Tales of Suspense 39 Jack Kirby All ??? 0

[The Voord]

25 minutes ago, christosgage said:

I'm pretty sure Kirby rarely, if ever, inked his own stuff at all, because he felt it was "drawing the same thing twice" which didn't interest him.

Kirby did ink some of own pencils but as you suggest was rare.

[glendgold]

I hadn't noticed that c-link had failed to follow c-connect's lead in mentioning the issue. That's disappointing. 

Glen

 

 

 

[grapeape]

41 minutes ago, glendgold said:

I hadn't noticed that c-link had failed to follow c-connect's lead in mentioning the issue. That's disappointing. 

Glen

 

 

 

I was also disappointed.
I posted this  just to give potential bidders something to think about. There are people that own these recreations and are happy. 

Will the winning bidder this time be happy if they find out after the fact there are concerns about the claim this is “all” Jack?

[drdroom]

3 hours ago, The Voord said:

https://ohdannyboy.blogspot.com/2011/10/original-art-stories-mystery-of-jack.html

TOS 39 is listed alongside AF # 15 and ASM # 1 as being Kirby only.

The attribution is a quote from Theakston, and just to be clear, "Kirby" in this context means Kirby's ghost, and these three are distinguished from a larger group done by Kirby's ghost and inked by Ayers. The sense of the article is that Kirby drew none of them. I'm not asserting the truth of this, but that's Theakston's claim, accepted by OhDannyBoy.

 

[grapeape]

10 minutes ago, drdroom said:

The attribution is a quote from Theakston, and just to be clear, "Kirby" in this context means Kirby's ghost, and these three are distinguished from a larger group done by Kirby's ghost and inked by Ayers. The sense of the article is that Kirby drew none of them. I'm not asserting the truth of this, but that's Theakston's claim, accepted by OhDannyBoy.

 

This is one of the “controversies” surrounding these works attributed to Jack. Again any collector willing to take the plunge will carry this luggage with the art.

Auction houses I believe have a duty to share “disclaimers” and view points that question legitimacy. Then the bidders can make an informed decision.

Thank you for sharing ohdannyboy blog

Edited May 23, 2020 by grapeape

[Unca Ben]

9 hours ago, bluechip said:

the vast majority of Kirby pencil art out there has inks by someone else over it and most of the original pencils were erased.   Many pieces simply had layouts.  So, even if all Jack did with this was to trace or lightbox or copy the basic shapes, he did as much as, if not more than, he had done on many other pieces that are considered Kirby works 

Unless an inker erased Jack's finished pencils before inking (?), then most of the pencils would be under the ink.  May not be able to see 'em, but they're there.

[glendgold]

4 hours ago, drdroom said:

The attribution is a quote from Theakston, and just to be clear, "Kirby" in this context means Kirby's ghost, and these three are distinguished from a larger group done by Kirby's ghost and inked by Ayers. The sense of the article is that Kirby drew none of them. I'm not asserting the truth of this, but that's Theakston's claim, accepted by OhDannyBoy.

 

It's weird that for four of the five recreations Ayers inked, he wasn't the inker on the original cover. 

[The Voord]

4 hours ago, glendgold said:

It's weird that for four of the five recreations Ayers inked, he wasn't the inker on the original cover. 

Same could be said about the ghost penciller.

. . . if you believe in ghosts  

[The Voord]

13 hours ago, drdroom said:

The attribution is a quote from Theakston, and just to be clear, "Kirby" in this context means Kirby's ghost, and these three are distinguished from a larger group done by Kirby's ghost and inked by Ayers. The sense of the article is that Kirby drew none of them. I'm not asserting the truth of this, but that's Theakston's claim, accepted by OhDannyBoy.

 

The link I provided for Danny boy's article is just there for additional reading, so make of it what you want.  All things considered, my own belief is that Kirby did some of the basic pencilling, with an assistant tightening things up.  I think it's a bit of a stretch to suggest (at that point in time) Jack was up to successfully replicating earlier drawings on his own.

[The Voord]

14 hours ago, grapeape said:

 There are people that own these recreations and are happy. 

 

Maybe the same kind of collectors who own original 'Bob Kane' drawings . . .

[RICKYBOBBY]

Actually - according to Mark Evanier - no one ever ghosted Kirby. He had people “help” him finish commissions when his health was ailing.

https://bleedingcool.com/comics/jack-kirby-stan-lee-idea-spider-man/
 

He was asked about rumors regarding Kirby's work on the 1980s toy tie-in Super Powers books from DC — was some of the art ghosted (i.e. done by other uncredited artists in Kirby's style)?

"That rumour is not true," Evanier responded, saying that later on when he was ailing, Kirby had people who "helped him out a little on commissions — Jack actually had less assistants than anybody else who produced that much work — but nobody was ghosting for him."

I used to own the JiM 83 which was inked by Ayers. Nothing wrong with the pieces but they are to “mechanical”. Take the FF 72 recreation for example which was commissioned by Glen Danzig which is 100% Kirby. They look similar to the Sotheby’s recreations but they still have that same feeling of “it’s just a copy”. 

https://www.comicartfans.com/GalleryPiece.asp?Piece=509871

RB

[RICKYBOBBY]

Plus I wouldn’t consider Greg a source of reliable information. If you heard some of the stories like from Royer - you would know he’s a liar and just made up random things to feel important.

Not to pounce on the poor soul but it is what it is.

Edited May 23, 2020 by RICKYBOBBY

[drdroom]

1 hour ago, The Voord said:

The link I provided for Danny boy's article is just there for additional reading, so make of it what you want.  All things considered, my own belief is that Kirby did some of the basic pencilling, with an assistant tightening things up.  I think it's a bit of a stretch to suggest (at that point in time) Jack was up to successfully replicating earlier drawings on his own.

Personally, I think that is wishful thinking. There is no basic pencilling required to produce this result. It is traced, and then there is a careful process of heavy pencil drawing to emulate lines that were originally done in ink. It would have been elder abuse to make Jack perform any of this tedious work. There are a few variations from the original in the black spotting, like the black dots on Iron Man's hand, so I could see Jack adding some finish touch-up marks, similar to the ink touch ups he used to add to other artists pages in the S&K shop days.

 

58 minutes ago, RICKYBOBBY said:

Actually - according to Mark Evanier - no one ever ghosted Kirby. He had people “help” him finish commissions when his health was ailing.

https://bleedingcool.com/comics/jack-kirby-stan-lee-idea-spider-man/
 

He was asked about rumors regarding Kirby's work on the 1980s toy tie-in Super Powers books from DC — was some of the art ghosted (i.e. done by other uncredited artists in Kirby's style)?

"That rumour is not true," Evanier responded, saying that later on when he was ailing, Kirby had people who "helped him out a little on commissions — Jack actually had less assistants than anybody else who produced that much work — but nobody was ghosting for him."

I used to own the JiM 83 which was inked by Ayers. Nothing wrong with the pieces but they are to “mechanical”. Take the FF 72 recreation for example which was commissioned by Glen Danzig which is 100% Kirby. They look similar to the Sotheby’s recreations but they still have that same feeling of “it’s just a copy”. 

https://www.comicartfans.com/GalleryPiece.asp?Piece=509871

RB

Noted that the toy tie-ins were not ghosted. I never thought they were, but it's interesting that somebody did think so.  If I'm parsing Mark's comments carefully here, he's acknowledging there are other hands on the commissions and saying nobody was "ghosting"-- in other words, reading literally, nobody ever created original content under Jack's name. The dictionary (Merriam-Webster) definition of ghost is "to write for and in the name of another." The commissions, arguably, don't qualify for that. They are reproductions of old works that Jack indisputably "wrote" himself. We've been calling the assistants "ghosts" but really they were just copiers. Reproducing Jack's work under Jack's supervision. That's not what we're talking about when we note that Sickles ghosted Caniff or Toth ghosted Tufts etc.

PS Your point on the unreliability of Theakston is well taken. I'm not giving his testimony any weight in and of itself. RIP

 

[grapeape]

1 hour ago, RICKYBOBBY said:

Plus I wouldn’t consider Greg a source of reliable information. If you heard some of the stories like from Royer - you would know he’s a liar and just made up random things to feel important.

Not to pounce on the poor soul but it is what it is.

I do not care for G T. Coming out after Jack and Roz were gone to make his claims. As a “friend” to them both he didn’t do them any favors. 
 

That being said, the speculation will always be there. Even if you believe Jack did 100% of the work the responsible thing to do before selling is disclose a significant amount of opinions to the contrary. It mitigates the surprise factor when a collector spends their money and puts a piece up proudly on CGC or CAF. The negative comments and inquisition are coming. So long as a collector knows that before buying they can be happy I guess.

Like you mentioned Evanier said “people helped him out a little” when Jack was sick.

What people?

How much help on the art?

Is Danzig on the record saying he saw the 72 cover drawn by Jack? We know all the people in Jacks inner circle and all the dealers who bought and sold commissions or recreations.

Love to hear from them one way or the other.

 

 

[The Voord]

51 minutes ago, drdroom said:

Personally, I think that is wishful thinking. There is no basic pencilling required to produce this result. It is traced, and then there is a careful process of heavy pencil drawing to emulate lines that were originally done in ink. It would have been elder abuse to make Jack perform any of this tedious work. There are a few variations from the original in the black spotting, like the black dots on Iron Man's hand, so I could see Jack adding some finish touch-up marks, similar to the ink touch ups he used to add to other artists pages in the S&K shop days.

 

 

 

'Basic pencilling' . . . in the sense of Jack making a minimal contribution (if Kirby's family is selling a 'Jack Kirby' recreation, I guess it needs to have some Kirby involvement).  My idea on that one (if Jack was using an assistant to do all the 'tedious' work) was along the lines of, "Here, Jack, you trace some basic layouts and I'll take care of all the detail."  It's all guess work, no-one knows for sure.

Maybe Jack's involvement was the marker pen you suggested he was using a while back to fill in all the black areas?  

Edited May 23, 2020 by The Voord

[John E.]

I have no dog in this race. 
 

But who are these assistants? What are their names and where are they now? It’s a small industry, surely someone has met one of them? Where are the Jack Kirby tributes and recollections from them working for/with/under The King?

If I were vested in Jack Kirby art these are the questions I’d be asking. 

[The Voord]

34 minutes ago, John E. said:

I have no dog in this race. 
 

But who are these assistants? What are their names and where are they now? It’s a small industry, surely someone has met one of them? Where are the Jack Kirby tributes and recollections from them working for/with/under The King?

If I were vested in Jack Kirby art these are the questions I’d be asking. 

You need to speak to someone well versed in conspiracy theories.;  Like the boardie who had it all figured out where all those missing early Silver Age Marvel covers got spirited to . . . 

Edited May 23, 2020 by The Voord

[bluechip]

On 5/22/2020 at 1:53 PM, drdroom said:

That's completely wrong:) Jack pencilling or doing layouts was an act of original creation. He didn't even work with prelims as some artists do, so tracing had no role in his practice. If he traced a copy of the original for this, he did far, far less than he did on a page he laid out (which means also plotted). 

But also, your scenario sounds unlikely to me. The point of having assistants is not so the main artist can do the scut work. Any fool can trace the picture. Why would Jack trace it? 

If you believe the "scenario" I posited is untrue, that's fine.  Because that's your opinion and if it's based on logical assessment, even better.

If you say I am wrong about that (even though I didn't say I knew that "scenario" to be a fact). that is fine, as well  

But when you say I am "completely wrong" that the tracing would be an equal amount of actual work on the page as exists on other pieces by Kirby, you are conflating opinions with facts.

Your opinion is that it's not his work if it's not an "original...creation" but that is not how "work" is defined.   If it were, we'd never say that ANY recreation was an artists' actual work.

What I said is that IF Kirby traced his own work, it means there may well be as much of his actual hand on that piece as there is on another piece on which he did layouts (especially if those layouts were then erased).    

It doesn't change that because, as you say, the "layouts (were) an act of original creation".   

Your opinion (or anyone's opinion) of them as a lesser work of creation or being of lesser value is not the issue I was addressing. 

 

 

  

[drdroom]

3 hours ago, The Voord said:

'Basic pencilling' . . . in the sense of Jack making a minimal contribution (if Kirby's family is selling a 'Jack Kirby' recreation, I guess it needs to have some Kirby involvement).  My idea on that one (if Jack was using an assistant to do all the 'tedious' work) was along the lines of, "Here, Jack, you trace some basic layouts and I'll take care of all the detail."  It's all guess work, no-one knows for sure.

Maybe Jack's involvement was the marker pen you suggested he was using a while back to fill in all the black areas?  

JACK DON'T TRACE. Jack don't ink, & Jack definitely don't fill blacks. Filling blacks is first day assistant stuff, before they are skilled enough to rule borders! My theory was ghost markers, but I defer to Vodou, OhDannyBoy, and a closer examination of the Comiclink scan & accept the piece as all pencil. I wonder if the plan was to have it inked and that didn't happen for some reason?

[bluechip]

20 hours ago, drdroom said:

The attribution is a quote from Theakston, and just to be clear, "Kirby" in this context means Kirby's ghost, and these three are distinguished from a larger group done by Kirby's ghost and inked by Ayers. The sense of the article is that Kirby drew none of them. I'm not asserting the truth of this, but that's Theakston's claim, accepted by OhDannyBoy.

 

The suggestion that the family put one over on collectors is a bold one (though I can see the logical behind it).   I can even see the logic behind the idea that Kirby might have been unable to do the work and agreed to "do" the recreations so his family would get some money before he passed.   But why, oh WHY, does the person quoted in this article then take it a giant leap further and say that we should presume Kirby didn't touch these because he'd been on record as saying he didn't like to ink or do recreations because it meant he was doing the work "twice"?  

The simple fact that Kirby formally and contractually agreed to provide those recreations completely undercuts that particular assertion for questioning their value.   Yet it's pretty front and center here.   And any time someone uses a false assertion, you can -- and should -- question the agenda behind the other assertions that support his conclusion.