James J Johnson

Good. Jack's track.

This is Jack's track. You're good to go.

Within their walls of text, are they offering something of greater value to a buyer by offering to sell it to them for less if they hold off from buying it on ebay and instead opt to buy it from their website, thereby bypassing the very medium that is allowing them to find these buyers?

My guess is that you're somewhere in central Florida? Maybe the Ocala area? Or a place that has a similarly consistent "rain-forest" like humidity level? Rain in the AM, clearing, and then rain again, typically, followed by a hazy, steamy sunny day?

As far as I understand ebay bylaws, this would be a violation of ebay guidelines. That is specifically, the promotion of an off-ebay website as a preferred avenue for sales. What the seller is doing is using language and images that directs ebay members viewing his items to his webpage, and offering an advantage that his ebay competitors don't have, "why buy on ebay? We can spare you paying sales tax if you bypass ebay and instead buy from our website instead; a huge savings", I paraphrase, but that is the way I'm interpreting the language. This violates two principle. One, re-directing ebay buyers to your site by, 2) offering savings that other similar ebay sellers who must rely on ebay alone cannot match. Now that's commerce. That's fine in the business world. A seller who can offer advantage to a buyer that another seller can't, getting the lion's share of business. But in this case, Berk is violating eBay's guidelines to do it (Promoting his own website in his ebay listings by offering sales tax free sales off of ebay) Not only is he doing the equivalent of setting up a fruit stand in the parking lot of his local supermarket, he's also offering the supermarket's customers their fruit sales tax free, "Why buy it in the store? It'll cost you less right here, from me instead". Now he can set up that fruit stand anywhere he pleases (as long as he's not on someone else's property). And that's what Berk is doing here. Driving ebay consumers to his site using his landlord to do it.

Coming from the wizard himself, his back acting up or not, that's the highest of recommendations.

This book is a good visual example of the difference between pro and am restoration. Colors here are very mismatched and not seamless by any stretch, one of the main characteristics of amateur resto.

tree-fiddy?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

That's because you've seen Roz's secretarial Jack track many times, further reinforced because like many forgers, a forger doesn't always necessarily use an authentic signature for their exemplar! Many times it occurs that a forgery was modeled after a forgery that the forger and those that thought, "that looks good" were not aware of as being a forgery. Now it is quite possible that Jack did sign some of the 1991-1993/4 Dynamic forces pieces, and whatever other non-Dynamic forces pieces that were dropped off at his home and picked up later on. But IMO, this isn't one of them that Jack signed. I can give you many reasons why, but that not only would help you and /or others that are in the market for an authentic Kirby signature, it would assist any forgers who stumble across this thread and there are already sellers on ebay whose stores are 95% Lee and Kirby signatures and my going into great detail would serve as an instruction manual for them to amend their errors in their future forgeries, which now are childishly easy to discern.

Great explanation. Saves me having to deliver any more than the punch line and most important element of the "Jack Kirby" signature on this item. It's not Jack. Its Roz's secretarial/proxy Jack Kirby signature. .