Yeah cause Kirby LOVED to sign right on covers.... 2 2

[Prince Namor]

16 hours ago, shadroch said:

Why does Kirby get a pass for pawning off expensive " autographs" to his fans? I'm amazed people call one guy a crook for faking an autograph while Kirby pushed hundreds of fakes.

Jack never charged anyone for an autograph at a show. It was always free. 

[shadroch]

4 hours ago, Prince Namor said:

Jack never charged anyone for an autograph at a show. It was always free. 

The Kirby's signed thousands of books for a third market company that sold them to his fans. He was well paid for it, and having a middle man in between he and the fans does not change that. I think he committed fraud by taking money to sign product and having others sign instead, and he betrayed his fans by letting DF sell these things at premium prices because people wanted an authentic Kirby signed book.

[Prince Namor]

48 minutes ago, shadroch said:

The Kirby's signed thousands of books for a third market company that sold them to his fans. He was well paid for it, and having a middle man in between he and the fans does not change that. I think he committed fraud by taking money to sign product and having others sign instead, and he betrayed his fans by letting DF sell these things at premium prices because people wanted an authentic Kirby signed book.

You said:

On 7/1/2020 at 9:53 PM, shadroch said:

Why does Kirby get a pass for pawning off expensive " autographs" to his fans? I'm amazed people call one guy a crook for faking an autograph while Kirby pushed hundreds of fakes.

I replied: Jack never charged anyone for an autograph at a show. It was always free. 

THAT is why he gets a pass. Stan faked plenty of autographs AND charged his fans $200 an autograph to their face. 

If you met Jack Kirby. He signed your book for FREE.

If you met Stan Lee. He charged you $200. 

You asked why Jack gets a pass. I answered. 

They BOTH faked autographs (supposedly, I don't have proof of either situation, other than I don't trust any of the companies they worked with) for shady autograph 'specialists' aimed at speculators, but at least when you met Jack Kirby face to face, he signed your book for FREE.

[shadroch]

Mr. Kirby died in 1994. No artist was charging for signatures. Had he lived until 2018 and been doing shows, I am sure he would have charged.

As far as Stan selling fake autographs, you will have to educate me about that. Who, what, where, ect, ect.  YOU stated Stan faked lots of signatures. Show me the evidence?

I was only at a few shows where Stan was in later years, but it seemed like every time, tix for his autographs and met and greets sold out.

If you think signing an autograph to a fan at a show negates the act of defrauding thousands of fans who purchased books you claimed were personally signed, I'm not sure what ls I can say.

Besides which, who cares if Stan was doing something. If Stan robbed a bank, should Kirby have followed?

[kav]

@Buzzetta

[Buzzetta]

6 hours ago, Prince Namor said:

You said:

I replied: Jack never charged anyone for an autograph at a show. It was always free. 

THAT is why he gets a pass. Stan faked plenty of autographs AND charged his fans $200 an autograph to their face. 

If you met Jack Kirby. He signed your book for FREE.

If you met Stan Lee. He charged you $200. 

You asked why Jack gets a pass. I answered. 

They BOTH faked autographs (supposedly, I don't have proof of either situation, other than I don't trust any of the companies they worked with) for shady autograph 'specialists' aimed at speculators, but at least when you met Jack Kirby face to face, he signed your book for FREE.

There is no logic to this. If you commit fraud, you do not get a pass based on what you did prior to committing the fraud.  The debate is whether or not the Kirby signatures on the dynamic forces are indeed signatures applied by Jack Kirby himself.   If Kirby received money to sign a book and had someone else do it, then Kirby did not honor the terms of that contract and committed fraud in passing off someone else's rendition of his signature as his own.   This is what fraud is.

It does not matter what Stan Lee did.  It does not matter what Eli Manning did.  It does not matter what anyone else did... that's just deflection.  If we are talking about a very specific incident as described above and it went down in that manner... then it is fraud.

Personal feelings aside... fraud... is 'fraud'

[Prince Namor]

13 hours ago, Buzzetta said:

There is no logic to this.

I answered his original question. Why does Kirby get a pass for pawning off expensive " autographs" to his fans?

He turned it into something else.

13 hours ago, Buzzetta said:

If you commit fraud, you do not get a pass based on what you did prior to committing the fraud.  The debate is whether or not the Kirby signatures on the dynamic forces are indeed signatures applied by Jack Kirby himself.   If Kirby received money to sign a book and had someone else do it, then Kirby did not honor the terms of that contract and committed fraud in passing off someone else's rendition of his signature as his own.   This is what fraud is.

If someone wants to debate an unsubstantiated rumor, where the 'proof' revolves around an imperfect science using subjective opinion, they can have at it all day. That wasn't why I answered. None of what you speculate here is proven. I simply matched up speculation vs speculation, when he moved the goal posts.

13 hours ago, Buzzetta said:

It does not matter what Stan Lee did.  It does not matter what Eli Manning did.  It does not matter what anyone else did... that's just deflection.  If we are talking about a very specific incident as described above and it went down in that manner... then it is fraud.

Personal feelings aside... fraud... is 'fraud'

Once again, he asked  Why does Kirby get a pass for pawning off expensive " autographs" to his fans?

I gave my reason why I believe it's seen the way it is. 

 

If you want to debate right or wrong on the unsubstantiated rumor - Jack would be wrong in the black & white, truest sense and spirit of the law. You then open it up TO the law and secretarial/signature by proxy defense and from a moral standpoint, that Jack's INTENT wasn't to deceive but rather try and do what he could to give his fans a chance at his signature before he passed away, AND maybe most importantly for himself, try and provide for his family before his passing. 

People will see it or perceive how they want.

13 hours ago, Buzzetta said:

It does not matter what Stan Lee did.  It does not matter what Eli Manning did.  It does not matter what anyone else did... that's just deflection. 

And to go back to this: yes it DOES matter what others have done. For a reason, there are different degrees of fraud. How much, how often, why - these are all things that DO play a part in the process of it. In this case it isn't even a proven event, much less one that anyone has made a legal case against. 

If it IS true, no one seemed to think it was important enough to go after or to prosecute. There have been cases of signature fraud prosecuted since then. From a legal standpoint... That. means. something. 

From a moral standpoint... Dynamic Forces and the 'signature' market are an ugly, grotesque, shady, greed motivated niche of this and other hobbies - to point a finger at Jack, and single him out for an unsubstantiated, speculated single instance? Yeah, to me it DOES matter. It does make a difference.

13 hours ago, Buzzetta said:

If we are talking about a very specific incident as described above and it went down in that manner... then it is fraud.

Personal feelings aside... fraud... is 'fraud'

Proven fraud is fraud. Unsubstantiated rumors are not.

I get that some people would like to knock Jack down, because Stan has so many... questionable situations that people throw flames at, but... my point in how they're perceived was that Jack did shows, a fair amount of shows, when he was alive and at all of them, he gave his signature away for free. I realize it was a different time, but...Stan DIDN'T. He rarely appeared at cons, but he DID do PAID speaking events. And of course, when the money WAS there eventually in doing the show signings, despite being a multi-Millionaire, he gladly took the money to do it - charging his fans $200 a pop. 

Personally, I don't knock anyone for doing this. He was a brand, and he sold it. That's the way it works. More power to anyone who can. But I see Jack in a different light because he SPECIFICALLY went out there to do those shows and meet his fans and signed for free. Yeah, maybe at the time he couldn't have charged for his autograph, but he didn't HAVE to go and do those shows either. Yet he did.

And all of that is going to be perceived a certain way by some fans, regardless of what speculative rumors people want to throw around regarding anything else in their lives. 

[Buzzetta]

23 minutes ago, Prince Namor said:

I answered his original question. Why does Kirby get a pass for pawning off expensive " autographs" to his fans?

He turned it into something else.

If someone wants to debate an unsubstantiated rumor, where the 'proof' revolves around an imperfect science using subjective opinion, they can have at it all day. That wasn't why I answered. None of what you speculate here is proven. I simply matched up speculation vs speculation, when he moved the goal posts.

Once again, he asked  Why does Kirby get a pass for pawning off expensive " autographs" to his fans?

I gave my reason why I believe it's seen the way it is. 

 

If you want to debate right or wrong on the unsubstantiated rumor - Jack would be wrong in the black & white, truest sense and spirit of the law. You then open it up TO the law and secretarial/signature by proxy defense and from a moral standpoint, that Jack's INTENT wasn't to deceive but rather try and do what he could to give his fans a chance at his signature before he passed away, AND maybe most importantly for himself, try and provide for his family before his passing. 

People will see it or perceive how they want.

And to go back to this: yes it DOES matter what others have done. For a reason, there are different degrees of fraud. How much, how often, why - these are all things that DO play a part in the process of it. In this case it isn't even a proven event, much less one that anyone has made a legal case against. 

If it IS true, no one seemed to think it was important enough to go after or to prosecute. There have been cases of signature fraud prosecuted since then. From a legal standpoint... That. means. something. 

From a moral standpoint... Dynamic Forces and the 'signature' market are an ugly, grotesque, shady, greed motivated niche of this and other hobbies - to point a finger at Jack, and single him out for an unsubstantiated, speculated single instance? Yeah, to me it DOES matter. It does make a difference.

Proven fraud is fraud. Unsubstantiated rumors are not.

I get that some people would like to knock Jack down, because Stan has so many... questionable situations that people throw flames at, but... my point in how they're perceived was that Jack did shows, a fair amount of shows, when he was alive and at all of them, he gave his signature away for free. I realize it was a different time, but...Stan DIDN'T. He rarely appeared at cons, but he DID do PAID speaking events. And of course, when the money WAS there eventually in doing the show signings, despite being a multi-Millionaire, he gladly took the money to do it - charging his fans $200 a pop. 

Personally, I don't knock anyone for doing this. He was a brand, and he sold it. That's the way it works. More power to anyone who can. But I see Jack in a different light because he SPECIFICALLY went out there to do those shows and meet his fans and signed for free. Yeah, maybe at the time he couldn't have charged for his autograph, but he didn't HAVE to go and do those shows either. Yet he did.

And all of that is going to be perceived a certain way by some fans, regardless of what speculative rumors people want to throw around regarding anything else in their lives. 

I’ve got to be honest.  You response is not really worth reading.  I read the first three lines and immediately realized that you didn’t care to read or comprehend my response.  

I said “if”.  

If it happened as described then it is fraud.  And no, stop deflecting, it does not matter if others engaged in fraud.  If you engage in a fraudulent activity you committed fraud.   You can tell yourself whatever you want to satisfy your idolization.  However the reality is that  the definition of fraud doesn’t change because you want to protect a hero of yours... “if” he did as described. 

And while we are on that topic... You ever see ‘A Bronx Tale’?  Go ask your father if Jack Kirby will pay the rent. 

 

[kav]

I'm going to get Kneel Atoms to sign my copy:

[shadroch]

Prince Namor accused Stan Lee of selling fake autographs. I'm still waiting for any evidence he cares to provide. I suspect I will be waiting a while. 

Every creator has faults. Heck, if someone looked long enough, they might find I have a couple. 

As I said, it just amazes me people will crucify an ebay seller for offering a book with a fake Kirby signature while giving a pass to the man who knowingly committed fraud with many many of his fans. There are people on this board who can tell at a glance if Roz signed it, which indicates how widespread it is.  No one, as best as I can tell, ever clamored for a Roz Kirby signed book. Imagine shelling out $100 to get a Roz Kirby signed book only to find out her husband signed it in her name.

[Prince Namor]

1 hour ago, Buzzetta said:

I’ve got to be honest.  You response is not really worth reading.  I read the first three lines and immediately realized that you didn’t care to read or comprehend my response.  

I said “if”.

I'll sum it up for you. I said: If you want to debate right or wrong on the unsubstantiated rumor - Jack would be wrong in the black & white, truest sense and spirit of the law.

1 hour ago, Buzzetta said:

If it happened as described then it is fraud.  And no, stop deflecting, it does not matter if others engaged in fraud.

I'll sum it up for you. I said: If you want to debate right or wrong on the unsubstantiated rumor - Jack would be wrong in the black & white, truest sense and spirit of the law.

1 hour ago, Buzzetta said:

If you engage in a fraudulent activity you committed fraud.   You can tell yourself whatever you want to satisfy your idolization.  

I'll sum it up for you. I said: If you want to debate right or wrong on the unsubstantiated rumor - Jack would be wrong in the black & white, truest sense and spirit of the law.

1 hour ago, Buzzetta said:

However the reality is that  the definition of fraud doesn’t change because you want to protect a hero of yours... “if” he did as described. 

I'll sum it up for you. I said: If you want to debate right or wrong on the unsubstantiated rumor - Jack would be wrong in the black & white, truest sense and spirit of the law.

I'll repeat it in even simpler language: IF Jack committed fraud, he was WRONG. It's fraud. 

I guess I have to say it multiple times and get a signed affidavit for everyone. Show me the Stan Lee threads where his defenders make the same type of admissions. You want to see deflections, there's your go to.

1 hour ago, Buzzetta said:

And while we are on that topic... You ever see ‘A Bronx Tale’?  Go ask your father if Jack Kirby will pay the rent. 

I've seen the movie, I'm familiar with the scene, I have no idea what you're trying to say with it.

 

[Buzzetta]

10 minutes ago, Prince Namor said:

I'll sum it up for you. I said: If you want to debate right or wrong on the unsubstantiated rumor - Jack would be wrong in the black & white, truest sense and spirit of the law.

I'll sum it up for you. I said: If you want to debate right or wrong on the unsubstantiated rumor - Jack would be wrong in the black & white, truest sense and spirit of the law.

I'll sum it up for you. I said: If you want to debate right or wrong on the unsubstantiated rumor - Jack would be wrong in the black & white, truest sense and spirit of the law.

I'll sum it up for you. I said: If you want to debate right or wrong on the unsubstantiated rumor - Jack would be wrong in the black & white, truest sense and spirit of the law.

I'll repeat it in even simpler language: IF Jack committed fraud, he was WRONG. It's fraud. 

I guess I have to say it multiple times and get a signed affidavit for everyone. Show me the Stan Lee threads where his defenders make the same type of admissions. You want to see deflections, there's your go to.

I've seen the movie, I'm familiar with the scene, I have no idea what you're trying to say with it.

 

Like I said, 'if' he did this then he is wrong.

But you still don't get it which is sad.  I don't care about Stan Lee. I don't care about Bruce Lee.  I don't care about George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Alexander Hamilton, the cast of Hamilton or Fort Hamilton Parkway in good old Brooklyn New York.  You keep bringing up Stan Lee.  "But look what Stan Lee might have done."  It doesn't matter what Stan Lee did or didn't do.  It doesn't matter what anyone else did or didn't do.  The issue is IF (Want to make sure you see that word) the Kirby's accepted money for Jack to sign books, and his wife signed them instead, then that is fraud.    You keep asking me to show you Stan Lee threads and defenders... and I say who gives a pumpkin pie about that?  That's not the issue.   Who cares... start a Stan Lee thread and debate that there and if Stan had his daughter or handlers sign his name for him then that is also fraud.  I"ll say the same thing there if it makes you pull the sheets up to your chin and sleep easy at night. 

If Roz signed Jack's name as Jack for financial compensation it is fraud.  Who cares what anyone else did?

 

If you were truly familiar with the scene... you would get it. 

[Buzzetta]

1 hour ago, shadroch said:

Prince Namor accused Stan Lee of selling fake autographs. I'm still waiting for any evidence he cares to provide. I suspect I will be waiting a while. 

Every creator has faults. Heck, if someone looked long enough, they might find I have a couple. 

As I said, it just amazes me people will crucify an ebay seller for offering a book with a fake Kirby signature while giving a pass to the man who knowingly committed fraud with many many of his fans. There are people on this board who can tell at a glance if Roz signed it, which indicates how widespread it is.  No one, as best as I can tell, ever clamored for a Roz Kirby signed book. Imagine shelling out $100 to get a Roz Kirby signed book only to find out her husband signed it in her name.

He still doesn't get it.  He keeps deflecting and saying, "But look at that".  We are both wasting our breath and I do not know who is more sad, him, or us for correcting his misguided deflections. 

Edited July 4, 2020 by Buzzetta

[Prince Namor]

5 minutes ago, Buzzetta said:

Like I said, 'if' he did this then he is wrong.

How many more times do I have to agree?

5 minutes ago, Buzzetta said:

But you still don't get it which is sad. 

How many more ways do I have to agree with " 'if' he did this he is wrong"?

5 minutes ago, Buzzetta said:

I don't care about Stan Lee. I don't care about Bruce Lee.  I don't care about George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Alexander Hamilton, the cast of Hamilton or Fort Hamilton Parkway in good old Brooklyn New York.  You keep bringing up Stan Lee.  "But look what Stan Lee might have done."  It doesn't matter what Stan Lee did or didn't do.  It doesn't matter what anyone else did or didn't do.  The issue is IF (Want to make sure you see that word) the Kirby's accepted money for Jack to sign books, and his wife signed them instead, then that is fraud.    You keep asking me to show you Stan Lee threads and defenders... and I say who gives a pumpkin pie about that?  That's not the issue.   Who cares... start a Stan Lee thread and debate that there and if Stan had his daughter or handlers sign his name for him then that is also fraud.  I"ll say the same thing there if it makes you pull the sheets up to your chin and sleep easy at night. 

If Roz signed Jack's name as Jack for financial compensation it is fraud.  Who cares what anyone else did?

The conversation was originally between me and 'shadroch'. He brought Stan Lee into it - there's a history there. I've been answering it.

5 minutes ago, Buzzetta said:

If you were truly familiar with the scene... you would get it. 

I've done over 1000 SS books in my life (where I got them face to face signed), been to over 50 major conventions, and been a part of the actual SS process in various stages for both CGC and CBCS - I think I've got some experience at it. 

[kav]

Stan Lee faked sigs?

[jokiing]

Jack Kirby faked this right in front of me....

[shadroch]

26 minutes ago, kav said:

Stan Lee faked sigs?

Lots of them, according to Prince Namor. 

[kav]

3 minutes ago, shadroch said:

Lots of them, according to Prince Namor. 

[Ryan.]

I heard Roz Kirby faked Stan Lee's sig. I think. Maybe. I don't know, this thread got a little long-winded. 

[kav]

18 minutes ago, Ryan. said:

I heard Roz Kirby faked Stan Lee's sig. I think. Maybe. I don't know, this thread got a little long-winded. 

Does she have any Frazettas?  Asking for a fiend.