Richard Rae & The curious case of the Mike Royer light-boxed artworks . . .

[Terry Doyle]

In recent weeks it was highlighted to the listers on Comicart-l that someone on eBay was misleading would-be-buyers by offering for sale Mike Royer art (where Mike had light-boxed a Jack Kirby pencil illustration) and describing the work as being Kirby/Royer.

 

When I looked at the eBay listing, I could tell by the e-mail address I noticed that the seller was an Australian collector named Richard Rae. Richard is a CAF member who had already received flak (by myself and others) for showcasing Mike Royer light-boxed art (as per his eBay offering) described as Kirby/Royer. In fact, not only had Mike signed these artworks . . . he had also inked-in a ‘Jack Kirby’ signature (with no notation to the effect that Kirby’s hand was not present in the physical – inked –artwork).

 

After some further comments were added to his CAF Royer light-box jobs (effectively complaining about the misleading nature of the pieces), Richard finally re-uploaded the artworks (wiping the negative comments in the process) and amended his descriptions to reflect the fact that Jack Kirby’s hand was not present in the Mike Royer pieces.

 

End of story?

 

Not quite . . .

 

For some months now I’ve been aware of some artworks in Richard’s CAF Galleries that originated from a collector friend of mine. The collector in question is one of the good guys in this hobby . . . someone I’ve bought from in the past . . . someone I hold in the highest of regard.

 

At least one of the pieces Richard had obtained from my friend was being offered for sale at a high asking price.

 

Last week, out of curiosity, I asked my friend if – by chance – Richard had traded for the artwork he was now offering for sale?

 

Parts of the e-mail correspondence I received told me the following:

 

“Yes, last year I sent 2 covers to Richard Rae in trade for 3 "Kirby" pieces. This has been the worst trade that I've done as collector in my life, although I also obtained another piece that was pretty good. The deal was complicated and lengthy. Richard insisted very much in having a deal and apparently he spent considerable time in the hospital (or at least he said this), and he didn’t mention that the pieces were not actually penciled by Kirby until the art was on the way to my house. When they arrived, I sent pictures of this "Kirby" art to Mike Burkey, who confirmed my suspicions and said that the value was not more than 200 or 300 dollars each. I let it go because I was guilty for not asking enough about what I was acquiring.”

 

And in a follow-up reply:

 

“Yes, he did not said clearly that these drawings were done recently and that Kirby never touched these originals (and, in consequence, the value was very low), but as I said, I feel 50% responsible for being too gullible and not asking more before. For this reason, I would prefer that you only make a general mention of this matter (to make other collectors aware), and I prefer that my CAF ID, name (and the exact pieces traded) to remain anonymous.

 

Thanks for your interest and help.”

 

Needless to say, I feel gutted for my friend.

 

Form your own opinions on this one – but, personally, I now liken Richard Rae to little more than a con-man or a thief.

 

[Terry Doyle]

Horrible story- I just had a recent close call with an expensive forgery myself.

 

On a related note- I could be way off on this one, but the splash to JLA 22 is on ebay, with no claims of restoration/recreated stats or the like.

 

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=180639828010

 

The interesting thing is that, in my recent search for a restoration expert, I saw this very splash on a resto website, where the expert tells how he recreated the missing stat at the top

 

http://www.agraphicstateofmind.com/restoration/jla_22.html

 

Maybe it's not a big deal (I'm still a little shell shocked at how close I came to being taken on that forgery)

 

The re-created stat wouldn't be a biggie to me or, I would imagine, most other collectors.

[jeremyslawsky]

I'm glad someone is bringing this up. I had also noticed as Richard posted these on Caf and the comments that followed. His descriptions were evasive and misleading. Richard mentioned someone to the effect that they were "finished Kirby/Royer" pieces. I also must feel bad for your friend for being "scammed". I believe one of these or another Royer lightboxed piece sold recently on eBay for less than $100, so I'm sure your friend took a loss on the deal.

 

This also makes me question the Steranko/Buckler piece he has for sale. I remember seeing the Steranko in pencil form a few years back.

[Terry Doyle]

I'm glad someone is bringing this up. I had also noticed as Richard posted these on Caf and the comments that followed. His descriptions were evasive and misleading. Richard mentioned someone to the effect that they were "finished Kirby/Royer" pieces. I also must feel bad for your friend for being "scammed". I believe one of these or another Royer lightboxed piece sold recently on eBay for less than $100, so I'm sure your friend took a loss on the deal.

 

This also makes me question the Steranko/Buckler piece he has for sale. I remember seeing the Steranko in pencil form a few years back.

 

A loss to the tune of several thousand dollars . . .

[jeremyslawsky]

Ouch! Atleast it's been made public so hopefully know one else gets screwed on those.

[BrianHoward]

Wow.. sorry to hear you got taken by Richard Rae... I too had a pretty unfortunate experience with him a few years ago..

 

After I got screwed, he claimed to me that he sold his entire collection at an Australian auction for something like 380k... I was hoping that was the last I'd hear of him..

[glenbru]

Here is my delightful experience with Richard. He's bad news!

 

This is our email exchange. He contacted me to do some trading...

 

Emails go from the bottom up...

 

Hi Glen

 

 

 

With the greatest of respect (1) I never said Kirby touched this original (2) I never placed a price on it...and (3) with respect in my opinion you’re a “”.

 

 

 

Clearly you did not read fully my last email...and Glen...I suggest you be very careful in regards to “slander” as that is illegal.

 

 

 

Don’t contact me again.

 

 

 

R

 

 

 

From: Glen Brunswick [mailto:glenbru@aol.com]

Sent: Tuesday, 1 March 2011 8:09 AM

To: Kerry Pocock

Subject: Re: Email from ComicArtFans.com regarding your artwork: FANTASTIC FOUR 133 COVER

 

 

 

Richard,

 

 

 

You can call it whatever you like. The truth is that Kirby NEVER touched your page. When you present the page as a Kirby/Royer original you mislead the buyer into believing that Kirby put pencil on the actual paper you have for sale. The truth is that if Kirby had actually put pencil to your drawing then the value of it would be much higher than what you have there.

 

 

 

That is misleading and wrong and perhaps even illegal.

 

 

 

If I see you offering it around as a Kirby/Royer original and trying to mislead the collecting community, I will speak up about it.

 

 

 

Best,

 

Glen

 

 

 

 

On Feb 28, 2011, at 12:44 PM, "Kerry Pocock" wrote:

 

Hi Glen

 

 

 

I hope you take the time to read my detailed reply...

 

 

 

At my age I’ve so far never had anybody suggest that anything I have ever done has “ripped anyone off”...until now and by you.

 

 

 

To be clear about the Cap “original” I offered you for trade...it is NOT a Kirby “original” (not original pencil art and Kirby did not ink it) and it is NOT a Royer “original” (Royer does not draw like this)...it is simply a “Kirby/Royer original”...and that is what it is...and that is a fact!

 

 

 

Let me explain a little more...get a copy of the Kirby pencil art to this drawing and give it to another artist to ink, like Barry Smith...the final “original” drawing would NOT look like my Kirby/Royer “original”.

 

 

 

This is because inkers DO NOT JUST TRACE, they add their own style to a drawing...Glen if you or I (or even Royer or Smith) got a copy of the Kirby pencil art to this Cap drawing and placed it onto a light box and we all just “traced” over the Kirby pencil image, then I assure you that the final drawing would look like ...this is because the Kirby pencil image is “unfinished” and needs to be completed...and that is the “inkers” job and NOT the “tracers” job...the “inker” is the “partner” artist...

 

 

 

To be clear: There is no way this Cap image would look like this if (1) it was just the Kirby pencil drawing (2) if Kirby himself or any other artist other than Royer had “inked” the image (3) if Royer (or anyone) had just “traced” the image...or (4) if Royer had done his own original version of Cap without using the Kirby image.

 

 

 

That is why this is a Kirby/Royer Captain America “original”...and what I am placing for trade is the original art to this drawing...and I’m not trading a Kirby original or a Royer original...it is a Kirby/Royer original...and that is just what it is.

 

 

 

ALSO: As Royer was one of Kirby’s coolest inkers (remember-partner artists)...a lot of Kirby fans/collectors like the work Royer did with Kirby over other artists/inkers...and this “original” was created for them...the inker to this Kirby-Cap pencil drawing is not some hack new unknown artist BUT he is one of Kirby’s most well known AND RESPECTED partner artists.

 

 

 

In ending...I say that my description of this Captain America “original art” is accurate...with respect Glen I’m “ripping-off” no one...and with respect I take objection to comments you made in your last email.

 

 

 

On a more personal note...I just wish Royer had continue to ink all of Kirby’s later comic work, because most of the so called “inkers” that followed Royer’s Kirby run were in fact “just tracing”.

 

 

 

Kindest regards

 

 

 

Richard Rae

 

 

 

Australia

 

 

 

From: glenbru@aol.com [mailto:glenbru@aol.com]

Sent: Saturday, 26 February 2011 5:42 AM

To: kerrypocock@optusnet.com.au

Subject: Re: Email from ComicArtFans.com regarding your artwork: FANTASTIC FOUR 133 COVER

 

 

 

Hey Richard,

 

 

 

What you have is a Mike Royer lightbox of a Kirby pencil piece. You NEED to tell people that when you offer it around.

 

 

 

Kirby never touched the piece you have. It was just Royer!

 

 

 

That puts the value at $400 tops. If someone buys or trades for it as a Kirby, and you didn't disclose that it's really just Royer then you're ripping them off.

 

 

 

I don't think you want to do that.

 

 

 

Glen

 

 

 

-----Original Message-----

From: Kerry Pocock

To: glenbru@aol.com

Sent: Fri, Feb 25, 2011 10:22 am

Subject: RE: Email from ComicArtFans.com regarding your artwork: FANTASTIC FOUR 133 COVER

 

Hi Glen

 

 

 

My apologies...I was not interested in any particular item of yours...I just like trading...

 

 

 

If you are interested we can take it from here.

 

 

 

Kindest regards

 

 

 

Richard

 

 

 

 

 

From: glenbru@aol.com [mailto:glenbru@aol.com]

Sent: Saturday, 26 February 2011 5:17 AM

To: kerrypocock@optusnet.com.au

Subject: Re: Email from ComicArtFans.com regarding your artwork: FANTASTIC FOUR 133 COVER

 

 

 

Hey Richard,

 

 

 

The drawing looks a little off to me. It might just be something that Royer did without Kirby.

 

 

 

If it is in fact by Kirby, it's value would be about 1200-1500. The piece you are interested in is 20,000.

 

 

 

Not exactly an even trade. Were you thinking about making up the difference in cash?

 

 

 

Best,

 

Glen

 

 

 

-----Original Message-----

From: Kerry Pocock

To: glenbru@aol.com

Sent: Fri, Feb 25, 2011 10:07 am

Subject: RE: Email from ComicArtFans.com regarding your artwork: FANTASTIC FOUR 133 COVER

 

Hi Glen

 

 

 

Attached is a scan of the original drawing...it was a gift given to me so I have no idea of its re-sale value, I’ll be guided by you...

 

 

 

I’m proposing a possible trade...if you are interested?...

 

 

 

Kindest regards

 

 

 

Richard

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

From: glenbru@aol.com [mailto:glenbru@aol.com]

Sent: Saturday, 26 February 2011 2:03 AM

To: kerrypocock@optusnet.com.au

Subject: Re: Email from ComicArtFans.com regarding your artwork: FANTASTIC FOUR 133 COVER

 

 

 

Please send me a scan of the drawing. How do you value it?

 

 

 

What are you proposing?

 

 

 

Glen

 

 

 

-----Original Message-----

From: kerrypocock@optusnet.com.au

To: glenbru@aol.com

Sent: Fri, Feb 25, 2011 1:40 am

Subject: Email from ComicArtFans.com regarding your artwork: FANTASTIC FOUR 133 COVER

 

Error! Filename not specified.

 

 

 

 

CAF Home » Galleries » Art For Sale » Contact

 

 

 

 

Error! Filename not specified.150 ? 150: true); border:1px solid #C1C1C1;'>

A message from Richard Rae regarding

FANTASTIC FOUR 133 COVER

 

Error! Filename not specified.64 ? 64: true); border:1px solid #C1C1C1;'>

From:

Richard Rae

 

Email:

kerrypocock@optusnet.com.au

 

Comments:

So...Glen...will you do some kind of trade for an original Kirby/Royer Captain America drawing I have...?...I'm keen to trade...please let me know if your interested...kindest regards, Richard in Australia

 

 

 

 

 

 

Error! Filename not specified.

 

PLEASE DO NOT RESPOND TO THIS EMAIL. IT IS SENT FROM A UNMONITORED ACCOUNT AND WILL BE AUTOMATICALLY DELETED.

 

 

This email has been sent to you from someone visiting www.comicartfans.com. Your email address remains confidential, and is not shown to other Gallery Owners or Site Visitors.

 

© 2003-2010 ComicArtFans.com, All rights reserved.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Bronty]

oy. what a tool

[Terry Doyle]

Wow.. sorry to hear you got taken by Richard Rae... I too had a pretty unfortunate experience with him a few years ago..

 

After I got screwed, he claimed to me that he sold his entire collection at an Australian auction for something like 380k... I was hoping that was the last I'd hear of him..

 

It was my friend who got taken by Richard Rae.

 

I wouldn't want to deal with the scumbag.

[BrianHoward]

Oops.. I missed that... Sorry for your friend!

 

I got contacted directly about one of his "Kirby/Royer" fakes recently.. He was using a fake name and email (same one Glen posted), the email was different from our previous correspondence and I had no idea it was Richard until I saw the thread on here.. I'm surprised he contacted me after the he pulled with me, even under a fake identity...

[Terry Doyle]

Oops.. I missed that... Sorry for your friend!

 

I got contacted directly about one of his "Kirby/Royer" fakes recently.. He was using a fake name and email (same one Glen posted), the email was different from our previous correspondence and I had no idea it was Richard until I saw the thread on here.. I'm surprised he contacted me after the he pulled with me, even under a fake identity...

 

This 'excuse-for-humanity' obviously has no shame . . .

[robert frey]

is there anyone here who thinks buckler inked that steranko cap piece?

[Terry Doyle]

is there anyone here who thinks buckler inked that steranko cap piece?

 

Given Richard Rae's track-record . . . nothing's ever what it seems.

 

Rae's inviting 'Honest Offers' on the piece.

 

I've left a suitable comment.

 

Maybe if others do the same, we can put more pressure on this azzhole . . .

[NelsonAI]

Thanks to everyone for posting the information and warning about this individual.

 

This isn't the first time "bluelined" or "lightboxed" art was tried to be passed off as original work of the "penciller". The general rule is if the person's inks do not touch the pencils, it's not the work of the penciller.

 

Unfortunately, in this digital age, it's easy enough for anyone to download a pencilled piece, have it bluelined inked.

 

We had a few instances in the marketplace with a "Wolverine cover" attributed to David Finch and inker "Newbold". When I notified the seller that it was a unpublished blueline piece, he dismissed it and proclaimed it the original. That is until Felix and I showed him evidence to the contrary. Only then did he remove the piece for sale and blamed it on another dealer that he bought the "art" from.

 

Obviously, it's easier to verify "published pieces" than a random pencil and ink drawing. So buyer beware and always ask outright if the original pencils are underneath - do not assume it is.

 

Cheers!

N.

 

 

[Terry Doyle]

is there anyone here who thinks buckler inked that steranko cap piece?

 

Yesterday, I attached the follwing comment to Richard Rae's 'Steranko/Buckler' piece:

 

"Did Steranko actually touch this artwork - or did Rich Buckler light-box the work (as is the case with the Royer pieces you have)?"

 

This morning I received the following e-mail from Richard:

 

"Hi Terry...why are you trying to give me a hard time regading my Kirby/Royer originals and my Buckler/Steranko original...?...with respect wha t the hell did I do to you that pissed you off...because I'm kind of fed up with you attacking me...not that I can't handle it but as I said I'm fed up...if I did not do what I do these images would still just be pencil drawings and not finished art for everone to enjoy...please don't contact me...just please leave me alone...no more -weak comments...please...regards, Richard"

 

I e-mailed the following reply:

 

"Richard

 

The comment I made on your 'Steranko/Buckler' piece posed a legitimate question.

 

If you're inviting 'honest' offers on the artwork . . . then an 'honest' description needs to be in place.

 

The Royer light-box jobs have already mislead other collectors.

 

**** ****** and Brian Howard spring immediately to mind.

 

If collectors like **** and Brian had been fully aware of the exact nature of the Royer light-box jobs, they would not have been swindled by you.

 

Thankfully, other collectors like Glen Brunswick are too savvy to be taken in by your attempts to rip them off.

 

And, thankfully, Brian Howard realised it was you trying to rip him off again by using a fake I.D.

 

Obviously, you have no shame.

 

It's not about you having artists like Mike Royer light-box Kirby drawings . . . it's about what you do with those light-box jobs afterwards.

 

I too would prefer not to receive a reply from you.

 

Hearing from you leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

 

As a suggestion . . . try looking up the word 'integrity' in a dictionary.

 

It's a quality you sadly do not possess.

 

Terry Doyle"

 

With apologies to the list for dragging this one out. It's a problem, I feel, that needs to be tackled.

[thethedew]

If all the above is to be taken at face value, then there are a couple of things to object to in his description of his pieces.

 

First off, his insistence in referring to them as 'originals'... it's as if saying it enough times will make them so. These should at the very least be identified as 'recreations' in any transaction description.

 

Second, I'm disappointed with the inker here... every artist worth his salt will make a point of signing recreations as (using this as an example) "ROYER after KIRBY 2010" The critical omission might be the lack of a date, but I'd argue the 'after' designation should have been applied as well, even if this is lightbox/blueline/whatever.

 

He's trying to exploit a certain art-collecting 'grey area' - it can't be allowed.

[Terry Doyle]

I received the following reply from Richard Rae:

 

"Terry

 

From your email I can clearly see that you are a negative mean-spirited person, who wishes to believe the worst of other human beings...knock yourself out picking on me, at least while you are doing that your leaving someone else alone.

 

I’m very disappointed in you Terry, you’re quick to condemn and brand me...your accusation that I attempt to rip people off is without merit or substance...during emails I answer any and all questions and supply full details regarding the history of my originals, it would be pointless not to.

 

You have now been listed as junk-mail, so send as many emails as you wish...because I won’t be seeing them.

 

R "

 

I'm sure his victims (intended or actual) would disagree . . .

[J.Sid]

Interesting thread. In the light of what is happening with these originals, does Mike Royer have any moral obligation to either stop doing these or add some sort of disclaimer to the recreation?

 

Several artists do this sort of thing when they recreate something. They will either incorporate a notation into the signature or write a couple sentences of explanation on the back.

[J.Sid]

I guess the move would be for him to simply sign it "after Jack Kirby"

[Terry Doyle]

is there anyone here who thinks buckler inked that steranko cap piece?

 

Yesterday, I attached the follwing comment to Richard Rae's 'Steranko/Buckler' piece:

 

"Did Steranko actually touch this artwork - or did Rich Buckler light-box the work (as is the case with the Royer pieces you have)?"

 

 

Update . . .

 

 

Richard Rae made the following reply on his CAF 'Steranko/Buckler' piece:

 

"Terry...you should know that the original pencil art for this drawing by Steranko is still kicking around...but when Jim pops over to Australia again I'll get him to touch it for you mate...this is the FINISHED ARTWORK and not unfinished pencils...just like my Kirby/Royer originals...all the best Tessa...kindest regards."

 

I have now added a reply of my own:

 

"Thank you for coming clean, Richie-boy, and removing the element of doubt. Collectors interested in making an 'honest'' offer on the Buckler light-boxed art, now have an honest description. Good man."

 

Hopefully some good has now come out of this topic.