Real or Fake - Kirby Kublak sketch 1 1

[grapeape]

3 minutes ago, gumbydarnit said:

What shook me was a con sketch that I thought was a fake was for sale on ebay. A fan went to the artist's site and asked him if it was real, I was certain he would dog it as a bad forgery, but instead he gave it his blessing, looked legit to him! 

Then there was the time a sketch I had for years in my collection was posted FS on ebay. I sent the seller a detailed scan of a section, showing the underdrawing and washy brush stokes on the sketch. He claimed he must have been scammed and took the auction down. 

Multiple times I had to intervene to have auctions taken down based on a pic of artwork I owned in my possession. Some were bad copies and some were my real owner image passed off as theirs.

The crooks are everywhere. It can be unnerving. That seller may have bought a copy/fake. Or he may have been selling a copy/fake that he made and you busted him.

Awful.

[RICKYBOBBY]

16 minutes ago, pemart1966 said:

That's a statement that needs a concrete definition for every commission that "Kirby" ever did.  Otherwise it's an airy fairy statement that means very little.  

Well Mark saying “no one ghosted for him” in front of hundreds of people at the comic con is far from airy fairy. Would anyone go in front of the same people and say they are fake but I don’t know who did them? Easy to type on a board where we are free to say anything we want with 0 repercussions.

[gumbydarnit]

And then there are professional inkers that ink copies of other artist's con sketches and don't note that it's an inked copy on the actual sketch, so after it changes hands a few times it will be sold as a sketch by artist X inked by inker Y.

[pemart1966]

6 minutes ago, RICKYBOBBY said:

Well Mark saying “no one ghosted for him” in front of hundreds of people at the comic con is far from airy fairy. Would anyone go in front of the same people and say they are fake but I don’t know who did them? Easy to type on a board where we are free to say anything we want with 0 repercussions.

Let me clarify my original post:

" Kirby had people who “helped him out a little on commissions " - That's a statement that needs a concrete definition for every commission that "Kirby" ever did.  Otherwise it's an airy fairy statement that means very little.  

Edited January 23, 2020 by pemart1966

[grapeape]

On 1/23/2020 at 12:45 PM, RICKYBOBBY said:

Not just dismissing advice on here. But I don’t think anyone is certain of anything on here. People are just echoing what Greg Theakston came out and wrote this in his book - that Jack didn’t do those and someone ghosted - but I can’t tell you WHO. Okay.
To me - just seems like a great way to sell his book. Also, no “expert” on this board said anything before his statements (for about 18 years). And then all of a sudden they are fake because we all say so?
I would say in this case that someone like Mark would have a better insight in Jacks final years and his process during this time.

 

I think what Theakston did was deplorable and I defended Kirby’s honor when the S hit the fan. Deplorable because he claimed to know who did what but refused to name names.

After the initial anger I began to consider the possibly of shenanigans. My conclusion is that Jack would never deliberately pull a hoax on anyone. It’s not who he was.

But....was the perfect storm of circumstances present between 1983-1993 that made shenanigans plausible?

I think Mark Evanier is a top notch guy. However objectivity from a writer may be expected if not required, is it possible that it was not necessarily applied? A lot of people were friends with Jack and wanted to help him. 
 

So, like Greg there are some who’ve been around long enough to connect a lot of dots. Who had access to Jack? Who worked with Jack? What was the physical observations concerning his ability to draw 1983-1993 ? Who would be motivated to help Jack?
 

There’s enough wonky there  to give pause. Greg’s motivations are what I questioned ultimately. As much as I dislike what he did and said many some items out there are presented as all Kirby have little or no Kirby art.

 

 

Edited January 24, 2020 by grapeape

[vodou]

1 hour ago, RICKYBOBBY said:

To me - just seems like a great way to sell his book. Also, no “expert” on this board said anything before his statements (for about 18 years). And then all of a sudden they are fake because we all say so?
I would say in this case that someone like Mark would have a better insight in Jacks final years and his process during this time.

Not true. Anybody with eyes that was there at the time (mid-80s on) knew what Jack's actual in-person convention drawings and signature looked like versus the "attributed" highly polished pieces/signatures from the same period and later (Sotheby's). The difference is so incredibly stark. The only way to explain it, the way you've decided to, is that Jack got much much better, after he stunk, as he got even older and up to even the hour of his death. Um...right  

FWIW I personally have no interest in ANY Jack Kirby art created beginning with Destroyer Duck and later. It just goes from bad to badder to worstest or...immaculate? ( )

None of this takes away from Jack the artist (in his prime) or the person, people get old, they aren't what they used to be. And so? The only blackmark is the secrecy being kept so that the Sotheby's-involved parties don't have any risk of liability there, and also for those that hold that hope to pass the stuff on as fast as possible and pass on themselves before it all falls apart and the transaction history is legally unwound.

Do you still have your mistake purchase? No. You sold it on too, praying that there was just one other open seat you could jump to in the musical chairs game that end of the hobby has become.

S I G H. (and you hope that piece never comes back and you have to reimburse the purchaser, right?)

[RICKYBOBBY]

1 hour ago, grapeape said:

I think what Theakston did was deplorable and I defended Kirby’s honor when the S hit the fan. Deplorable because he claimed to know who did what but refused to name names.

After the initial anger I began to consider the possibly of shenanigans. My conclusion is that Jack would never deliberately pull a hoax on anyone. It’s not who he was.

But....was the perfect storm of circumstances present between 1983-1983 that made shenanigans plausible?

I think Mark Evanier is a top notch guy. However objectivity from a writer may be expected if not required, is it possible that it was not necessarily applied? A lot of people were friends with Jack and wanted to help him. 
 

So, like Greg there are some who’ve been around long enough to connect a lot of dots. Who had access to Jack? Who worked with Jack? What was the physical observations concerning his ability to draw 1983-1993 ? Who would be motivated to help Jack?
 

There’s enough wonky there  to give pause. Greg’s motivations are what I questioned ultimately. As much as I dislike what he did and said many some items out there are presented as all Kirby have little or no Kirby art.

 

 

Agree with a lot of what you say here. Wonky to give pause but he put pencil to the page until his death. These pieces in question here aren’t sketch’s but line for line recreations. Is it really that hard to believe he could light box at that time? And had help on the stats? It’s not that unbelievable.

[vodou]

9 minutes ago, RICKYBOBBY said:

Is it really that hard to believe he could light box at that time?

Sorry but the dude, all due respect, couldn't draw a straight line by then...traced or freehand. Sorry but it's pure fantasy you're peddling here.

Edited January 23, 2020 by vodou
typo

[RICKYBOBBY]

1 hour ago, vodou said:

Not true. Anybody with eyes that was there at the time (mid-80s on) knew what Jack's actual in-person convention drawings and signature looked like versus the "attributed" highly polished pieces/signatures from the same period and later (Sotheby's). The difference is so incredibly stark. The only way to explain it, the way you've decided to, is that Jack got much much better, after he stunk, as he got even older and up to even the hour of his death. Um...right  

FWIW I personally have no interest in ANY Jack Kirby art created beginning with Destroyer Duck and later. It just goes from bad to badder to worstest or...immaculate? ( )

None of this takes away from Jack the artist (in his prime) or the person, people get old, they aren't what they used to be. And so? The only blackmark is the secrecy being kept so that the Sotheby's-involved parties don't have any risk of liability there, and also for those that hold that hope to pass the stuff on as fast as possible and pass on themselves before it all falls apart and the transaction history is legally unwound.

Do you still have your mistake purchase? No. You sold it on too, praying that there was just one other open seat you could jump to in the musical chairs game that end of the hobby has become.

S I G H. (and you hope that piece never comes back and you have to reimburse the purchaser, right?)

Signing your signature for hundreds of people and doing sketches is much different then signing your name once on one piece . And how am I saying he got much much better? And how did he go from worse to immaculate? These are line for line recreations - you think he couldn’t light box at that time? With his health declining his process changed and had assistants help him - is that so far fetched ?

And yeah I’m sure people keeping quiet all this time to protect Sotheby’s from legal action ()

And not a mistake purchase - I just didn’t like Ayers inks on the piece. Or I would have kept my JIM piece. The piece is now in a well known Jack Kirby collectors collection now. Excellent for him. 
Your entitled to your opinion and you don’t like stuff from Jack after a certain period - then that’s cool. But you aren’t everyone.

[RICKYBOBBY]

12 minutes ago, vodou said:

Sorry but the dude, all due respect, couldn't draw a straight line by then...traced or freehand. Sorry but it's pure fantasy you're peddling here.

Nope I completely disagree with you on that statement. If you were actually there maybe your words would have weight. I’ll choose to believe the historian here.

And here is one of his last pieces from the 90s just before he passed away. I talked to Mick and his experience with Jack so your statement above is complete fantasy.

https://www.comicartfans.com/GalleryPiece.asp?Piece=553202

Edited January 23, 2020 by RICKYBOBBY

[RICKYBOBBY]

Since that was inked piece here is a PENCIL piece from 1987. Not sure what your definition is of not being able to trace or draw a straight line after mid 1980s. Your statements are completely false:

https://www.comicartfans.com/gallerypiece.asp?piece=721944

[vodou]

53 minutes ago, RICKYBOBBY said:

Since that was inked piece here is a PENCIL piece from 1987. Not sure what your definition is of not being able to trace or draw a straight line after mid 1980s. Your statements are completely false:

https://www.comicartfans.com/gallerypiece.asp?piece=721944

Thank you, you proved every point I made in this entire thread with that one. At least that one is real.

For all, in case the image disappears on CAF at some point.

That's 1987 Jack in all his glory with a snazzy Roz Kirby signature to the right even...phantabulous

[grapeape]

On 1/21/2020 at 8:32 PM, RBerman said:

New collector here, just getting my feet wet in the last couple of months. The thread about the fake Shuster got me a little spooked. Last month at the Profiles in History action of "a distinguished collector," I picked up a pin-up purported to be by Kirby of his late (late 80s/early 90s) character Kublak. It came without CoA or details of its origin. The page is 14x7.75 inches; I cropped the white sides off the image below. I assume that at this point it would be impossible to prove that it is Kirby's work, but does anything about it cast doubt?

 

Still waiting for a response from the fellas at Genesis West. 🦗 🦗 🦗 

I did find these exerts from an article from a Jack Kirby Collector when John Morrow interviewed Mike Thibodeaux. Kublak was eventually going to have a 3 story comic but it never came about.

while reading this a little help as  “excited about inking over Jack” gets cut off.

[grapeape]

On 1/21/2020 at 8:32 PM, RBerman said:

New collector here, just getting my feet wet in the last couple of months. The thread about the fake Shuster got me a little spooked. Last month at the Profiles in History action of "a distinguished collector," I picked up a pin-up purported to be by Kirby of his late (late 80s/early 90s) character Kublak. It came without CoA or details of its origin. The page is 14x7.75 inches; I cropped the white sides off the image below. I assume that at this point it would be impossible to prove that it is Kirby's work, but does anything about it cast doubt?

 

Presumably (that Mike T is speaking of your pinup) from Jacks contribution the character pin up of Kublak was done by Kirby. I can’t put the pinup and Mike’s words together yet. 

Edited January 24, 2020 by grapeape

[RBerman]

Thank you, Grapeape. I'm particularly interested in Thibodeaux's thoughts about the art quality seen here compared to, say, Super Powers. I know Thibodeaux was privy to Kirby's Phantom Force pencils in the period in which this pin-up would have been produced. How does it compare?

[grapeape]

10 minutes ago, RBerman said:

Thank you, Grapeape. I'm particularly interested in Thibodeaux's thoughts about the art quality seen here compared to, say, Super Powers. I know Thibodeaux was privy to Kirby's Phantom Force pencils in the period in which this pin-up would have been produced. How does it compare?

If Mike answers me I’ll ask him that too.

[RICKYBOBBY]

2 hours ago, vodou said:

Thank you, you proved every point I made in this entire thread with that one. At least that one is real.

For all, in case the image disappears on CAF at some point.

That's 1987 Jack in all his glory with a snazzy Roz Kirby signature to the right even...phantabulous

LOL.. nice try on the deflection there bud. I thought he couldn’t trace or draw a straight line at this time?
Signature is irrelevant when it shows clearly the man can draw - which was my point.

But listen - everyone is entitled to their OPINION. But doesn’t mean you have to sit here and try to convince everyone that what you are saying is true and discredit everyone that doesn’t agree with you. 

Anyways, don’t have all day and night to go in circles on this. I see where you stand and you know where I stand. Wake me up when there are facts to support what you say.

Gnite 

 

Edited January 24, 2020 by RICKYBOBBY

[vodou]

11 hours ago, RICKYBOBBY said:

I thought he couldn’t trace or draw a straight line at this time?

Man I've looked and then looked again (now my eyes are bleeding as Chaykin would say) and still I just cannot find those straight lines except the borders done with a ruler (and -whoosh- more than a bit of slop present even with the ruler ).

Here again, because I'll never tire of posting this image...

I hope you do realize that this is a complete and utter POS, right? Rick's Arak example, oof, runs circles around it...and typing that physically hurts.

11 hours ago, RICKYBOBBY said:

Signature is irrelevant when it shows clearly the man can draw - which was my point.

Wow. (Nearly) #speechless and #nocomment except...without the signature, I believe everyone (but Glen Gold) would call this a guaranteed forgery. That's just how bad it is.

It's so bad it's "good" (as the art world would say), because while all the style is gone just enough of the basic wonky undercarriage is present to see that it is Kirby.

I used atrocity to describe Rick's Arak example, this is Atrocity+++ and very much needs to be inked, and by all means erase all the pencils ( ), by Mick or anybody younger than 90...ASAP!

The Kirby Estate/Museum folks should have made an offer the owner couldn't refuse to buy it back for insta-destruction (or banishment to the Negative Zone); this being "out there" only diminishes the fine name and reputation of Jacob Kurtzberg.

 

[pemart1966]

"Signature is irrelevant when it shows clearly the man can draw - which was my point."

 

WTF????      

[glendgold]

To the OP's question: do you have the Kirby Checklist? https://twomorrows.com/index.php?main_page=product_info&cPath=123_139_145&products_id=640&zenid=fea62e08e65dd7d5b4415b9b2d6e6b23

I find that it really helps track down oddball work.  If you want to make the bigger investment, get the update: https://twomorrows.com/index.php?main_page=product_info&cPath=95_97&products_id=1361&zenid=fea62e08e65dd7d5b4415b9b2d6e6b23

Professor Kublak - including this sketch - shows up there. I don't see anything to make me suspicious about it (though I'm not 100% sure what's going on at the bottom - is he turning invisible? Did Jack just not finish?Did something get erased?).  It's a cool piece. I know some long-time Kirby fans who were interested in it.