the creator sign the book and documents it. It's the ultimate type of authentication you can buy, akin to seeing the item signed for yourself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, shadroch said:

These books weren't given away. People paid big premiums to get them for Dynamic Forces, QVC or wherever. 

As far back as 1974, Marvel was charging premium prices for limited editions signed books.

Then in that case, Dynamic Forces should have witnessed the signatures. I imagine they didn't have an authenticator view them as they were dropped off and picked up at the Kirby's home and then were sold in good faith. And believe me, my opinion that these are secretarial (the ones I've seen. Of course there may be more that I haven't seen, as I've seen probably 50 or less over the years) is shared by many close to Jack and those that have studied Jack's tracks over his career. IMO, that's not Jack's track, and one dead giveaway is that these 1961 homage books all bear autographs that are eerily similar in character. Which at any time in Jack's career, even with different signatures obtained the same day, is highly suspect.

Edited by James J Johnson
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, James J Johnson said:

No. A yellow label CGC signature series slabbed book bears an autograph of a creator that was eye-witnessed by a CGC representative. The yellow label is like a notary's stamp on a document. This transcends the typical autograph COA, which doesn't necessarily refer to an eye-witnessed signature, but one that was not witnessed and is being issued a COA based on the opinion of an authenticator, who can be right or wrong, the margin of error differing from one to another depending upon their level of expertise with authenticating specific signatures.

CGC's COA transcends authenticating. It's not an opinion. It's fact based. Real time. A rep sees the creator sign the book and documents it. It's the ultimate type of authentication you can buy, akin to seeing the item signed for yourself.

Nice spin but in the end you are trusting the witness, trusting CGC , and trusting a yellow label. A number of former Signature Series facilitators are no longer certified or whatever the term is.. Why do you think that is?

If you chose to think that gives you more province than a COA from a reputable dealer, I hope you enjoy the kool aid.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, shadroch said:

Nice spin but in the end you are trusting the witness, trusting CGC , and trusting a yellow label. A number of former Signature Series facilitators are no longer certified or whatever the term is.. Why do you think that is?

If you chose to think that gives you more province than a COA from a reputable dealer, I hope you enjoy the kool aid.

So you're stating that CGC's yellow label witnessing is no more reliable than any autograph authenticator who goes to his files to pull up exemplars of signatures for cmparison and then renders a verdict on authenticity based on his opinion based on whether or not he can find an exemplar that matches? If that's your contention, my opinion is drastically different.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, James J Johnson said:

Then in that case, Dynamic Forces should have witnessed the signatures. I imagine they didn't have an authenticator view them as they were dropped off and picked up at the Kirby's home and then were sold in good faith. And believe me, my opinion that these are secretarial (the ones I've seen. Of course there may be more that I haven't seen, as I've seen probably 50 or less over the years) is shared by many close to Jack and those that have studied Jack's tracks over his career..

I'm not arguing with you. I don't care much for  signature series or autographs. Only one I own is an Avengers 4 with Joe and Stans signature. I do have a great lithograph signed by all three, that I'm pretty sure is real but my heirs can find out.

However, it the Kirbys did accept money from DF for Jack to sign and his wife signed instead, it's a black eye on his legacy. I, for one, hope you are mistaken and that Jack signed them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, James J Johnson said:

So you're stating that CGC's yellow label witnessing is no more reliable than any autograph authenticator who goes to his files to pull up exemplars of signatures for cmparison and then renders a verdict on authenticity based on his opinion based on whether or not he can find an exemplar that matches? If that's your contention, my opinion is drastically different.

When Paul Gulacy signs and numbers 250  copies of a book for Dark Horse, I think the COA is every bit as legit as if I paid some dealer to watch Gulacy sign a raw  copy at a show.

Not all COAs are equal. Nor are they all worthless. If you ask me if  yellow label is more desirable than many, if not most COAs, I don't disagree. Where you lose me is if you tell me you trust CGC 100% and everyone else 0%.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, shadroch said:

When Paul Gulacy signs and numbers 250  copies of a book for Dark Horse, I think the COA is every bit as legit as if I paid some dealer to watch Gulacy sign a raw  copy at a show.

Not all COAs are equal. Nor are they all worthless. If you ask me if  yellow label is more desirable than many, if not most COAs, I don't disagree. Where you lose me is if you tell me you trust CGC 100% and everyone else 0%.

Couldnt someone sign a bunch themselves and print out copies of the COAs tho?  Harder to fake a yellow label I think altho as I said there can be some gaps in the process as witnessed by Buzz.

Edited by kav
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, shadroch said:

I, for one, hope you are mistaken and that Jack signed them.

As has been said by hobbyists who are not only Kirby fans, but had the luck and honor of knowing him personally, and visited with him during his declining years, "Jack could barely hold a pen". Now this, in and of itself, doesn't mean that jack couldn't have signed all of them, somehow, or some of them, as is likely, or none at all, but anecdotal testimony to his physical state at this time, as seen by those close to him, plus with what I know of Jack's tracks, 1935 and up, lead me to the opinion that of the ones I've seen, and again let me stress that I've only seen what would prove to be a small portion of them from this signing, not all of them by any means, they bear the secretarial signature of Roz and not Jack.  Of course, that is an opinion. Mine. Based on the signature. And that opinion is shared by others. Which means nothing as far as authenticating them. Authentication is always subjective, unless witnessed by CGC. Then, IMO, it's a matter of record.

Edited by James J Johnson
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, kav said:

Couldnt someone sign a bunch themselves and print out copies of the COAs tho?  Harder to fake a yellow label I think altho as I said there can be some gaps in the process as witnessed by Buzz.

Anyone can create a COA.  Many are worthless, but not all.

I attended an auction and the catalogue said all lots come with a COA. Sounded good until I looked at the COA. It said something like- As a long time collector, I certify that years of collecting has given me the authority to recognise this as an authentic fillintheblank.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, shadroch said:

Anyone can create a COA.  Many are worthless, but not all.

I attended an auction and the catalogue said all lots come with a COA. Sounded good until I looked at the COA. It said something like- As a long time collector, I certify that years of collecting has given me the authority to recognise this as an authentic fillintheblank.

 

mail.gif

 

 

 

:roflmao:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, kav said:

Couldnt someone sign a bunch themselves and print out copies of the COAs tho?  Harder to fake a yellow label I think altho as I said there can be some gaps in the process as witnessed by Buzz.

It's not just shows. I dropped off a blank book for Herb Trimpe to do a sketch on. Len Wein was also at the show and I asked that he also sign it. Len got sick and missed Sunday so the facilitator held on to the book for two months before getting Len to sign it. I'm reasonably certain he didn't keep it in his immediate possession the entire two months.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, eee91 said:

But in the example you posted above, it appears whoever got it slabbed requested that CGC treat the unwitnessed Kirby signature as a DEFECT. That's why instead of a green label, the book got marked down harshly and is graded as a 6.5.

Exactly what I was thinking...well done.  

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