Heritage June Auction 7 7

[RICKYBOBBY]

On 5/13/2022 at 3:55 PM, Nexus said:

 

The people who have bought this piece over the past few years (and there have been many) DEFINITELY wanted to believe that this was a legit Kirby pencil piece. And then they DEFINITELY wanted everyone else to believe that, too.

Somehow, I DEFINITELY believe that if anyone truly concluded they were holding the real thing...they would have kept it.

Hmm that’s DEFINITELY not true at all Felix. Would have had expected better from you. Didn’t think you were the type to make up things.

Rob Pistella bought it in 2011 ish and I bought it from him in 2018. Before that Mark M owned it since 1996. 3 Owners 3 decades.

What a great example of how quick the truth gets buried and theories, speculation and opinion get confused with FACTS.

 

Edited May 13, 2022 by RICKYBOBBY

[RICKYBOBBY]

On 5/13/2022 at 4:08 PM, Bronty said:

That seems logical!

I'm still not sure I understand the history.

Piecing together what's in this thread, is this supposed to be kirby pencils to some extent (one guess 70%), along with an assistant.     Pencils left unmolested but then inked onto separate boards by both Sinnott and Royer?

Am I following the bouncing ball correctly?

And what parts of that story are uncertain?

I’ll clear up the confusion. 

One Pencil piece with Kirby and assists.

Mike Royer lightboxed pencils and inked.

Joe Sinnott inked a photo copy.

That’s it.

Edited May 13, 2022 by RICKYBOBBY

[Bronty]

On 5/13/2022 at 6:14 PM, RICKYBOBBY said:

I’ll clear up the confusion. 

One Pencil piece with Kirby and assists.

Mike Royer lightboxed pencils and inked.

Joe Sinnott inked a photo copy.

That’s it.

much appreciated

[stinkininkin]

On 5/12/2022 at 10:04 PM, Xatari said:

Wow! They just keep coming!

1st appearance of Ghost Rider (Johnny Blaze) by Mike Ploog. 

Most of these pages are in known collections. Surprised to see this one come up. I wonder how much I can get for a kidney.

It looks like they have it initially mislabeled though as Ghost Rider #10  

https://comics.ha.com/itm/original-comic-art/story-page/mike-ploog-ghost-rider-10-story-page-9-original-art-marvel-1975-/p/7274-204005.s

GREAT PAGE! This whole issue is a personal favorite of mine, and I was kinda hoping the ambiguity in labeling this would allow it to slip through the cracks and land in my lap on the cheap, but alas. Even without a flaming skull anywhere in sight, this page is a prize.

I have 2 pages from this issue and they are all stamped with the red GHOST RIDER #10 where it was reprinted. But make no mistake, this is from Marvel Spotlight #5, the key Ghost Rider origin and first appearance issue.

[drdonaldblake1]

On 5/14/2022 at 8:14 AM, RICKYBOBBY said:

I’ll clear up the confusion. 

One Pencil piece with Kirby and assists.

Mike Royer lightboxed pencils and inked.

Joe Sinnott inked a photo copy.

That’s it.

 please excuse my ignorance, what does lightboxed pencils actually mean? 

Roger traced over Kirby's pencils then inked ?

[drdonaldblake1]

On 5/14/2022 at 9:21 AM, stinkininkin said:

GREAT PAGE! This whole issue is a personal favorite of mine, and I was kinda hoping the ambiguity in labeling this would allow it to slip through the cracks and land in my lap on the cheap, but alas. Even without a flaming skull anywhere in sight, this page is a prize.

I have 2 pages from this issue and they are all stamped with the red GHOST RIDER #10 where it was reprinted. But make no mistake, this is from Marvel Spotlight #5, the key Ghost Rider origin and first appearance issue.

I believe the cover for MS 5 also exists?

Didn't the whole story and cover sell for about 90$k in the early 2000s?

[Bird]

On 5/13/2022 at 7:32 PM, drdonaldblake1 said:

 please excuse my ignorance, what does lightboxed pencils actually mean? 

you place pencils on surface and light shines from below, allowing image to be seen through second piece of paper placed on top of the pencils, which is then inked

the inked image has no pencils underneath

or some such similar image transfer (e.g. overheard projector from elementary school)

 

 

[drdonaldblake1]

On 5/14/2022 at 9:41 AM, Bird said:

you place pencils on surface and light shines from below, allowing image to be seen through second piece of paper placed on top of the pencils, which is then inked

the inked image has no pencils underneath

or some such similar image transfer (e.g. overheard projector from elementary school)

 

 

Ah thanks for clarifying that Bird

[RICKYBOBBY]

On 5/13/2022 at 5:32 PM, drdonaldblake1 said:

 please excuse my ignorance, what does lightboxed pencils actually mean? 

Roger traced over Kirby's pencils then inked ?

You are absolutely correct. He traced the pencils and then inked it. 

[Nexus]

On 5/13/2022 at 3:12 PM, RICKYBOBBY said:

Hmm that’s DEFINITELY not true at all Felix. Would have had expected better from you. Didn’t think you were the type to make up things.

Rob Pistella bought it in 2011 ish and I bought it from him in 2018. Before that Mark M owned it since 1996. 3 Owners 3 decades.

What a great example of how quick the truth gets buried and theories, speculation and opinion get confused with FACTS.

 

Your FACTS are missing some facts...

My friend won it at HA in 2009 for $21510. It had presumably been consigned by Mark M.

In 2011, it came to his attention that the piece may not be full-Kirby pencils. Or any Kirby pencils at all. Upon consulting with renowned Kirby scholars, he realized that it wasn't what he thought it was when he bought it.

In 2012, he consigned it back to HA. He insisted this time that the description include the possibility that the piece was done by an assistant(s). It then resold for $10157.50. Less than half the original result.

It then shows up on Mike Burkey's site. Shortly after, in Rob Pistella's CAF. Where a long comment thread ensued, with various parties making the case for/against. Mostly against, it must be said. (I have the page saved before Rob took it down.) At that point, Rob came up with the designation "Studio of Jack Kirby" for artist attribution.

In 2018, Rob found a taker. So that makes at least 5 owners, not 3.

I did not know you are the current owner. Because the piece has shown up on various venues for sale/auction since. Ankur was selling it for a while, too (and said it had sold?). From all appearances, it had been sold repeatedly since you got in 2018, and your ownership of it was several links ago in the chain.

None of that is made up.

I have the original CAF page with all the comments saved in HTML. Not sure if I'm able to post here. As well, my friend who was the first HA buyer wrote a lengthy and well-researched article about this piece for CFA-APA. Not sure if that can be shared or reproduced. But any CFA-APA members can probably read it. Regardless, none of that is made up, either.

Hope that fills in some of the blanks for you.

[RICKYBOBBY]

On 5/13/2022 at 6:25 PM, Nexus said:

Your FACTS are missing some facts...

My friend won it at HA in 2009 for $21510. It had presumably been consigned by Mark M.

In 2011, it came to his attention that the piece may not be full-Kirby pencils. Or any Kirby pencils at all. Upon consulting with renowned Kirby scholars, he realized that it wasn't what he thought it was when he bought it.

In 2012, he consigned it back to HA. He insisted this time that the description include the possibility that the piece was done by an assistant(s). It then resold for $10157.50. Less than half the original result.

It then shows up on Mike Burkey's site. Shortly after, in Rob Pistella's CAF. Where a long comment thread ensued, with various parties making the case for/against. Mostly against, it must be said. (I have the page saved before Rob took it down.) At that point, Rob came up with the designation "Studio of Jack Kirby" for artist attribution.

In 2018, Rob found a taker. So that makes at least 5 owners, not 3.

I did not know you are the current owner. Because the piece has shown up on various venues for sale/auction since. Ankur was selling it for a while, too (and said it had sold?). From all appearances, it had been sold repeatedly since you got in 2018, and your ownership of it was several links ago in the chain.

None of that is made up.

I have the original CAF page with all the comments saved in HTML. Not sure if I'm able to post here. As well, my friend who was the first HA buyer wrote a lengthy and well-researched article about this piece for CFA-APA. Not sure if that can be shared or reproduced. But any CFA-APA members can probably read it. Regardless, none of that is made up, either.

Hope that fills in some of the blanks for you.

Thanks I forgot about John owning it for like 10 months. My understanding was it went straight to Rob after that and as we know Burkey is a dealer and only buys to resell.
And you are still completely wrong about:

Because the piece has shown up on various venues for sale/auction since. Ankur was selling it for a while, too (and said it had sold?). From all appearances, it had been sold repeatedly since you got in 2018, and your ownership of it was several links ago in the chain.

It was actually offered one time by Ankur for 1 -2 days. That’s it. Never showed up anywhere else. So your claim of it being in various venues and auctions is 100% not true.

And yes your friend did write about this piece and is on the Kirby Museum website.

I will post it for convenience:

https://kirbymuseum.org/blogs/dynamics/2011/09/18/the-silver-surfer-art-mystery/
 

Nothing different then what I am saying and what others like Mark E have confirmed.

Edited May 14, 2022 by RICKYBOBBY

[RICKYBOBBY]

And have to ask - renowned Kirby scholars? Royer? Sinnott? Mark E? Any of them on your list of “renowned” scholar list?

Edited May 14, 2022 by RICKYBOBBY

[Nexus]

On 5/13/2022 at 5:47 PM, RICKYBOBBY said:

Thanks I forgot about John owning it for like 10 months. My understanding was it went straight to Rob after that and as we know Burkey is a dealer and only buys to resell.
And you are still completely wrong about:

Because the piece has shown up on various venues for sale/auction since. Ankur was selling it for a while, too (and said it had sold?). From all appearances, it had been sold repeatedly since you got in 2018, and your ownership of it was several links ago in the chain.

It was actually offered one time by Ankur for 1 -2 days. That’s it. Never showed up anywhere else. So your claim of it being in various venues and auctions is 100% not true.

And yes your friend did write about this piece and is on the Kirby Museum website.

I will post it for convenience:

https://kirbymuseum.org/blogs/dynamics/2011/09/18/the-silver-surfer-art-mystery/
 

Nothing different then what I am saying and what others like Mark E have confirmed.

Not the same piece of writing. He wrote about it for CFA-APA a while later, and after more research. I'll ask if he'll be able to share here.

 

Edited May 14, 2022 by Nexus

[Nexus]

On 5/13/2022 at 5:54 PM, RICKYBOBBY said:

And have to ask - renowned Kirby scholars? Royer? Sinnott? Mark E? Any of them on your list of “renowned” scholar list?

The people John talked to about this piece are listed in his CFA-APA article.

IMO, that Royer and Sinnott inked copies of the pencils is neither here nor there. I can understand why someone who owned the pencils would commission the work, to perhaps help legitimize the piece. But it's just an inking job...that they would take the gig doesn't necessarily indicate anything.

[RICKYBOBBY]

On 5/13/2022 at 7:18 PM, Nexus said:

The people John talked to about this piece are listed in his CFA-APA article.

IMO, that Royer and Sinnott inked copies of the pencils is neither here nor there. I can understand why someone who owned the pencils would commission the work, to perhaps help legitimize the piece. But it's just an inking job...that they would take the gig doesn't necessarily indicate anything.

I dont agree with your opinion as don’t think either Royer and Sinnott have anything to gain by adding their name with Jacks. In fact, Sinnott inked this piece far before this conversation started and from what I know did it for free. Not even a real gig. And from what I heard Sinnott doesn’t sign his name on Kirby pencils that he thinks are fake.

But again - I find the signed inked pieces a lot more indication of things then a bunch of people with 0 skin in the game.

Edited May 14, 2022 by RICKYBOBBY

[Monsterhoodoo]

Hi Ricky Bobby.  I assume that’s a screen name. Mine is John Butler. Yes, I owned it for a bit longer than 10 months. And that link to Rob Stiefel's piece on the Kirby Museum page that you posted was written before I had researched the piece. I think it’s human nature probably (or at least mine) to defend something you own or care about. And I did at the time, as Eriks post sort of blind-sided me. But then I spoke with several people. Kirby scholars? Well, I’m not sure about that designation. But Mark McDermott's name never really came up alongside some of the dealers, artists, and collectors that I spoke with. Greg Theakston, Joe Mannarino, Mike T, Todd Seisser, Glen Gold, Erik Larsen, and David Schwartz did-- I would consider all to be at least educated and knowledgeable about Kirby because they all either knew him or have done the work to know about him for decades. I spoke to all of them. The only guy I couldn’t get to was Evanier. He never answered me. The rest did, and rather quickly.

 All had slightly different things to say, some just weren’t sure and couldn’t really say other than to mention they saw it on Jack’s wall at one point, (that was literally the best piece of info anyone had as to its legitimacy… didn’t pass the sniff test for me) some were certain it was mostly done by another hand… none said, “Oh no, that’s Jack and Jack alone.”

 So, just an opinion here, but that came after a lot of research and an open mind. The key clues for me were

 1. The back of the piece is bone white. So, it never hit Jacks' drawing board which made very specific graphite smudges on the backs of his art. Possible that he did it elsewhere, but that was a rare occurrence.

 2. If you look at pieces Jack did in the late 80s, as you mention as the time period that this was done, they are wonky. Nothing like this.

 3. The piece is very tightly rendered. Some of it looks outlined and filled in. Jack worked with the edge of his pencil and spit the graphite out like he was chiseling, it’s just far too meticulous. Like those cover recreations from the 90s… possibly by the same hand. Look at other Kirby pencil pieces. This is very different.

 4. The pieces the artist traced or used as reference are clear if you look at other Kirby work. The Surfer Sketch from the Kirby Collector issue 48, and a flopped surfer drawing by Kirby and Sinnott from a Marvel Portfolio done in 1979 (with modifications) is the main surfer body. I’ve lined them up in Photoshop and they come pretty darn close.  The Doom head is from a panel in FF #59, and an exploding planet from the Gods portfolio is at least part of the background. I think it would have been odd for Jack to have traced these out. He just didn’t do that. And these are almost exact. The Doom head scales up perfectly, except for the eyeballs.

 5. The erased leg. Kirby just wouldn't have done that.

 Of course, people will believe what they want. Probably Rob's designation as The Studio of Jack Kirby is about as accurate as one can be with the piece. Someone else's hand is in there. I have a pretty good idea whose it is, but I’m not comfortable saying who that is here. How much Jack is in there if at all? Who knows? Unless the Kirby estate wants to say and that’s probably not going to happen. But I personally think there is very little. But I also don’t think it’s a forgery, as Erik originally stated.  I believe someone helped Jack out because he and Roz needed the dough, and it was a decent thing to do between friends. Now that stuff is worth thousands of dollars, I think it matters.

 So, I flipped it back through Heritage. They gave me a slightly better deal than the hammer price in the end, but I still lost money. But I made sure people knew what they were getting and wrote the auction description myself, with some additions by Todd Hignite. I did write a lengthy article about this in the APA as Felix mentioned. I won’t post that here for anyone to download, but if you want to read it, I think it's in issue 102. This is really what it says though--  Most were kind enough to talk to me about it and help me come to my conclusion, but of course, we’ll probably never really know for sure.

[grapeape]

On 5/14/2022 at 12:51 AM, Monsterhoodoo said:

 •The erased leg. Kirby just wouldn't have done that.

 •The Studio of Jack Kirby is about as accurate as one can be with the piece. Someone else's hand is in there. I have a pretty good idea whose it is, but I’m not comfortable saying who that is

•Unless the Kirby estate wants to say and that’s probably not going to happen. 

 •but of course, we’ll probably never really know for sure.

Erased leg? My mind immediately goes to Vinnie C, but only in jest. I don’t want to complicate a serious issue.

I bulleted some of your concerns as a former owner. We also have Ricky Bobby, and he has steadfastly defended his position here and in other threads.

I am pleased to hear from someone else who owned this piece of art. From the outside I think it’s easy to see the red flags, but much tougher when you’ve made the purchase. Thank you so much John.

Pieces like these, or the recreations I think must be sold with at minimum the Studio Assistants contribution disclaimer.

Your most salient point is the Kirby Estate. If they would make a public statement in regards to the “Kirby’s” in question, it would settle the discontent.

But I agree with your feeling that it’s probably not going to happen.

Thanks for speaking on this. I think there is enough information out there now that whoever wins this piece will have overrode a few “proceed with caution” signs. They are taking on some baggage with •studio assistants attached. I’d prefer to know with 💯 % certainty who “helped” Jack. 
 

I think short of someone stepping forward to identify the assistant(s) there’s honestly not much more to do then trade conjecture.

After the piece sells we likely will hear opinions on the final bid. This is interesting but there are so many other highlights in this auction I think we should turn back too.

Let’s be good to one another everybody 

 

 

 

 

[vodou]

There’s so much baggage in this hobby, someone should open up an outlet store…oh, wait, never mind…

[RICKYBOBBY]

On 5/14/2022 at 1:51 AM, Monsterhoodoo said:

Hi Ricky Bobby.  I assume that’s a screen name. Mine is John Butler. Yes, I owned it for a bit longer than 10 months. And that link to Rob Stiefel's piece on the Kirby Museum page that you posted was written before I had researched the piece. I think it’s human nature probably (or at least mine) to defend something you own or care about. And I did at the time, as Eriks post sort of blind-sided me. But then I spoke with several people. Kirby scholars? Well, I’m not sure about that designation. But Mark McDermott's name never really came up alongside some of the dealers, artists, and collectors that I spoke with. Greg Theakston, Joe Mannarino, Mike T, Todd Seisser, Glen Gold, Erik Larsen, and David Schwartz did-- I would consider all to be at least educated and knowledgeable about Kirby because they all either knew him or have done the work to know about him for decades. I spoke to all of them. The only guy I couldn’t get to was Evanier. He never answered me. The rest did, and rather quickly.

 All had slightly different things to say, some just weren’t sure and couldn’t really say other than to mention they saw it on Jack’s wall at one point, (that was literally the best piece of info anyone had as to its legitimacy… didn’t pass the sniff test for me) some were certain it was mostly done by another hand… none said, “Oh no, that’s Jack and Jack alone.”

 So, just an opinion here, but that came after a lot of research and an open mind. The key clues for me were

 1. The back of the piece is bone white. So, it never hit Jacks' drawing board which made very specific graphite smudges on the backs of his art. Possible that he did it elsewhere, but that was a rare occurrence.

 2. If you look at pieces Jack did in the late 80s, as you mention as the time period that this was done, they are wonky. Nothing like this.

 3. The piece is very tightly rendered. Some of it looks outlined and filled in. Jack worked with the edge of his pencil and spit the graphite out like he was chiseling, it’s just far too meticulous. Like those cover recreations from the 90s… possibly by the same hand. Look at other Kirby pencil pieces. This is very different.

 4. The pieces the artist traced or used as reference are clear if you look at other Kirby work. The Surfer Sketch from the Kirby Collector issue 48, and a flopped surfer drawing by Kirby and Sinnott from a Marvel Portfolio done in 1979 (with modifications) is the main surfer body. I’ve lined them up in Photoshop and they come pretty darn close.  The Doom head is from a panel in FF #59, and an exploding planet from the Gods portfolio is at least part of the background. I think it would have been odd for Jack to have traced these out. He just didn’t do that. And these are almost exact. The Doom head scales up perfectly, except for the eyeballs.

 5. The erased leg. Kirby just wouldn't have done that.

 Of course, people will believe what they want. Probably Rob's designation as The Studio of Jack Kirby is about as accurate as one can be with the piece. Someone else's hand is in there. I have a pretty good idea whose it is, but I’m not comfortable saying who that is here. How much Jack is in there if at all? Who knows? Unless the Kirby estate wants to say and that’s probably not going to happen. But I personally think there is very little. But I also don’t think it’s a forgery, as Erik originally stated.  I believe someone helped Jack out because he and Roz needed the dough, and it was a decent thing to do between friends. Now that stuff is worth thousands of dollars, I think it matters.

 So, I flipped it back through Heritage. They gave me a slightly better deal than the hammer price in the end, but I still lost money. But I made sure people knew what they were getting and wrote the auction description myself, with some additions by Todd Hignite. I did write a lengthy article about this in the APA as Felix mentioned. I won’t post that here for anyone to download, but if you want to read it, I think it's in issue 102. This is really what it says though--  Most were kind enough to talk to me about it and help me come to my conclusion, but of course, we’ll probably never really know for sure.

Making an edit to my post and removed some of the repeated information:

Great!  Nice to read your full write up John - thanks for that. Seems like you are saying the same thing as I am - Jack did this piece with a help of another because of his ailing health. Been saying that all along.

I could go one by one and break down each of your points but they are just opinions. As you stated so I am not going into that.

What I did want to add was that I did speak to Mark Evanier on the piece. For the people who don’t know - he was Jacks friend and was around him and his family during his ailing health in the 80s. He basically confirmed Jacks work on the piece.

Here is what he said :

ME: Hi, Rick.  I make a point of never authenticating artwork unless I 
can inspect the original but I can tell you this...

Jack did a drawing that looked exactly like what you sent me.  It was 
when he was having trouble with his drawing hand so he had some 
assistance from someone else, probably Mike Thibodeaux.  I believe it 
was somewhere between 50% and 75% by Jack.
Does that help?

 

I don’t want to keep going back and forth and flooding this forum on the same conversation. You have said exactly what I have been saying all along - the piece is done by Jack with assists.

Thanks!

 

Edited May 14, 2022 by RICKYBOBBY
Removed repetitive info

[grapeape]

TOS 39  Iron Man Story Page 13 Original Art (Marvel, 1963).

The last page of Iron Man's first appearance and origin story! 

Image on the left currently at auction. I think it has a chance to

beat the $168,000 paid for the page to the right auctioned in April.

The 2nd panel is killer + the middle panel IM using his heater. the 

last 2 panels full frontal IM plus the walk away recap into the sunset.

 

Edited May 14, 2022 by grapeape