HA/ComicLink Auctions - Interesting Correlation 1 1

[Messier3499]

HA/ComicLink Auctions - Interesting Correlation

May mean absolutely nothing, but I find it interesting to note the number of Kirby pieces each has in their upcoming auctions.  At least the number to this point.

 

[rrichards]

I'm surprised this story's not getting more attention here as it is a story that could possibly turn the collecting community upside down.It has been discussed on other threads but the problem still exists and if the stories that I hear are true ,it is about to come to a head with the upcoming Heritage Auction.

To briefly summerize ,a few months back Clink was served notice by the Kirby estate lawyers that they should cease and desist auctioning Kirby art as the  estate was prepared to legally challenge the ownership of those artworks(the old marvel /others did not compensate Kirby/work was stolen thing).Clink,considering a costly legal battle,backed off.

Once  this story got around many of the bigger dealers got nervous and put thier Kirby art in hiding,some,not so much.Heritage was undeterred and has continued to offer Kirby work.

The latest news is that Heritage now has received that same notification from the Kirby estate ,so now everyone is watching to see what's next.

This is the story that I have pieced together from various reliable sources most of which would probably prefer to remain anonymous.If anybody has any updates or corrections,please chime in.

[Flambit]

I was always a bit confused at where the line was drawn: are the lawyers contesting artwork that was returned to the Kirby's that they then sold in the 70s/80s as well?  There's a Devil Dinosaur cover on Ha that I'm pretty sure the family received and resold...

[suspense39]

1 hour ago, rrichards said:

I'm surprised this story's not getting more attention here as it is a story that could possibly turn the collecting community upside down.It has been discussed on other threads but the problem still exists and if the stories that I hear are true ,it is about to come to a head with the upcoming Heritage Auction.

To briefly summerize ,a few months back Clink was served notice by the Kirby estate lawyers that they should cease and desist auctioning Kirby art as the  estate was prepared to legally challenge the ownership of those artworks(the old marvel /others did not compensate Kirby/work was stolen thing).Clink,considering a costly legal battle,backed off.

Once  this story got around many of the bigger dealers got nervous and put thier Kirby art in hiding,some,not so much.Heritage was undeterred and has continued to offer Kirby work.

The latest news is that Heritage now has received that same notification from the Kirby estate ,so now everyone is watching to see what's next.

This is the story that I have pieced together from various reliable sources most of which would probably prefer to remain anonymous.If anybody has any updates or corrections,please chime in.

I'm still very curious about this situation, I would love to see one of these legal letters being sent to the auction houses. 

[Galactus]

I was told that Heritage sent a reply back to the letter that was served, asking for proof of stolen art and which ones, to which the Kirby lawyers have not replied (months now). 

Obviously with no real records having ever been kept and the Kirby estate selling off many of the items directly, we shall see

 

 

Edited April 24, 2017 by Galactus

[marktom]

 

3 hours ago, Galactus said:

I was told that Heritage sent a reply back to the letter that was served, asking for proof of stolen art and which ones, to which the Kirby lawyers have not replied (months now). 

Obviously with no real records having ever been kept and the Kirby estate selling off many of the items directly, we shall see

 

 

 

Glad to see Heritage responding to the Kirby estate this way. Speaking as a lawyer, the Kirby estate has essentially no legal ground to stand on. I'm sure their lawyers know this as well, but unfortunately it's not preventing them from trying to intimidate anyway. 

--Mark T

 

[ThothAmon]

It's hard to believe something was stolen from heirs which was freely given by creator/owner. Almost like crying over someone else's spilt milk. 

[rrichards]

I have a great regard for Kirby as an artist but I think this money grab by the estate and the lawyer representing them is disgraceful . Jack's  legacy as a artist was enhanced by the numerous gallery exhibitions in Europe and in the US, such as the great exhibition that took place in Califormia recently.These exhibitions rely heavily on collectors making artwork available to curators.With this kind of legal bullying hanging over the heads of collectors ,what Kirby collector would want to risk the attention they would get by making thier artwork available in the future exhibitions ? Jack Kirby was starting to be recognized in the Fine Art arena in part do to these museum quality exhibitions. No artwork ,no exhibition,no exhibitions,no legacy.

The Kirby estate should be happy with thier lucrative Disney settlement,stop this short term money grab and consider the long term effect.

Edited April 26, 2017 by rrichards

[Messier3499]

 

Gang,

I'd be interested to know your thoughts on what all of this means to the market going forward.

Will this limiting of options in the high end auction arena drive demand for the King's work?

Or just the opposite - with so many great pieces steadily coming to market by a whole host of talented artists - will collectors dollars flow elsewhere?  Avoiding the perceived/real aggravation that might come along with purchasing Kirby art.

I'm not sure myself, but I believe the safest advice to follow in the crazy 'hobby' is to 'Buy What You Love' and you'll be happy

and I love Kirby lol!

Mess

ALWAYS looking for Kirby Avengers / Kirby 1970's Marvel Cover

(well, looking for a superb example of each - this stuff is expensive)

 

 

[Funnyslover]

I bought the complete Eternals #1 artwork, plus cover, from the Kirby family long ago and, excepting an ancient wire transfer receipt for $10,000 to their intermediary,  I have no proof of purchase. I guess many others will be in a similar position. Therefore I would imagine it will be a lengthy, expensive and ultimately unproductive  process  for the Kirbys to proceed against every Owner. 

G'nite ?

[rrichards]

"I'd be interested to know your thoughts on what all of this means to the market going forward."

I am not a lawyer but;

Worst case scenario: The Kirby Estate takes on Heritage (the Estate is not going after one guy with a Devil Dinosaur page,too expensive)and some Judge decides that considering the Disney decision ,that the Kirby's have a legit claim  ,holding up the art in Heritage's possession (not allowing them to return it to the consigners )and leaving all Kirby art owners without iron clad proof of ownership, such as a sale receipt from the Kirbys, the choice of returning it or paying a percentage  of it's value to the estate. Now other relatives of artists from that era, Heck ,Ditko, Colan ,Buscema,etc. use that decision to claim the same.Driving up the prices and complicating the auctioning of this artwork to the point that the auction houses just won't bother with comic art. We all saw how quickly Comic Link abandoned the Kirby art.Who needs the headache ? The auction houses are a major part of this hobby and it is hard to view this hobby going forward without them. This is why I feel that this could be disaster for OCA collecting.

Best Case Scenerio: What I think and hope does happens  is what Thothamon (a real Lawyer) mentioned earlier,is that the Estate be denied in court and this is just one last shot by the Kirby Kids for a money grab which they will give up on , (after tarnishing Jack's Legacy with fans and collectors who legitimately adore Jack and his artwork) and things will go back as they were.

[SquareChaos]

3 hours ago, rrichards said:

"I'd be interested to know your thoughts on what all of this means to the market going forward."

I am not a lawyer but;

Worst case scenario: The Kirby Estate takes on Heritage (the Estate is not going after one guy with a Devil Dinosaur page,too expensive)and some Judge decides that considering the Disney decision ,that the Kirby's have a legit claim  ,holding up the art in Heritage's possession (not allowing them to return it to the consigners )and leaving all Kirby art owners without iron clad proof of ownership, such as a sale receipt from the Kirbys, the choice of returning it or paying a percentage  of it's value to the estate. Now other relatives of artists from that era, Heck ,Ditko, Colan ,Buscema,etc. use that decision to claim the same.Driving up the prices and complicating the auctioning of this artwork to the point that the auction houses just won't bother with comic art. We all saw how quickly Comic Link abandoned the Kirby art.Who needs the headache ? The auction houses are a major part of this hobby and it is hard to view this hobby going forward without them. This is why I feel that this could be disaster for OCA collecting.

Best Case Scenerio: What I think and hope does happens  is what Thothamon (a real Lawyer) mentioned earlier,is that the Estate be denied in court and this is just one last shot by the Kirby Kids for a money grab which they will give up on , (after tarnishing Jack's Legacy with fans and collectors who legitimately adore Jack and his artwork) and things will go back as they were.

 

This does nothing to tarnish Jack's legacy, the man is dead and has nothing to do with this  

[Galactus]

I would think that the worse case scenario is that a lengthy court case ensues and pieces of art from the 60's that are in question, are looked at to ascertain what can be proven to never have been given back to Jack. I see no court that would arbitrarily assign any results on every piece of artwork that Jack drew, especially pieces in the mid to late 70's and 80's which obviously were given back to Jack without question.

Best case scenario is that the lawyers decide that this is a colossal waste of time given the amount of time and resources they will need to spend to in essence try to piece together the evidence that they will need, and summarily drop pursuing this.

 

Given that i dont believe Heritage have heard back from the Kirby lawyers since they told them that they wouldn't be playing ball, it looks to me that only the smaller players who dont have a huge legal team at their beck and call, need worry about intimidation.

 

[rrichards]

"This does nothing to tarnish Jack's legacy, the man is dead and has nothing to do with this "

I beg to differ my friend! A legacy often begins with one's passing . Vermeer was gone more than two decades before art historians discovered his work. An artist's legacy is written in large part by his influence on others that came after him.

As I mentioned in an earlier post ,these obstacles that the Kirby Estate are putting in front of collectors and historians will person_having_a_hard_time_understanding_my_point the efforts of **curators and historians like Charles Hatfield, who curated the recent Kirby exhibition at California State University, in the future.These exhibitions do a lot to further an artists reach and bring that artist to the attention of those that might not have known them before. So yes ,it is tarnishing Jack Kirby's legacy 

** my apologies ,I have tried unsuccessfully to edit /correct this line 3 times , so if it reads strange blame the "new"  CGC website.

Edited April 27, 2017 by rrichards
does not publish as submitted

[SquareChaos]

1 hour ago, rrichards said:

"This does nothing to tarnish Jack's legacy, the man is dead and has nothing to do with this "

I beg to differ my friend! A legacy often begins with one's passing . Vermeer was gone more than two decades before art historians discovered his work. An artist's legacy is written in large part by his influence on others that came after him.

As I mentioned in an earlier post ,these obstacles that the Kirby Estate are putting in front of collectors and historians will person_having_a_hard_time_understanding_my_point the efforts of **curators and historians like Charles Hatfield, who curated the recent Kirby exhibition at California State University, in the future.These exhibitions do a lot to further an artists reach and bring that artist to the attention of those that might not have known them before. So yes ,it is tarnishing Jack Kirby's legacy 

** my apologies ,I have tried unsuccessfully to edit /correct this line 3 times , so if it reads strange blame the "new"  CGC website.

 

I don't mean to say someone can't have any modification to their reputation after they've died - as you say, it happens all of the time in the arts. But on the first front, this has nothing to do with his artistic legacy or his influence on artists, and on a second front, the only people that will even be aware this is going on will fully understand Jack himself had zero to do with the entire situation - we all know he's dead, everyone is aware it is the estate. Now, will someone with full knowledge of the situation think less of Jack Kirby for these happenings? If so, that is someone that has a pretty odd way - and I'd go so far as to say wrong way - of looking at the world.

Edited April 27, 2017 by SquareChaos
Clarity

[rrichards]

"will someone with full knowledge of the situation think less of Jack Kirby for these happenings?"

The answer to that is no, but ten years from now someone that does not know about this might not even know who Jack Kirby was  if the Kirby estate continues to discourage the visability of his artwork. It's already happening.

[SquareChaos]

3 minutes ago, rrichards said:

"will someone with full knowledge of the situation think less of Jack Kirby for these happenings?"

The answer to that is no, but ten years from now someone that does not know about this might not even know who Jack Kirby was  if the Kirby estate continues to discourage the visability of his artwork. It's already happening.

Well, right now I feel that we're being a bit alarmist about this, just as a general group of hobbyists. It's natural to be worried about this specific event, and perhaps even more so, any potential precedent that may arise in a 'worst case' outcome.

In reality, I have to believe that the odds are very good that this legal escapade ends up being the thing that is forgotten... granted I'm no lawyer, but I'm not completely ignorant of how these things work. If someone lacks possession yet claims ownership then they'd better be able to prove that in a legal manner.

If this ever does actually reach a court hearing, I can't imagine a scenario that doesn't end with a ruling stating that this was settled to the extent that it is possible to be settled when the art that was actually available was returned. What is the end scenario otherwise? Are we suggesting that the court risks literally stealing items from individuals that purchased directly from Jack or Roz simply because they lack a sufficient receipt? I just don't see it... in all likelihood this is just a ploy by estate to see if any of the big name houses will get jumpy and agree to give them free money, literally nothing else makes sense to me.

[FerranDelgado]

I suppose that the Kirby Estate claim relates only to the Silver Age art not returned by Marvel in the 80s. There's an inventory of the art returned, so this would affect to what's not in the list. The 70s art was returned to Kirby a few months after it was published, since Marvel already had a return policy active back then. The art of this age wouldn't be included in the claim.

 

This is a sample of the inventory:

http://ohdannyboy.blogspot.com.es/2013/01/original-art-stories-jack-kirbys.html  

[delekkerste]

 

Hearing that Heritage got a second letter from the Kirby estate's lawyers last week.

Talked to two consignors recently who said that their Kirby art was turned away at CLink.  

[ESeffinga]

Was the language much different than the original letter?
That whole who-got-what-&-how situation with Kirby art is so muddied, there's no way they can make black and white claims to the work. It seems to me the last thing Kirby collectors need is more behind the door dealings. Is the family leaning on them primarily in the hopes of getting a "taste" of every piece that goes to auction, or what's the metric they plan on using? I still don't see it.

I think it would be great for Heritage to post something publicly that states what their current stance is, and how they plan on proceeding. Then, if things change down the line, they could always modify that statement as the situation progresses. Just leaving it up in the air makes it worse for everyone, IMO.

I'm sure many folks are sitting tight until something is said publicly. Not going to be good for Boomer folks that thought they'd cash out their Kirby holdings as they hit and/or settled into retirement age. Maybe the Kirby family is trying to get out ahead of that?