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

[jeremyslawsky]

I don't get why he can't understand that even a penciled piece can be finished art. If it was me and I owned either a penciled Kirby Cap or Steranko Cap I would never get either one inked. I've seen that Steranko in pencil form around and it's a nicely finished piece of art.

[Terry Doyle]

I don't get why he can't understand that even a penciled piece can be finished art. If it was me and I owned either a penciled Kirby Cap or Steranko Cap I would never get either one inked. I've seen that Steranko in pencil form around and it's a nicely finished piece of art.

 

I think Richard is more interested in hype. He wants to make a killing - and, sadly, already has (several times, at least).

 

I'm inclined to believe that Richard asked Royer and Buckler to ink Kirby and Steranko signatures onto the pieces . . . in an effort to con collectors ("If it's signed by Kirby, there must be Kirby pencils underneath - right?" Wrong).

[jeremyslawsky]

Back at it again! I hate to bring this up again but there's been another post, however this time a little more truthful. He does admit it to be lightboxed but the part that kills me is this little piece of wisdom: "I believe that "many" blue blood Kirby collectors hate light box art, mainly because the quality is "most times" much better and it effects the resale price of their Kirby items". This is your best defense? Wow.

 

http://www.comicartfans.com/GalleryPiece.asp?Piece=750246&GSub=80583

[comix4fun]

Great salesmanship in that description...Kirby fans are the ones looking at this and he proceeds to tell them to "suck it".

 

I am going to hire him to handle my marketing. I have no doubt he can correctly identify my target audience and then tell them to sodomize themselves.

[Terry Doyle]

Great salesmanship in that description...Kirby fans are the ones looking at this and he proceeds to tell them to "suck it".

 

I am going to hire him to handle my marketing. I have no doubt he can correctly identify my target audience and then tell them to sodomize themselves.

 

Maybe he should get into slabbed comic-books?

 

And for the benefit of my CGC buddies . . .

[Terry Doyle]

Back at it again! I hate to bring this up again but there's been another post, however this time a little more truthful. He does admit it to be lightboxed but the part that kills me is this little piece of wisdom: "I believe that "many" blue blood Kirby collectors hate light box art, mainly because the quality is "most times" much better and it effects the resale price of their Kirby items". This is your best defense? Wow.

 

http://www.comicartfans.com/GalleryPiece.asp?Piece=750246&GSub=80583

 

I've left a trade proposition Mr Rae - by way of a comment on his Royer KA-ZAR . . .

[Romain]

I do not understand you guys ..........

I'm NO Kirby EXPERT but I collect since I'm a youngster and I NEVER saw these lightbox pieces for anything else than lightbox pieces !!!! It seems pretty obvious for any of us that it is not a Kirby original despite WHATEVER the seller or owner is saying in his description !!! I'm hardly believing you'd be thinking otherwise unless you got tricked by your own Kirby greed ...

Let me explain, remember Scott Williams Black Bolt piece ? It was pretty CLEAR this wasn't a Kirby original art and yet I almost bought it twice and even asked Scott if there were by any chance some pencils or blue lines under the ( most striking ! ) inking and I certainly was fooling myself into believeing something that obviously wasn't there !

 

Why don't you give Richard a break ? I've been told HE's A VERY nice guy ! The old school type and he loves his Royer pieces, must have a special relationship with the inker and he expresses it the damn way he likes ...

 

I wouldn't imagine Richard or anybody offering a lightbox piece for trade toward a $20K cover that must have been badly understood !

 

When a crook is exposed he runs away and disappear ...

 

Maybe Brian had a bad experience, I would trust his words but I believe this has nothing to do with OA .. You just are IMHO going too hard on this curious case !! my

 

Greetings All !!!

 

[Terry Doyle]

He duped a friend of mine into parting with several thousand dollars worth of art in trade for several hundred dollars worth of lightbox art.

 

Because of the way Richard clouded his descriptions . . . he led my friend into believing it was Kirby pencils and Mike Royer inks.

 

Richard Rae was advised repeatedly about his deliberate attempts to confuse collectors (through his less than honest descriptions).

 

Eventually, the message sunk in.

 

He deceived . . . and benefitted from his deceptions.

 

Nice guy, you say?

 

Nothing nice about ripping-off fellow-collectors.

[Romain]

Is your friend new into comicart ? Honestly how can one be confused looking at the scans ? Also the descriptions weren't dishonest, a bit blur I conceide but doesn't that says it all ??

Of course ripping off fellow collectors isn't being nice at all and I don't know the guy personnally but wouldn't that be a battle of ego more than a crook story ??

 

[comix4fun]

It seems pretty obvious for any of us that it is not a Kirby original despite WHATEVER the seller or owner is saying in his description !!! I'm hardly believing you'd be thinking otherwise unless you got tricked by your own Kirby greed ...

 

 

 

 

When a seller comes to you and tells you a piece is a "Kirby/Royer" original piece of art, what does that tell you? What is the seller trying to tell you? What is he trying to gain by that description?

 

In your example, the Scott Williams inked piece, he is TO THE LETTER CLEAR AND TRANSPARENT that it is a piece that he inked over blue line. He was honest, and open and clear. He NEVER claimed that Kirby touched that piece.

 

He WAS NOT attempting to cloud the description by listing Kirby as the pencil artist, when his pencils were never within a thousand miles of this piece.

 

I am having a hard time understanding your motivation here Romain. You are giving a guy who several collectors have testified as to being misled by his descriptions, a guy who clung to calling a piece a Kirby original when it was anything but, and a guy who now is attempting to blame Kirby collectors for his own failures to disclose properly because you HEARD HE WAS A NICE GUY?

 

 

Really? You heard he was a nice guy? That's enough for you? In the face of everything in this thread, someone telling you he's NICE swings your opinion and places the blame on "Kirby Greed" on the people he has taken in with his mis-identification of the artwork in question?

 

 

Regardless of what your eyes tell you and if your eyes should tell you it is not a Kirby pencil job under the inks, that DOES NOT relieve the seller of all responsibility to properly attribute credits to the piece when he knows full well that Kirby never touched the piece he's selling.

 

You say you've heard he's a nice guy. That's great. Do you know what honest guys do when they are shown that a piece they are selling is not attributed to the right artist? They correct it. They don't fight about it, defend it, and defiantly refuse to be clear and complete in their disclosures.

 

Blaming the victim and calling them greedy does nothing to correct an improper, faulty and ultimately wrong attribution. It certainly moves us further away from the truth. Is that what you are advocating here?

[comix4fun]

Is your friend new into comicart ? Honestly how can one be confused looking at the scans ? Also the descriptions weren't dishonest, a bit blur I conceide but doesn't that says it all ??

Of course ripping off fellow collectors isn't being nice at all and I don't know the guy personnally but wouldn't that be a battle of ego more than a crook story ??

 

 

 

 

Maybe you are confused by the fact that the seller removed the Steranko/Buckler and Kirby/Royer pieces from his CAF gallery.

 

The new one, the KaZar is a non factor. It seems posted as a piece to take shots at those that called him on the carpet for his earlier attempts to sell Kirby/Royer that was really only Royer.

 

You see he has a free account on CAF, even though he's attempting to selling many many thousands of dollars of artwork through his CAF he maintains a free account. One of the detriments of a free account is that he cannot delete comments on pieces that he doesn't like.

 

So, when he got all those comments calling him out on his mis-ID of the Steranko and Kirby ( ) pieces he seems to have deleted the pieces rather than leave them up and be identified to the entire CAF world for what he was doing.

 

I can see you attempting to defend his actions if you only saw the Ka Zar...but that's the condensation on the side of the glass that is filled to the rim with incorrect and incomplete attribution and description.

[Romain]

It seems pretty obvious for any of us that it is not a Kirby original despite WHATEVER the seller or owner is saying in his description !!! I'm hardly believing you'd be thinking otherwise unless you got tricked by your own Kirby greed ...

 

 

Once again you're misunderstanding my words ...I'm afraid ..

 

 

In your example, the Scott Williams inked piece, he is TO THE LETTER CLEAR AND TRANSPARENT that it is a piece that he inked over blue line. He was honest, and open and clear. He NEVER claimed that Kirby touched that piece.

 

That is exactly my point here !!! despite the clearness of Scott description I wrote to him and asked because sometime you see what you wanna see and not what is ...I was victim of my own Kirby Greed ...I'm not trying to say anything else !

I am having a hard time understanding your motivation here Romain. You are giving a guy who several collectors have testified as to being misled by his descriptions, a guy who clung to calling a piece a Kirby original when it was anything but, and a guy who now is attempting to blame Kirby collectors for his own failures to disclose properly because you HEARD HE WAS A NICE GUY?

 

the people vouching for him I place in my highest consideration so that is indeed enough for me ...

In fact what motivates me in this one more devil's advocate situation is that I'm quite chocked by the way you guys go on him while I really don't see any forgery but clear lightbox art as clear as a cleaned page !

 

 

 

Regardless of what your eyes tell you and if your eyes should tell you it is not a Kirby pencil job under the inks, that DOES NOT relieve the seller of all responsibility to properly attribute credits to the piece when he knows full well that Kirby never touched the piece he's selling.

 

Again, when a seller has Kirby OA pencils for sale underneath he gets pretty clear about it, if it is not clear well what do you expect ? a miracle ?

You say you've heard he's a nice guy. That's great. Do you know what honest guys do when they are shown that a piece they are selling is not attributed to the right artist? They correct it. They don't fight about it, defend it, and defiantly refuse to be clear and complete in their disclosures.

I heard also you were a nice guy too and yet you accused me of manipulating people on my Rubinstein thread and you blamed the victim, me, so what ? All I can say is I'm a nice guy too ...Ego can mix things up really fast and sometimes with hard headed old school guys like Rae it can take longer than usual ...

 

Blaming the victim and calling them greedy does nothing to correct an improper, faulty and ultimately wrong attribution. It certainly moves us further away from the truth. Is that what you are advocating here?

I don't understand a word ! Of course I can read the words but they don't make sense ...

[Terry Doyle]

It seems pretty obvious for any of us that it is not a Kirby original despite WHATEVER the seller or owner is saying in his description !!! I'm hardly believing you'd be thinking otherwise unless you got tricked by your own Kirby greed ...

 

 

 

 

When a seller comes to you and tells you a piece is a "Kirby/Royer" original piece of art, what does that tell you? What is the seller trying to tell you? What is he trying to gain by that description?

 

In your example, the Scott Williams inked piece, he is TO THE LETTER CLEAR AND TRANSPARENT that it is a piece that he inked over blue line. He was honest, and open and clear. He NEVER claimed that Kirby touched that piece.

 

He WAS NOT attempting to cloud the description by listing Kirby as the pencil artist, when his pencils were never within a thousand miles of this piece.

 

I am having a hard time understanding your motivation here Romain. You are giving a guy who several collectors have testified as to being misled by his descriptions, a guy who clung to calling a piece a Kirby original when it was anything but, and a guy who now is attempting to blame Kirby collectors for his own failures to disclose properly because you HEARD HE WAS A NICE GUY?

 

 

Really? You heard he was a nice guy? That's enough for you? In the fact of everything in this thread, someone telling you he's NICE swings your opinion and places the blame on "Kirby Greed" on the people he has taken in with his mis-identification of the artwork in question?

 

 

Regardless of what your eyes tell you and if your eyes should tell you it is not a Kirby pencil job under the inks, that DOES NOT relieve the seller of all responsibility to properly attribute credits to the piece when he knows full well that Kirby never touched the piece he's selling.

 

You say you've heard he's a nice guy. That's great. Do you know what honest guys do when they are shown that a piece they are selling is not attributed to the right artist? They correct it. They don't fight about it, defend it, and defiantly refuse to be clear and complete in their disclosures.

 

Blaming the victim and calling them greedy does nothing to correct an improper, faulty and ultimately wrong attribution. It certainly moves us further away from the truth. Is that what you are advocating here?

 

Well said, Chris. (thumbs u

[Romain]

Actually I've followed the ebay auctions and Richard CAF for a while that's why I allowed myself to intervene on the subject ...

You know your red angry smiley gives me the creeps .....

 

[comix4fun]

Actually I've followed the ebay auctions and Richard CAF for a while that's why I allowed myself to intervene on the subject ...

You know your red angry smiley gives me the creeps .....

 

 

 

I've been on that angry smiley for years...never occurred to me to change it.

[Romain]

Well That's a Relief !!!

[Terry Doyle]

Actually I've followed the ebay auctions and Richard CAF for a while that's why I allowed myself to intervene on the subject ...

You know your red angry smiley gives me the creeps .....

 

 

 

I've been on that angry smiley for years...never occurred to me to change it.

 

Hopefully not as a result of something I've said to you in the past?

 

I'm in enough trouble with the comic-book guys who've invaded this forum as it is!

[Terry Doyle]

Is your friend new into comicart ? Honestly how can one be confused looking at the scans ? Also the descriptions weren't dishonest, a bit blur I conceide but doesn't that says it all ??

Of course ripping off fellow collectors isn't being nice at all and I don't know the guy personnally but wouldn't that be a battle of ego more than a crook story ??

 

 

No, my friend's not an OA newbie.

 

Though he does feel gullible for being tricked by Richard Rae (Richard Rae . . . Dicky Rae . . . Tricky Dicky . . . Dicky, the Confidence-Trickster).

[thethedew]

 

“... but as I said, I feel 50% responsible for being too gullible and not asking more before.

 

Thanks for your interest and help.”

 

Needless to say, I feel gutted for my friend.

 

 

Terry,

 

I don't think I agree with your friend's assessment that he's 50% responsible. While I certainly understand his embarrassment, he plays into the hands of a borderline conman when he doesn't demand a reversal of the trade.

 

Any OA trader worth his salt should be falling all over himself to try to make things right if he's aware his trade partner is truly unhappy.

 

IMHO.

 

Andrew

[comix4fun]

Actually I've followed the ebay auctions and Richard CAF for a while that's why I allowed myself to intervene on the subject ...

You know your red angry smiley gives me the creeps .....

 

 

 

I've been on that angry smiley for years...never occurred to me to change it.

 

Hopefully not as a result of something I've said to you in the past?

 

I'm in enough trouble with the comic-book guys who've invaded this forum as it is!

 

 

No it was more of a general life-style choice.