ADVERTISEMENT
Welcome to ComicArtFans!

Jack Kirby Studio * Silver Surfer and Dr. Doom

Artist: Jack Kirby (Penciller)

128 Comments  -   9,633 Views  -   2 Likes


Jack Kirby Studio * Silver Surfer and Dr. Doom  Comic Art
Click Image to View Full Size

 

Additional Images:


Jack Kirby * Silver Surfer and Dr. Doom pencil pin up page! Inked version

Jack Kirby * Silver Surfer and Dr. Doom pencil pin up page!Sotheby's

 

   

Artwork Details

Title: Jack Kirby Studio * Silver Surfer and Dr. Doom
Artist: Jack Kirby (Penciller)
Media Type: Pencil
Art Type: Commission
For Sale Status: NFS
Views: 9,633
Likes on CAF:
Favorited on CAF: 2
Comments: 128
Added to Site: 6/20/2012
Comic Art Archive:

Description

OK, so there's a debate over the authorship of this piece-- some say Kirby, some say Kirby/ assistant, a few say all assistant. That's why I listed it with an asterisk.

Here's what Heritage said:

"This stunning piece featuring everyone's favorite cosmic wanderer, the Silver Surfer, paired with the Silver Age's most fearsome villain, Doctor Doom, was previously sold in the 9/30/1992 Sotheby's auction, was in the collection of singer Graham Nash, and was then auctioned again by Sotheby's on 6/5/1998.
It has recently come to light that some collectors feel Kirby may have collaborated with an unknown assistant on a group of artworks included in the Sotheby's auctions during the 1990s. While we don't have any firm information regarding another hand in this drawing, based on the information we've read, we acknowledge the possibility that Kirby himself may not have drawn this piece in its entirety. Though the specifics of Kirby's working process at the time are unknown, what is known is that these drawings were consigned to those Sotheby's auctions directly from Jack Kirby and his family.
The art is edge-to-edge on a piece of illustration board measuring approximately 14" x 17", is signed by the artist in the lower center, and is in Excellent condition."

I know two collectors who had seen this hanging in Jack's home. My instinct tells me that no way Kirby hung a piece that he didn't have a part in. No one knows completely about Kirby's private working method, especially later in life. Plus Jack watched it being sold in Sotheby's, and he personally sold it to Graham Nash-- I just don't know if this circumstantial evidence suggests that it was done (entirely) by an assistant.

The correct attribution is "Studio of Jack Kirby". SInce Kirby sold the work, it fits the Sotheby's definition as follows: "Studio of Giovanni Bellini-- In our best judgement, a work by an unknown hand executed in the style of the artist under his direct supervision". I think everyone can agree on this long used description, whether they think Kirby had a hand in it or not, since Kirby's direct involvement is not required for the work to fall under this attribution, and clearly Jack Kirby sold the work.

If you wish to comment on the piece, please comment once only, and make your point concise and objective.

Social/Sharing



About the Owner

Rob  Pistella
Premium Gallery Owner
Joined: May 2005
Country: UNITED STATES
On CAF:

Rob  Pistella's Classifieds
Rob  Pistella's Want List
Gallery Comments by Rob  Pistella
View All 'Liked' Art by Rob  Pistella
View Rob  Pistella's Site Activity on CAF

Read More About Rob Pistella

Contact the Owner

Use the contact form below to send an email to this gallery owner.

You must be logged in to use this feature.


Comments

You must be logged in to make comments.

Eric DLS wrote: Paid Member    [ Quote & Reply ]
In light of the information in your description, I would be shocked if this was "all assistant". Stylistically, I'm sure there will be people who look at this and see (whether real or imagined) "suspicious" areas. But I am by no means a Kirby expert, so I am in no position to make any judgements. As a collector and fan, I think I would be content to just BELIEVE it's a Kirby! Whatever the case may be, I think it's a spectacular image! Congratulations!
Posted on 6/20/2012


Ron Sonenthal wrote: Paid Member    [ Quote & Reply ]
No matter what anyone says, this must look awesome on your wall. Congratulations!!
Posted on 6/20/2012


Rob  Pistella wrote: Paid Member    [ Quote & Reply ]
Thanks guys. Yes Ron-it looks awesome on my wall, and it screams 'Kirby magic' to me!
Posted on 6/20/2012


Rob  Pistella wrote: Paid Member    [ Quote & Reply ]
i spoke to a previous owner for two hours last night. He's 'positive' that not only it was done with NO assistants but that it is in fact early 70s, not 90s...he was the original buyer of it at Sotheby's...I've added a photo of the original Sotheby's catalog listing here.
Posted on 6/21/2012


Colorado Kid wrote:     [ Quote & Reply ]
Why would Kirby sign and hang this piece on his wall if it wasn't his? It looks like Kirby to me...
Posted on 6/21/2012


LEN  CALLO wrote:     [ Quote & Reply ]
Rest easy. That's all Kirby. On the Sotheby's page, note the description below and image to the right of SS#4 complete. There was a controversy about the ownership and It didn't sell. After the auction I called them up and bought it for $10k!
Posted on 6/21/2012


Michael  Unfried wrote:     [ Quote & Reply ]
Very cool you were able to get the information you needed, awesome piece no matter what! Congrats!
Posted on 6/21/2012


George 1 wrote:     [ Quote & Reply ]
A powerful image.
Posted on 6/21/2012


Rob  Pistella wrote: Paid Member    [ Quote & Reply ]
LEN CALLO said:
Rest easy. That's all Kirby. On the Sotheby's page, note the description below and image to the right of SS#4 complete. There was a controversy about the ownership and It didn't sell. After the auction I called them up and bought it for $10k!

Thanks Len, that means a lot to me coming from a collector like you!!!
Posted on 6/21/2012


John Butler wrote: Paid Member    [ Quote & Reply ]
That's my kitchen table.
Posted on 6/21/2012


Erik Larsen wrote:     [ Quote & Reply ]
It's cool that you love this piece but Jack did not draw it. Of that I'm absolutely certain. The Doom head is a swipe. The Silver Surfer figure is based off one Jack drew but the line weight and textures are all wrong. It's far too precise for Jack from that time. Jack drew on an old drawing board that he had for years and the backsides of his pages are typically filthy--from what I've been told from a former owner of this piece it's pretty clean. I know who worked on a lot of these commissions and I'm not going to out him--but while this piece was based on Jack's work--there's not a line on it that appears to have been drawn by Kirby himself.
Posted on 6/21/2012


Rob  Pistella wrote: Paid Member    [ Quote & Reply ]
Erik Larsen said:
It's cool that you love this piece but Jack did not draw it. Of that I'm absolutely certain. The Doom head is a swipe. The Silver Surfer figure is based off one Jack drew but the line weight and textures are all wrong. It's far too precise for Jack from that time. Jack drew on an old drawing board that he had for years and the backsides of his pages are typically filthy--from what I've been told from a former owner of this piece it's pretty clean. I know who worked on a lot of these commissions and I'm not going to out him--but while this piece was based on Jack's work--there's not a line on it that appears to have been drawn by Kirby himself.

Erik I respect you, but I don't think we can be 'certain' of anything short of bringing Jack back from the dead and asking him. You opinion is just that, an opinion. I represent the Frazetta estate for three years now. I assure you, there are pieces that everyone is certain Frank didn't do, but he did, and vice versa. I'm collecting for 38 years now --Things aren't always what they seem...
Posted on 6/21/2012


Rob  Pistella wrote: Paid Member    [ Quote & Reply ]
Honestly Erik, sInce this you are not saying this is a forgery, but a Kirby-authorized recreation, what you are really doing is impugning Jack's name by your assertions-- that Jack hired underlings to completely recreate works which Jack had absolutely no input on, and that Jack then signed them, and sold them as his own work. I don't believe that describes Jack Kirby.
Posted on 6/21/2012


glen gold wrote: Paid Member    [ Quote & Reply ]
Rob, I don't think Erik is impugning Jack's name. Though I'm not as certain as he that Kirby didn't draw a line, I'm increasingly convinced (as I've mentioned to you) that Jack had assistance toward the end of his career. As I mentioned to you several times, there are enough oddities about this piece that I hesitate to call it all Kirby. But before you say something like such an interpretation has any impact on his reputation, I'd just say that 20-30 years ago we were in a different place. A commission was a few hundred bucks and just about every major artist used assistants. It's a very cool piece, no doubt, and as you say, you're holding onto it, but the asterisk is there for a reason.
Posted on 6/21/2012


Rob  Pistella wrote: Paid Member    [ Quote & Reply ]
glen gold said:
Rob, I don't think Erik is impugning Jack's name. Though I'm not as certain as he that Kirby didn't draw a line, I'm increasingly convinced (as I've mentioned to you) that Jack had assistance toward the end of his career. As I mentioned to you several times, there are enough oddities about this piece that I hesitate to call it all Kirby. But before you say something like such an interpretation has any impact on his reputation, I'd just say that 20-30 years ago we were in a different place. A commission was a few hundred bucks and just about every major artist used assistants. It's a very cool piece, no doubt, and as you say, you're holding onto it, but the asterisk is there for a reason.

HI GLEN! Well I put the asterisk there for obvious reasons, because there is a debate about the piece and I like full disclosure. I also like an open forum. However, I do think there is a difference in saying an artist used an assistant from time to time (though many of the artists I collect like Frazetta, Herriman, Jones etc certainly never used one), and saying that the King, Jack Kirby would give commissions to assistants to fully execute, with absolutely no input from himself, and then sell them in private and public sales as his own work...without definitive proof. If that is so, it would be rather scandalous I think. There is no real PROOF that that is the case. Anonymous assistants that won't come forward, but instead murmur behind closed doors, don't count in my book. This issue is much bigger than this piece. Thanks for your comment, and Erik too.
Posted on 6/21/2012


Rob  Pistella wrote: Paid Member    [ Quote & Reply ]
I think 'Studio of Jack Kirby' would be the best and most honest attribution, because it is certainly that. Let each viewer decide himself if it is anything more. This is what the big auction houses say for works by master artists when a more specific attribution isn't possible.
Posted on 6/21/2012


Rob  Pistella wrote: Paid Member    [ Quote & Reply ]
Now I'll blow everyone's mind-- one previous owner commissioned Joe Sinnott to ink a high quality copy of this piece, which I've added as another image....so did Joe believe it to be a Kirby piece? It seems so...
Posted on 6/21/2012


Erik Larsen wrote:     [ Quote & Reply ]
There's not a line on here that looks like it was done by Jack's hand. For the sake of comparison, look at this unused Orion cover. http://www.whatifkirby.com/sites/default/files/creations/jk_ng1_cover.jpg?1282607870 the planets are all drawn freehand, not with a circle template. The pencils are almost chalky in quality and not meticulously drawn.
Posted on 6/22/2012


Erik Larsen wrote:     [ Quote & Reply ]
Other commissions by Jack shortly before this point were very distorted and weird as his was losing his facility. And yet, miraculously, he was drawing carefully rendered commissions swiping poses from his previous work? Nonsense. Jack was getting old, his health was failing, his wife's health was failing and he was asked to do some commissions that could bring in some money and his inner circle stepped up to the plate to help. In some cases Jack drew a few bits so it wasn't completely by others--in some cases--he drew nothing. I'm told that, by the end, Jack wasn't able to even sign his name and that Roz signed it for him.
Posted on 6/22/2012


Erik Larsen wrote:     [ Quote & Reply ]
I love Jack's work--and I respect him immensely. And if he had asked me to ghost for him I would absolutely have pitched in to help the guy out--the same way all of us did to ink Phantom Force and give him the biggest check he ever received. But I do feel it's my obligation as an art collector and part of this community to let people know what went on here.
Posted on 6/22/2012


Rob  Pistella wrote: Paid Member    [ Quote & Reply ]
Erik Larsen said:
I love Jack's work--and I respect him immensely. And if he had asked me to ghost for him I would absolutely have pitched in to help the guy out--the same way all of us did to ink Phantom Force and give him the biggest check he ever received. But I do feel it's my obligation as an art collector and part of this community to let people know what went on here.

Erik, There is a world of difference when an artists creates a new work freehand, with the artist's known style, energy, method of handling the medium, etc. intact. It's quite something else when an artist is asked to recreate a previous done work(s) for a patron, who perhaps says ' I want Dr Doom's head, a planet, some space, and the surfer in 'this' pose'. At that point even the creative artist is reduced to being an employee and the work produced would look different than a newly created freehand work. It seems Joe Sinnott thought the work was Jack's, since he inked a copy of it, and inked Jack's signature...I think that he would be an expert on Jack's work!!
Posted on 6/22/2012


Rob  Pistella wrote: Paid Member    [ Quote & Reply ]
Lastly, Sotheby's uses two art attribution definitions as follows: "Studio of Giovanni Bellini-- In our best judgement, a work by an unknown hand executed in the style of the artist under his direct supervision". "Attributed to Giovanni Bellini--In our best judgement, the work can be ascribed to the artist based on style, but less certainty as to authorship than in the previous category (which would be an unqualified attribution). This work certainly falls under either of these two definitions...possibly the later, perhaps the former.
Posted on 6/22/2012


Aaron N. wrote: Paid Member    [ Quote & Reply ]
Is it 70's or is it 90's? That seems like a critical question, as Erik's objections go more to the 90's.
Posted on 6/22/2012


Rob  Pistella wrote: Paid Member    [ Quote & Reply ]
Aaron N. said:
Is it 70's or is it 90's? That seems like a critical question, as Erik's objections go more to the 90's.

Great question, I don't think anyone can say, the original Sotheby's entry says 70s. I think others are saying 90s.
Posted on 6/22/2012


Erik Larsen wrote:     [ Quote & Reply ]
Rob Pistella said:
Erik, There is a world of difference when an artists creates a new work freehand, with the artist's known style, energy, method of handling the medium, etc. intact. It's quite something else when an artist is asked to recreate a previous done work(s) for a patron, who perhaps says ' I want Dr Doom's head, a planet, some space, and the surfer in 'this' pose'. At that point even the creative artist is reduced to being an employee and the work produced would look different than a newly created freehand work. It seems Joe Sinnott thought the work was Jack's, since he inked a copy of it, and inked Jack's signature...I think that he would be an expert on Jack's work!!

We've seen Kirby do cover recreations--like the one to Amazing Fantasy: http://www.ditko-fever.com/misctjkc30pencils.gif and this isn't that. When Jack drew the pieces he couldn't help but reinterpret the previous work and put his stamp on it. This piece ISN'T a recreation. It's supposed to be an original work--so why light box an old Dr. Doom head?
Posted on 6/22/2012


Erik Larsen wrote:     [ Quote & Reply ]
Clearly this newer creation is loosely based on this old one: http://kirbymuseum.org/blogs/dynamics/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/JKM-55.jpg and putting the two side-by-side only helps emphasize that the newer piece was not drawn by Kirby's hand. The fake is roughly based on this and you can plainly see that Jack's actual pencils have that chalky quality to them, as though they were drawn with a soft, blunt pencil (Jack used a standard #2 pencil throughout his career). The planets are all drawn freehand. The Kirby dots are smudges, not carefully drawn circles filled in. The later piece is drawn with a harder lead and the ghost artist struggled with it. He eventually just settled on that back leg, which was supposed to look as if it was receding but fails to do so.
Posted on 6/22/2012


Erik Larsen wrote:     [ Quote & Reply ]
I know a thing or two about drawing, I'm no stranger to it, having made a living for the last 30 years pushing a pencil around. I'm also quite familiar with Jack's work and even inked a couple pages directly over his pencils. This may indeed have been drawn under his supervision--but I can guarantee that Jack didn't draw so much as a line on it.
Posted on 6/22/2012


Rob  Pistella wrote: Paid Member    [ Quote & Reply ]
Erik Larsen said:
I know a thing or two about drawing, I'm no stranger to it, having made a living for the last 30 years pushing a pencil around. I'm also quite familiar with Jack's work and even inked a couple pages directly over his pencils. This may indeed have been drawn under his supervision--but I can guarantee that Jack didn't draw so much as a line on it.

Erik, will all due respect, you can't 'guarantee' anything, all we have is educated conjecture at this point. I appreciate your expertise and opinion. I acquired the piece knowing all this, and I will attribute this piece to any who ask as 'Studio of Jack Kirby", because the piece was indeed sold by Jack Kirby, and because I think that Sotheby's definition is both morally and legally appropriate here.
Posted on 6/22/2012


glen gold wrote: Paid Member    [ Quote & Reply ]
I might not need to say this, but just to be sure anyone reading this far down knows it: though I think the piece is problematic, Rob's response to it strikes me as right. "Studio of" sounds good to my ear.
Posted on 6/22/2012


Aaron N. wrote: Paid Member    [ Quote & Reply ]
That leg is troubling. Jack drew with such confidence in the seventies, it's hard to imagine him having that much difficulty. Has anyone ever seen a redo like that on a page of Kirby pencils? And the line quality does seem unusually feathery. On the other hand there are elements I can hardly imagine anyone else coming up with, like the disembodied front forearm, the front kneecap, the whole back arm. I might take a guess, with no great assurance, of a 90's Kirby rough figure sketch which was elaborated into a full presentation piece by the mysterious assistant. May I live long enough to learn his identity!
Posted on 6/22/2012


Erik Larsen wrote:     [ Quote & Reply ]
Aaron N. said:
That leg is troubling. Jack drew with such confidence in the seventies, it's hard to imagine him having that much difficulty. Has anyone ever seen a redo like that on a page of Kirby pencils? And the line quality does seem unusually feathery. On the other hand there are elements I can hardly imagine anyone else coming up with, like the disembodied front forearm, the front kneecap, the whole back arm. I might take a guess, with no great assurance, of a 90's Kirby rough figure sketch which was elaborated into a full presentation piece by the mysterious assistant. May I live long enough to learn his identity!

Jack did erase things on occasion. This piece was clearly drawn with much Kirby reference around and pieces of it can be found in other drawings Jack actually drew but everything about this screams out to be that Jack didn't draw it. Every line here is carefully built--if it hasn't been gone over several times it was outlined and filled in. Jack drew with deliberate strokes. This is painstakingly drawn with reference on hand.
Posted on 6/22/2012


Ben Friedman wrote:     [ Quote & Reply ]
Interesting conversation. I weigh in only to say that: (1) Anyone looking at this immeidately would think it is Kirby, and it is hard to believe that he did not play some role in its creation; (2) I agree that "Studio of Jack Kirby" sounds right; (3) it is a fabulous piece, regardless; and (4) I have struggled with pieces I own with similar unclear backgrounds -- sometimes there just isn't enough information to know for sure, and you just have to throw up your hands, put in on your wall, and enjoy. . .
Posted on 6/22/2012


Ben Friedman wrote:     [ Quote & Reply ]
And one other point -- Heritage did not disclose any of this when it was auctioned off, but instead raved that it was a Kirby masterpiece, which I find troubling . . .
Posted on 6/22/2012


Wesley L wrote:     [ Quote & Reply ]
Ben Friedman said:
And one other point -- Heritage did not disclose any of this when it was auctioned off, but instead raved that it was a Kirby masterpiece, which I find troubling . . .

That is not true. Heritage fully disclosed that this may not have been drawn entirely by Jack Kirby. Take a look at the description.
Posted on 6/22/2012


Rob  Pistella wrote: Paid Member    [ Quote & Reply ]
Ben Friedman said:
And one other point -- Heritage did not disclose any of this when it was auctioned off, but instead raved that it was a Kirby masterpiece, which I find troubling . . .

Wesley is correct Ben, Heritage sold it twice, once without the qualified statement when there was no issues with it, and a second time with an updated description, after Erik wrote an article on the piece.
Posted on 6/22/2012


Ben Friedman wrote:     [ Quote & Reply ]
Thanks for the correction -- I looked it up on-line and must have caught the first auction description. Makes me feel better about HA . . .
Posted on 6/22/2012


Erik Larsen wrote:     [ Quote & Reply ]
Ben Friedman said:
Interesting conversation. I weigh in only to say that: (1) Anyone looking at this immeidately would think it is Kirby, and it is hard to believe that he did not play some role in its creation; (2) I agree that "Studio of Jack Kirby" sounds right; (3) it is a fabulous piece, regardless; and (4) I have struggled with pieces I own with similar unclear backgrounds -- sometimes there just isn't enough information to know for sure, and you just have to throw up your hands, put in on your wall, and enjoy. . .

I worked on a book called Fantastic Four: The World's Greatest Comics Magazine and to many people it looked like Kirby--to my eyes--there wasn't a panel in the entire 12-issue run that was indistinguishable from Kirby's art including panels that were direct swipes. Just because an average fan sees squiggles on a let and thinks it looks like Kirby doesn't make it so. Jack's role was creating the material the artist swiped from and nothing more. It all appears to have been drawn by the same hand.
Posted on 6/22/2012


Rob  Pistella wrote: Paid Member    [ Quote & Reply ]
Erik, I believe we understand your opinion.
Posted on 6/22/2012


Ben Friedman wrote:     [ Quote & Reply ]
Erik Larsen said:
I worked on a book called Fantastic Four: The World's Greatest Comics Magazine and to many people it looked like Kirby--to my eyes--there wasn't a panel in the entire 12-issue run that was indistinguishable from Kirby's art including panels that were direct swipes. Just because an average fan sees squiggles on a let and thinks it looks like Kirby doesn't make it so. Jack's role was creating the material the artist swiped from and nothing more. It all appears to have been drawn by the same hand.

Erik -- its funny, I never saw myself as an "average fan" that "sees squiggles" and decides a piece is Kirby. I always thought of myself as a serious, thoughtful, and passionate collector of some 40 years. Thank you for putting me, and everyone else who disagrees with you, in our places.
Posted on 6/22/2012


Rob  Pistella wrote: Paid Member    [ Quote & Reply ]
Ben Friedman said:
Erik -- its funny, I never saw myself as an "average fan" that "sees squiggles" and decides a piece is Kirby. I always thought of myself as a serious, thoughtful, and passionate collector of some 40 years. Thank you for putting me, and everyone else who disagrees with you, in our places.

Touche Ben. To tell you the truth, I'm getting the same vibe.
Posted on 6/22/2012


Erik Larsen wrote:     [ Quote & Reply ]
Ben Friedman said:
Erik -- its funny, I never saw myself as an "average fan" that "sees squiggles" and decides a piece is Kirby. I always thought of myself as a serious, thoughtful, and passionate collector of some 40 years. Thank you for putting me, and everyone else who disagrees with you, in our places.

I was going by your original point that "Anyone looking at this immeidately would think it is Kirby" not you specifically. It has something of a Kirby-vibe. Certainly the artist drawing it was trying to make it look like a Kirby drawing. I've had discussions with numerous people about this piece and nobody I know that makes their living drawing thinks Kirby drew it.
Posted on 6/22/2012


Felix  Lu wrote: Paid Member    [ Quote & Reply ]
Wesley L said:
That is not true. Heritage fully disclosed that this may not have been drawn entirely by Jack Kirby. Take a look at the description.

I think it needs to be said that the previous owner, the one who consigned it to Heritage, deserves a lot of credit for insisting on full disclosure in the auction description. Despite knowing it would have an adverse affect on the market value for his lot. If not for him, some very relevant issues would still be talked about privately and not publicly. Anyone else, and this piece likely would have been passed along quietly to an unsuspecting buyer and/or whitewashed of any unfavorable questions. And very lucky for Rob, who would have bought this as 100% Kirby otherwise. Lucky as well for anyone else going forward who may not be fully versed in Kirby art.
Posted on 6/23/2012


David Johnston wrote:     [ Quote & Reply ]
I recently tried to sell a Romita Spiderman piece at rrauction.com If either of the people who stated it was not Romita or almost cetainly was not Romita art, you are both expertly wrong. How do I know? Mr Romita subsequently emailed a contact to confirm his involvement in the piece but I felt I had to withdraw the piece immediately being under pressure from the auction house So congrats on this piece and don't take experts too seriously. Expertise just allows you to be wrong with authority as a certain timetraveller once said :-)
Posted on 6/23/2012


LEN  CALLO wrote:     [ Quote & Reply ]
Erik Larsen said:
Clearly this newer creation is loosely based on this old one: http://kirbymuseum.org/blogs/dynamics/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/JKM-55.jpg and putting the two side-by-side only helps emphasize that the newer piece was not drawn by Kirby's hand. The fake is roughly based on this and you can plainly see that Jack's actual pencils have that chalky quality to them, as though they were drawn with a soft, blunt pencil (Jack used a standard #2 pencil throughout his career). The planets are all drawn freehand. The Kirby dots are smudges, not carefully drawn circles filled in. The later piece is drawn with a harder lead and the ghost artist struggled with it. He eventually just settled on that back leg, which was supposed to look as if it was receding but fails to do so.

Erik you've made some excellent points and you've turned me into a questioner as well. I'm just wondering if you think the term "fake", as you said above, is a little strong since, in your very next post, you say "This may indeed have been drawn under his supervision" ?
Posted on 6/24/2012


Rob  Pistella wrote: Paid Member    [ Quote & Reply ]
LEN CALLO said:
Erik you've made some excellent points and you've turned me into a questioner as well. I'm just wondering if you think the term "fake", as you said above, is a little strong since, in your very next post, you say "This may indeed have been drawn under his supervision" ?

Len, there's no doubt that 'fake' and 'forgery' are the wrong words to use here. ..because the KIRBY ESTATE SOLD THE PIECE!!! Certainly it was done under his supervision, and while the piece is clearly from his design he may have done some of it himself. ..that doesn't matter though-- "Studio of Jack Kirby" is absolutely the proper attribution.
Posted on 6/24/2012


Daniel Adrians wrote:     [ Quote & Reply ]
I'm not sure I understand, (maybe because I am just another average fan), when did Erik become the "authority" on Kirby? He mentions 'knowing a thing or two about drawing', shouldn't that actually read 'knowing a thing or two about copying'? Isn't this the same guy who made his career on being a Mcfarlane clone? To me he's just trying to start a conspiracy theory when he says he doesn't want to out the guy who did the work. If that were the case, than don't say anything, or put your money where your mouth is. I don't think Rob Pistella needs any schooling when it comes to OA, take a look at his collection Erik. From just another average fan who enjoys the scribbles on paper, excelsior!
Posted on 6/24/2012


glen gold wrote: Paid Member    [ Quote & Reply ]
Erik's eye is good enough to suss out the source material. He's the ONLY PERSON in 20 years to have pointed that out. He also noted how Jack draws with the side of his pencil rather than the point, and how he never uses french curves, protractors or rulers. Given that as a start, and his years of experience knowing which end of a pencil to draw with, I'll listen to him. Further, the guy has a stack of Kirby art bigger than most of us and has spent a bit of time figuring out how all those squiggles on paper work. That said: I wouldn't call it a fake or a forgery. Erik IMO is overstating it.
Posted on 6/24/2012


glen gold wrote: Paid Member    [ Quote & Reply ]
If "put your money where your mouth is" means -- well, if it means anything (I think you used it abiguously) -- I'll declare it's a collaboration. I wouldn't wager how much Kirby is in here but I'm sure (based on my years of authenticating Kirby pieces) that an assistant worked on this, too. Before you, Mr. Blaster, lay into me for not outing "the guy," two things -- I'm not quite sure who that guy is; the guy might have good reasons for not speaking up himself. Dunno. I'm sure you'd defend someone's right to hide behind some anonymity.
Posted on 6/24/2012


Rob  Pistella wrote: Paid Member    [ Quote & Reply ]
For the record, I deleted Erik's most recent comment which said the same thing his other comments said. If any of the naysayers have new information, or care to 'out' the anonymous sources, ok. Otherwise, I'll delete those who repeat themselves. Thanks.
Posted on 6/25/2012


Felix  Lu wrote: Paid Member    [ Quote & Reply ]
Rob Pistella said:
For the record, I deleted Erik's most recent comment which said the same thing his other comments said. If any of the naysayers have new information, or care to 'out' the anonymous sources, ok. Otherwise, I'll delete those who repeat themselves. Thanks.

It is your prerogative to delete any comments you don't like (it appears at least three have been deleted so far), but to be fair to Erik, he was answering a direct question Len Callo asked of him about why he believes this may be considered a "forgery" and "fake Kirby art".
Posted on 6/25/2012


Rob  Pistella wrote: Paid Member    [ Quote & Reply ]
Felix Lu said:
It is your prerogative to delete any comments you don't like (it appears at least three have been deleted so far), but to be fair to Erik, he was answering a direct question Len Callo asked of him about why he believes this may be considered a "forgery" and "fake Kirby art".

Yes I know. I'm just trying to keep all information 'new'-- I deleted a few only, not to censor obviously, but I'm trying to keep this discussion objective and civil. Erik keeps saying the same thing-- no new info. Plus, I don't think Erik is THE authority on Kirby. His view is well known and understood. I've left him have his say...But enough!
Posted on 6/25/2012


Rob  Pistella wrote: Paid Member    [ Quote & Reply ]
a collector posted this online: I have seen this tendency too many times in comics and art collecting. Perhaps it exists in other fields as well and I just don't know it. But there's a presumption that one can attack another's property with immunity and reckless disregard for the verifiable facts (or, perhaps more accurately, for the totality of facts), and without regard for the damage caused. Worse, often, with an express desire to cause damage. Kirby drew things differently depending on the circumstances. His convention sketches look different from his published pieces, which he knew were going to be inked. If there were only a handful of conventions sketches, you might look at them and say "Kirby never drew like that."
Posted on 6/25/2012


Rob  Pistella wrote: Paid Member    [ Quote & Reply ]
He continues: These commission pieces were unique situations which Kirby had never before been in. He was doing pieces meant to be auctioned by a major auction house with great publicity, and the pieces was meant to be a finished pencil piece -- not to be inked afterward. That his hand might move sligfhtly differently, or that he might go over small sections to complete lines in ways he didn't normally do -- all that should not be surprising. That is not to say I know there wasn't any work or even a lot of work done by assistants, but to say the reverse, that you know that all of it was done by assistants, isn't really fair. If you persoinally had lots of pieces of work by Kirby -- done under precisely the same circumstances -- and you saw differences, that would be one thing. But nobody has lots of pieces done under the same circumstances.
Posted on 6/25/2012


Rob  Pistella wrote: Paid Member    [ Quote & Reply ]
he concludes: ... and you saw differences, that would be one thing. But nobody has lots of pieces done under the same circumstances. And to say you know it's fake because the guy who faked it told you so, but the faker won't reveal his name and you won't, either, despite knowing his name and using his word to undermine the value of someone's property, well, that's not fair, either. There is a whole world of difference between posting anonymously to express appreciation and support for an item, and speaking anonymously, or posting on behalf of someone speaking anonymously, when their intent, and yours, is to ruin the value of something. Doesn't make anyone's comments true or false, but whether right or wrong the naysayers aren't going about this in a completely correct way
Posted on 6/25/2012


C  ComicArt wrote:     [ Quote & Reply ]
The people attacking this may be terrific honest people, I don't know, but I know that in this regard they are operating with a bit of a blind spot. Imagine if you deposited a big check and the bank called you to say they bounced your check because some guy told them it was a forgery. And he says he knows it's a forgery because he knows the guy who forged it. So you ask the guy if he's gonna tell you, or tell the bank, who the forger is. And the guy says "nah."
Posted on 6/25/2012


Felix  Lu wrote: Paid Member    [ Quote & Reply ]
Daniel Adrians said:
He mentions 'knowing a thing or two about drawing', shouldn't that actually read 'knowing a thing or two about copying'?

OK, I realize that's supposed to be a dig at Erik, but if we go with your premise, and Erik "knows a thing or two about copying"...then wouldn't he know about copies?
Posted on 6/25/2012


Felix  Lu wrote: Paid Member    [ Quote & Reply ]
C ComicArt said:
The people attacking this may be terrific honest people, I don't know, but I know that in this regard they are operating with a bit of a blind spot. Imagine if you deposited a big check and the bank called you to say they bounced your check because some guy told them it was a forgery. And he says he knows it's a forgery because he knows the guy who forged it. So you ask the guy if he's gonna tell you, or tell the bank, who the forger is. And the guy says "nah."

A closer analogy to this situation is if you deposited a big check THAT YOU KNEW AHEAD OF TIME MAY BE FORGED. But you deposited it anyway, hoping it was real. And when the guy at the bank told you it was forged, you told it him that was his opinion.
Posted on 6/25/2012


C  ComicArt wrote:     [ Quote & Reply ]
Felix Lu said:
A closer analogy to this situation is if you deposited a big check THAT YOU KNEW AHEAD OF TIME MAY BE FORGED. But you deposited it anyway, hoping it was real. And when the guy at the bank told you it was forged, you told it him that was his opinion.

Fair enough in talking about this latest sale. But the same value-affecting accusations have been made regrading the other pieces Sothebys auctioned, some of which reside with their original buyers. And in each case we are still dealing with people saying "I know it's a forgery 'cause I know the forger and, yet, I will not tell you who the forger is."
Posted on 6/25/2012


Rob  Pistella wrote: Paid Member    [ Quote & Reply ]
Guys, I didn't buy the piece because 'although I was advised it was a forgery, I got it hoping it was real.' I got it because the Kirby estate created the work and sold it, and I'm happy at the price I paid to own a piece that is corrected attributed to 'Studio of Jack Kirby".
Posted on 6/25/2012


philippe queveau wrote:     [ Quote & Reply ]
I am sorry but I agree with Erik
Posted on 6/25/2012


LEN  CALLO wrote:     [ Quote & Reply ]
Felix Lu said:
It is your prerogative to delete any comments you don't like (it appears at least three have been deleted so far), but to be fair to Erik, he was answering a direct question Len Callo asked of him about why he believes this may be considered a "forgery" and "fake Kirby art".

So Erik DID respond to my question? I would have been curious to see his response, however redundant.
Posted on 6/25/2012


Ben Friedman wrote:     [ Quote & Reply ]
So, let's take different approach here. As a long-time litigating attorney, I can tell you that these types of factual disputes regularly appear in court. So let's treat this as if it was a trial, the question being "was this piece drawn by Kirby, an assistant, or both?" Plantiff in the case is trying to prove it was Kirby, and lays out his best evidence -- (1) Sotheby's requested that Kirby create the piece; (2) Kirby sold it at Sotheby's as his own work; (3) it is signed by Kirby; (4) Sotheby's (who has its own sets of experts) sold it twice as Kirby's work; (5) Heritage (who has its own sets of experts) sold it once as Kirby's work, and once as Kirby's work with a disclaimer; (6) Kirby had it hanging in his home; (7) several long time collectors say it appears that Kirby's hand is involved.
Posted on 6/25/2012


Ben Friedman wrote:     [ Quote & Reply ]
Now, the defense get's to put on its best case -- and it calls an expert witness -- Erik Larsen to say that, in his expert opinion, this is not Kirby, for all the reasons he has delineated above. Larsen's testimony is treated as an opinion, because that is what it is -- an expert opinion. However, it is not "the" opinion -- it is "an" opinion. And it must be balanced by the jury with the rest of the evidence. Now, there are different levels of review for different kinds of cases. In criminal cases, you must prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. But in civil cases, you must only prove it "by a preponderance of the evidence" (basically more likely than not). Based on the evidence here, on a preponderance of the evidence standard, I think it is hard to say that this is not at least "Kirby studios" material. I would take that case to trial any day of the week.
Posted on 6/25/2012


Ben Friedman wrote:     [ Quote & Reply ]
And just to make clear -- when I say "Kirby Studios," I mean that, at a minimum, Kirby and an assistant worked on this together.
Posted on 6/25/2012


Rob  Pistella wrote: Paid Member    [ Quote & Reply ]
LEN: Sorry about that, but there is only so many times I can read Erik write 'it's a forgery'. There was no new information. Ben: Here are the FACTS: Kirby (studios?) produced this work. Mike T. and Greg T. have said they saw it hang in Kirby's home. Kirby then sold the piece to Graham Nash. After an undetermined period of time, Nash consigned this piece, and others, to Sotheby's in 1992, where it sold. The piece traded hand privately thereafter, and sold at Heritage as a Kirby piece. A private collector eventually returned it to Heritage, who re-sold it with a revised listing noting that some collectors believe the work was done with assistants. it sold again at a lower price. I acquired it from the person that bought it the second time at Heritage. Phew!
Posted on 6/25/2012


Ben Friedman wrote:     [ Quote & Reply ]
Rob -- I think those facts are even stronger then the ones I outlined above. Again, on the issue of whether this is Kirby, or at least Kirby studios, the evidence seems pretty clear . . .
Posted on 6/25/2012


Rob  Pistella wrote: Paid Member    [ Quote & Reply ]
Ben Friedman said:
Rob -- I think those facts are even stronger then the ones I outlined above. Again, on the issue of whether this is Kirby, or at least Kirby studios, the evidence seems pretty clear . . .

Ben: I have mentioned above Sotheby's good definition of 'Studio of (the artist). Absolutely the piece falls into this category, which is at the very least, produced by an assistant under the supervision of the artist. There's no doubt of this because Kirby SOLD THE PIECE!! What's annoying to me is not Eriks's opinion, but his misuse of the the word 'forgery'. A Forgery is created by a third party, without the knowledge of the artist, and passed off as an original. ..injuring the buyer as well s the artist. That's absolutely not what this piece is. It fits the legal and moral definition of 'Studio of Jack Kirby'-- there no doubt about that whatsoever.
Posted on 6/25/2012


Erik Larsen wrote:     [ Quote & Reply ]
I'm done here. Comments are disappearing and it's clear this is not a place where people can speak freely.
Posted on 6/25/2012


Dan Forman wrote: Paid Member    [ Quote & Reply ]
Erik Larsen said:
I'm done here. Comments are disappearing and it's clear this is not a place where people can speak freely.

Eric; usually CAF member pages are for quick praises and high fives. Moreover, members are well within their rights to discard comments for any reason. I find this discussion very interesting, but to be honest, a place like the CGC forums seems like a more appropriate venue. There is a thread there now dealing with this topic and I for one would welcome your input. I don't expect any resolution to the whole topic of Kirby copies, or Assistants, or God forbid forgeries, but I am interested to hear more. Thanks Rob, Thanks Eric, et al.
Posted on 6/25/2012


Dan Forman wrote: Paid Member    [ Quote & Reply ]
Please excuse the mispelling of names. I just got out of bed after a rather bad migraine and am seeing about half the world right now.
Posted on 6/25/2012


Rob  Pistella wrote: Paid Member    [ Quote & Reply ]
Don't be a baby Erik-- you certainly haven't been censored...you've said more than anyone in fact!! But it's a long thread and you are repeating yourself. You've written an article on this. I do welcome other views.
Posted on 6/25/2012


Felix  Lu wrote: Paid Member    [ Quote & Reply ]
C ComicArt said:
Fair enough in talking about this latest sale. But the same value-affecting accusations have been made regrading the other pieces Sothebys auctioned, some of which reside with their original buyers. And in each case we are still dealing with people saying "I know it's a forgery 'cause I know the forger and, yet, I will not tell you who the forger is."

Actually, I think there have been many thought-provoking reasons given for why this piece falls somewhere within "Kirby had nothing to do with it" to "Kirby had some help" besides "I know it's a forgery because I know the forger." You can consider them or not, but the case for or against has never been about the identity of the forger.
Posted on 6/25/2012


Colorado Kid wrote:     [ Quote & Reply ]
Probably the most interesting discussion on original art I’ve ever read, with very credible points made on each side. It’s a disappointment to see it come to an end on such an emotional note, with deletions and such and everyone’s knickers in a twist…
Posted on 6/25/2012


Rob  Pistella wrote: Paid Member    [ Quote & Reply ]
Colorado Kid said:
Probably the most interesting discussion on original art I’ve ever read, with very credible points made on each side. It’s a disappointment to see it come to an end on such an emotional note, with deletions and such and everyone’s knickers in a twist…

Please--hardly any deletions! ONE from Erik because he said the same thing for the 12th time (re-read his other 11 posts if you want to know what he said) and 2 from Glen only because he was (gently) correcting an anonymous poster who decided to stop being anonymous and posted his name, so his comments were no longer germane. That's it. Sheesh!!
Posted on 6/25/2012


Michael Kenyon wrote:     [ Quote & Reply ]
Dan Forman said:
Eric; usually CAF member pages are for quick praises and high fives. Moreover, members are well within their rights to discard comments for any reason. I find this discussion very interesting, but to be honest, a place like the CGC forums seems like a more appropriate venue. There is a thread there now dealing with this topic and I for one would welcome your input. I don't expect any resolution to the whole topic of Kirby copies, or Assistants, or God forbid forgeries, but I am interested to hear more. Thanks Rob, Thanks Eric, et al.

Dan makes a significant point. We normally reserve the comments for praise. Rob is an honest and valued member of CAF. In his description he listed the piece with an asterik, and appears over joyed to add a Kirby Studio pin up to a collection he genuinely enjoys. I was taken back by those that called into question the authenticity of the art in this forum- on the Comments Wall. I believe the gentleman's way would be to send a private email and begin the discussion there. Leave it to a true class act DAN FORMAN to point out what Rob has been trying to say. I'm happy with this piece, I'm big enough to carry the baggage, and fair enough to share opposing thoughts. What say we let Rob enjoy this piece. It's ambitious and beautiful and The K I N G no doubt is smiling at our befuddlement. Enjoy it Rob. It's one hell of a pin up.
Posted on 6/25/2012


C  ComicArt wrote:     [ Quote & Reply ]
Felix Lu said:
Actually, I think there have been many thought-provoking reasons given for why this piece falls somewhere within "Kirby had nothing to do with it" to "Kirby had some help" besides "I know it's a forgery because I know the forger." You can consider them or not, but the case for or against has never been about the identity of the forger.

I would agree there's been good thought-provoking discussion. I don't know how many other people claimed to know the "real" artist but I know the person who called it a forgery also claimed also to know the "forger."
Posted on 6/25/2012


Rob  Pistella wrote: Paid Member    [ Quote & Reply ]
Michael Kenyon said:
Dan makes a significant point. We normally reserve the comments for praise. Rob is an honest and valued member of CAF. In his description he listed the piece with an asterik, and appears over joyed to add a Kirby Studio pin up to a collection he genuinely enjoys. I was taken back by those that called into question the authenticity of the art in this forum- on the Comments Wall. I believe the gentleman's way would be to send a private email and begin the discussion there. Leave it to a true class act DAN FORMAN to point out what Rob has been trying to say. I'm happy with this piece, I'm big enough to carry the baggage, and fair enough to share opposing thoughts. What say we let Rob enjoy this piece. It's ambitious and beautiful and The K I N G no doubt is smiling at our befuddlement. Enjoy it Rob. It's one hell of a pin up.

Michael, Thank you for your gracious comment, which I completely agree with! I do love the piece, and you know what?I'm laughing because I believe in my heart that Kirby did play a part in the piece, and because of all the brouhaha, I got it for a song instead of an arm and a leg. (You know it's so interesting that in our hobby, a guy pencils a piece, an inker inks over it, and it's called Kirby/Ayers. If the inker gets a blue line of the pencils, inks over it, the two pieces now look identical, it's no longer Kirby/Ayers!!) I feel like this issue will mature our hobby, as pieces like this now have a valid niche rather than being 100% original or a forgery. All the Kirby recreations now should have renewed value as 'Studio of Jack Kirby' rather than wrongly being relegated to being on the same level as third party forgeries that screwed over both Jack and the buyers. Thanks again for your response.
Posted on 6/25/2012


glen gold wrote: Paid Member    [ Quote & Reply ]
Rob Pistella said:
I feel like this issue will mature our hobby, as pieces like this now have a valid niche rather than being 100% original or a forgery. All the Kirby recreations now should have renewed value as 'Studio of Jack Kirby' rather than wrongly being relegated to being on the same level as third party forgeries that screwed over both Jack and the buyers.

I was all ready to call it a night before I read this, Rob. This is a fascinating way to go with it and it's not where I would take it at all. I would say instead that the piece is only the beginning of a critical attempt to understand - for historical, financial and collecting reasons - what if anything Kirby had to do with drawing pieces to which his name were signed after 1983. "Studio of Jack Kirby" may or may not have renewed value, depending on what we learn. (And by "value" I'm assuming you aren't just talking bucks, but what it feels like to have the thing on your wall.) People will of course draw their own conclusions once we have more facts in hand. I have no doubt that we'll know more about this in the coming years.
Posted on 6/25/2012


Glen Brunswick wrote: Paid Member    [ Quote & Reply ]
Hey Rob, First off, let me say this is a great looking piece of art. I was an underbidder years ago at Sotheby's in 94--so you know I like it. I do think its possible, given what I've learned about Kirby's health in his later years, that this was done by one of his able assistants at Kirby's direction. I see no shame in this from irby's POV. These things were not known to have the kind of value they have today and Kirby had great concern for his family's well being with no real means to support them. A sad thing for such a talent. I found this sketch in the Kirby Collector 48 which if reversed could be the basis for the Surfer figure in your fine piece here: http://www.comicartfans.com/GalleryPiece.asp?Piece=907384&GSub=119081
Posted on 6/25/2012


Rob  Pistella wrote: Paid Member    [ Quote & Reply ]
Glen G.-- yes value as in not thrown it out as a forgery as if it were done in a basement last week! I know a lot of folks hearts stopped with this came out about the penciled AF 15 piece, after Burkey just sold it for around 60K-- that it was now worthless. Glen B-- thanks for that. You know the date of this piece isn't even known-- If Nash owned it for several years in his collection, then this piece would be 80s, not 1992 when it was sold. I actually saw this piece when I met Jerry Weist and Roger Hill at Sotheby's at we discussed Nash selling his LONG TIME collection. Lastly, I have a cool Al Williamson color piece of Dr. Zarkov-- I know now that Al did MANY of these and they all look alike, what's up with that? So I don't know Kirby's working process enough--and if this piece was done to specifications of the buyer. Thanks for writing.
Posted on 6/25/2012


Frank L wrote:     [ Quote & Reply ]
First off, beautiful artwork. Now, I am an outsider to this. I can see both sides, and Rob, you've been fairly open to this conversation and you perfectly understood the situation around this piece. You paid what you felt was fair given your understanding of the situation. Now, as for how much, if any, work was done by Kirby, I doubt anyone will know unless the unnamed artist Erik mentioned comes forward. Until then, I don't think it is fair to you, and Kirby, to place even more doubt on this work without evidence.
Posted on 6/26/2012


J. Cud wrote:     [ Quote & Reply ]
LEN CALLO said:
Rest easy. That's all Kirby. On the Sotheby's page, note the description below and image to the right of SS#4 complete. There was a controversy about the ownership and It didn't sell. After the auction I called them up and bought it for $10k!

Not to derail from the Kirby debate but I've always LOVED that Loki page 1 splash. Thanks for capturing a snip it of that from the catalog.
Posted on 6/26/2012


LEN  CALLO wrote:     [ Quote & Reply ]
J. Cud said:
Not to derail from the Kirby debate but I've always LOVED that Loki page 1 splash. Thanks for capturing a snip it of that from the catalog.

I later traded the complete book to the guy that owned the cover. He traded it for a Frazetta painting. I know it's still all together somewhere! (I still have full size copies of the whole thing)
Posted on 6/26/2012


LEN  CALLO wrote:     [ Quote & Reply ]
J. Cud said:
Not to derail from the Kirby debate but I've always LOVED that Loki page 1 splash. Thanks for capturing a snip it of that from the catalog.

I later traded the complete book to the guy that owned the cover. He traded it for a Frazetta painting. I know it's still all together somewhere! (I still have full size copies of the whole thing)
Posted on 6/26/2012


Frank  Cho wrote:     [ Quote & Reply ]
Erik Larsen and Philippe Q. are two of the most passionate Jack Kirby fans and Jack Kirby art collectors that I've come across in this field. Between the two of them, they must own hundreds if not thousands of Jack Kirby art from sketches to finished art. I've also seen enough Jack Kirby original art to know what's fake and what's genuine. I completely agree with Erik Larsen and Phillippe Q. This Jack Kirby art is a fake. (Having this piece come from Jack Kirby's estate means nothing. I, myself, have couple of fake Frank Cho original art that my fans have given me over time that I keep as a joke.)
Posted on 6/26/2012


A. Hybsier wrote:     [ Quote & Reply ]
honestly... if you like the piece, if you enjoy the piece and if you are happy with the piece... shouldnt that be what matters?
Posted on 6/26/2012


Randall Glass wrote:     [ Quote & Reply ]
Glen Brunswick said:
I found this sketch in the Kirby Collector 48 which if reversed could be the basis for the Surfer figure in your fine piece here: http://www.comicartfans.com/GalleryPiece.asp?Piece=907384&GSub=119081

did a photoshop animated comparison of the two sketches: http://www.nailbiter.net/comicart/kirby_ss_compare.gif
Posted on 6/26/2012


Rob  Pistella wrote: Paid Member    [ Quote & Reply ]
Thanks guys, this is fascinating. Again, I'm sticking with 'Studio of Jack Kirby', since it's factually true, legally and morally. It would be great to know when this work was created-- if Graham Nash bought it, one would think he had it for a while before he sold it in 1992. Sotheby's did the recreation sale of Marvel covers in 1994-- was this a practice predecessor to the Marvel recreations? And whoever did the Marvel recreations, they were certainly light boxed, no?
Posted on 6/26/2012


Erik Larsen wrote:     [ Quote & Reply ]
Randall Glass said:
did a photoshop animated comparison of the two sketches: http://www.nailbiter.net/comicart/kirby_ss_compare.gif

Jack said he wrote the Fantastic Four (even though his liner notes were often ignored) and he didn't make a big distinction in regard to inkers for much of his career--feeling largely that any professional inker could do the job. I think that, since these commissions were based on his work that Kirby felt they were his in much the same way an inked page was his even after Jack's pencils had been erased. Clearly this piece is based on his work but as I said previously--I don't see so much as a line on this piece that looks to have been drawn by Jack's hand.
Posted on 6/26/2012


Rob  Pistella wrote: Paid Member    [ Quote & Reply ]
Frank Cho said:
Erik Larsen and Philippe Q. are two of the most passionate Jack Kirby fans and Jack Kirby art collectors that I've come across in this field. Between the two of them, they must own hundreds if not thousands of Jack Kirby art from sketches to finished art. I've also seen enough Jack Kirby original art to know what's fake and what's genuine. I completely agree with Erik Larsen and Phillippe Q. This Jack Kirby art is a fake. (Having this piece come from Jack Kirby's estate means nothing. I, myself, have couple of fake Frank Cho original art that my fans have given me over time that I keep as a joke.)

I disagree with your comment 'coming from the Kirby estate means nothing'. You say you have a couple of Cho fakes-- but you aren't selling them--and presumably nor would you ever. You are suggesting these piece is the same as if I created it in my basement and sold it as an original. I don't think that it is. Even if Kirby didn't touch the piece, which isn't clear that's the case, the Studio of Jack Kirby attribution is legally and morally correct. The same attribution should apply to the Marvel cover recreations, since JACK SOLD THEM. Thanks for taking the time out to voice in.
Posted on 6/27/2012


Arjuna Rajakumar wrote:     [ Quote & Reply ]
Rob Pistella said:
I disagree with your comment 'coming from the Kirby estate means nothing'. You say you have a couple of Cho fakes-- but you aren't selling them--and presumably nor would you ever. You are suggesting these piece is the same as if I created it in my basement and sold it as an original. I don't think that it is. Even if Kirby didn't touch the piece, which isn't clear that's the case, the Studio of Jack Kirby attribution is legally and morally correct. The same attribution should apply to the Marvel cover recreations, since JACK SOLD THEM. Thanks for taking the time out to voice in.

Rob, I do not think we have ever met or spoke but I have been following this conversation from the beginning. From an outsiders perspective I would say that clearly since you bought the piece and it must of cost a fair amount of money that perhaps you arn't looking at the situation in the most objective light, I mean what collector wouldn't get defensive if a piece was purchased under the premise that Jack Kirby had at least participated in its creation and then having to face comments that its a fake or a forgery.
Posted on 6/27/2012


Arjuna Rajakumar wrote:     [ Quote & Reply ]
Rob Pistella said:
I disagree with your comment 'coming from the Kirby estate means nothing'. You say you have a couple of Cho fakes-- but you aren't selling them--and presumably nor would you ever. You are suggesting these piece is the same as if I created it in my basement and sold it as an original. I don't think that it is. Even if Kirby didn't touch the piece, which isn't clear that's the case, the Studio of Jack Kirby attribution is legally and morally correct. The same attribution should apply to the Marvel cover recreations, since JACK SOLD THEM. Thanks for taking the time out to voice in.

I feel that in your responses to Erik and Frank that you are disregarding their points more because it discredits your purchase and out of pride by saying "you can't prove its a fake for 100% certainty" while that is true if hypothetically this piece went to court what Frank and Erik have asserted both as professionals and from Erik's unique perspective of being one of the leading Kirby collectors, it would be considered expert testimony.
Posted on 6/27/2012


Arjuna Rajakumar wrote:     [ Quote & Reply ]
Rob Pistella said:
I disagree with your comment 'coming from the Kirby estate means nothing'. You say you have a couple of Cho fakes-- but you aren't selling them--and presumably nor would you ever. You are suggesting these piece is the same as if I created it in my basement and sold it as an original. I don't think that it is. Even if Kirby didn't touch the piece, which isn't clear that's the case, the Studio of Jack Kirby attribution is legally and morally correct. The same attribution should apply to the Marvel cover recreations, since JACK SOLD THEM. Thanks for taking the time out to voice in.

I think public opinion on this piece is that it is from the Jack Kirby Studio, like you have stated and that is both legally and morally asserted but in no way shape or form should be associated with Jack Kirby's mind. He may have contributed intellectually suggesting references but the all the evidence points to it being a fake and I only say the word "fake" because it is signed Jack Kirby and not Jack Kirby studio or after Jack Kirby.
Posted on 6/27/2012


Arjuna Rajakumar wrote:     [ Quote & Reply ]
Arjuna Rajakumar said:
I think public opinion on this piece is that it is from the Jack Kirby Studio, like you have stated and that is both legally and morally asserted but in no way shape or form should be associated with Jack Kirby's mind. He may have contributed intellectually suggesting references but the all the evidence points to it being a fake and I only say the word "fake" because it is signed Jack Kirby and not Jack Kirby studio or after Jack Kirby.

Sorry an edit: I meant should not be associated with Jack Kirby's hands. His mind is true he was intellectually involved but hands not so much.
Posted on 6/27/2012


Rob  Pistella wrote: Paid Member    [ Quote & Reply ]
Please, future posters just post one concise comment stating your opinion of the art. Arjuna--respectfully, too many posts my friend. I bought the piece knowing the 'issues'. I read Erik's article prior to getting the piece. I'm happy with it at the price I paid. Sincerely, it really isn't a matter of 'pride'...obviously I'm an interested party. However I posted it knowing that there is an ongoing debate, and I do welcome an objective exchange of opinions and also evidence...not only on this piece but on all of Kirby's later recreations-- I almost bought the AF 15 pencil piece at one time. Again, PLEASE, one thought out, concise post. Thanks!
Posted on 6/27/2012


Vincent Zurzolo wrote: Paid Member    [ Quote & Reply ]
It is a neat piece but I think I agree with Erik. For comparison's sake, look at this piece http://www.comicartfans.com/GalleryPiece.asp?Piece=897186&GSub=130911 that was penciled and inked by Kirby from 1969. It was for a Marvelmania poster. You can see a distinct difference in the look of the Surfer and the overall feel of the art.
Posted on 6/28/2012


Rob  Pistella wrote: Paid Member    [ Quote & Reply ]
Vincent Zurzolo said:
It is a neat piece but I think I agree with Erik. For comparison's sake, look at this piece http://www.comicartfans.com/GalleryPiece.asp?Piece=897186&GSub=130911 that was penciled and inked by Kirby from 1969. It was for a Marvelmania poster. You can see a distinct difference in the look of the Surfer and the overall feel of the art.

Vince, IMO it's too much apples and oranges-- the 1969 piece was inked by Jack, and was perhaps done 15 years or more before this piece was done... however thanks for voicing your opinion.
Posted on 6/28/2012


Davide G. wrote: Paid Member    [ Quote & Reply ]
This is certainly a very interesting debate (although a bit redundant and sometimes controversial), but it is tied to a very unpleasant question (very important too, though!), Ie the monetary value of the artwork: it is clear that if Kirby has not drawn a line of it and if he has not even hand signed it, the value could be even much lower than that auctioned... I just wonder what consequences may have on that question this public discussion...
Posted on 6/28/2012


Rob  Pistella wrote: Paid Member    [ Quote & Reply ]
Davide G. said:
This is certainly a very interesting debate (although a bit redundant and sometimes controversial), but it is tied to a very unpleasant question (very important too, though!), Ie the monetary value of the artwork: it is clear that if Kirby has not drawn a line of it and if he has not even hand signed it, the value could be even much lower than that auctioned... I just wonder what consequences may have on that question this public discussion...

Hi, Thanks for writing. I tried to delete a few redundant comments (e.g. Erik Larsen posted 12 times) but when I do so, I'm accused of censorship. 1) it will never be 'proven' that Kirby didn't 'draw a line of it', notwithstanding Erik's confident opinion. 2) I paid less than the last Heritage auction price, and the piece won't be for sale. 3) I acquired the piece for my own enjoyment. Thanks again.
Posted on 6/28/2012


daveofapocalypse (daveofapocalypse) wrote:     [ Quote & Reply ]
Rob Pistella said:
Honestly Erik, sInce this you are not saying this is a forgery, but a Kirby-authorized recreation, what you are really doing is impugning Jack's name by your assertions-- that Jack hired underlings to completely recreate works which Jack had absolutely no input on, and that Jack then signed them, and sold them as his own work. I don't believe that describes Jack Kirby.

I think you're kind of interpreting there.
Posted on 6/28/2012


Davide G. wrote: Paid Member    [ Quote & Reply ]
Rob Pistella said:
Hi, Thanks for writing. I tried to delete a few redundant comments (e.g. Erik Larsen posted 12 times) but when I do so, I'm accused of censorship. 1) it will never be 'proven' that Kirby didn't 'draw a line of it', notwithstanding Erik's confident opinion. 2) I paid less than the last Heritage auction price, and the piece won't be for sale. 3) I acquired the piece for my own enjoyment. Thanks again.

Happy to hear this, especially the fact that you bought the drawing for your own enjoyment (and, by the way, it's really charming, since it has such an incredible story behind!), not only because it frees the discussion from some 'unpleasant' implications, but because this is really the spirit of an art lover, as you are!
Posted on 6/28/2012


Michael Kenyon wrote:     [ Quote & Reply ]
Let’s take a quick look back to October, 2011 Greg Theakston alleged that the Kirby recreations and private Kirby commissions created around the time of the 1994 Sotheby’s Auction were the work of an unnamed “Ghost” artist . Here’s what Theakston presented as evidence; GT-I didn’t ghost the art, but Roz [Jack's wife] told me who was doing it. This was the only section of the book where I held back anything. I didn’t feel that it was right for me to out him because of the ramifications he might face from collectors and dealers. Last thing I want is to bring any heat to a friend.
Posted on 6/28/2012


Aaron N. wrote: Paid Member    [ Quote & Reply ]
Rob, congrats on having by far the most comments on a single piece that I have ever seen on CAF & I join with others in praise of your willingness to host an open debate.
Posted on 6/29/2012


Michael Kenyon wrote:     [ Quote & Reply ]
So theakston didn't ghost the art but he "knows" who did but he's not saying. Poor Roz Kirby has passed on so we can't ask her to confirm what Greg asserts.
Posted on 6/29/2012


Michael Kenyon wrote:     [ Quote & Reply ]
Fast forward 2012 and Erik Larsen(see above) says he knows who the ghost is but he's not going to out him. Sound familiar? Now we have two gentleman in the "know" and they seem to be saying trust me. That's alot to swallow when Kirby's legacy is on the line.
Posted on 6/29/2012


Rob  Pistella wrote: Paid Member    [ Quote & Reply ]
I was told Greg T. did all the lettering and logo work on the Marvel recreations. He'd be the logical place to start. What's odd is that he is one of the persons who purportedly saw this piece hanging in Jack's place...but I have never spoken with him.
Posted on 6/29/2012


Michael Kenyon wrote:     [ Quote & Reply ]
This pin up and other recreations/commissions were created during Jack's lifetime. They are not faux Kirby's "discovered" 20-40-60 years after Jack's death.
Posted on 6/29/2012


Michael Kenyon wrote:     [ Quote & Reply ]
Kirby took credit for this art and all the others in question. He sold the art as his own. He backed them with his good name K I R B Y. It's our duty to speak carefully about this man and his work.
Posted on 6/29/2012


Rob  Pistella wrote: Paid Member    [ Quote & Reply ]
Mike, there needs to be some real scholarship on the Sotheby's recreations (my piece is NOT a piece prepared for that 1994 auction by the way). I was there at that auction, and I remember thinking that certainly Jack didn't meticulously recreate these covers himself all alone...however it certainly wasn't plausible that they were 100% assistant produced works for which Jack contributed zero. Perhaps one of his children can be contacted?
Posted on 6/29/2012


Michael Kenyon wrote:     [ Quote & Reply ]
Jack and Roz Kirby deserve better than this.To date there is no one on the record to claim that Jack himself verbally or otherwise acknowledged a ghost for these works. To date we have no one claiming to have witnessed a ghost creating these pieces. Jack died taking credit (richly deserved) for all of his work. Others have spent a life time minimizing or failing to credit his contributions.
Posted on 6/29/2012


Rob  Pistella wrote: Paid Member    [ Quote & Reply ]
Michael Kenyon said:
Jack and Roz Kirby deserve better than this.To date there is no one on the record to claim that Jack himself verbally or otherwise acknowledged a ghost for these works. To date we have no one claiming to have witnessed a ghost creating these pieces. Jack died taking credit (richly deserved) for all of his work. Others have spent a life time minimizing or failing to credit his contributions.

I don't think anyone here falls into that later category you mention. I think Erik et al have 100% pure motives and have a deep love and respect for Kirby which is why they are so passionate. However I've seen so much in my almost 40 years collecting art, first hand, that I KNOW that nothing is ever what it seems. It's always a mistake to make unqualified statements based on your own opinion, without hard uncontested evidence. To do otherwise is arrogance. And while I'm not talking about Erik at all since I don't know him and I have never heard anything bad about him, I do know many (other) successful artists and arrogant and self important are words that comes to mind often...
Posted on 6/29/2012


Michael Kenyon wrote:     [ Quote & Reply ]
Rob Pistella said:
Mike, there needs to be some real scholarship on the Sotheby's recreations (my piece is NOT a piece prepared for that 1994 auction by the way). I was there at that auction, and I remember thinking that certainly Jack didn't meticulously recreate these covers himself all alone...however it certainly wasn't plausible that they were 100% assistant produced works for which Jack contributed zero. Perhaps one of his children can be contacted?

You're right Rob. Erik Larsen is on the record saying your Kirby art was done by somone else. In relation to your piece(which as you say logically was most likely created even before 1992 sothebys) and my comments on the Sotheby's 94 Auction and commissions- the peculiar assertion of 2 people claiming to know for a fact someone else did Kirby's work but at the same time not wanting to name the ghost (Theakston).
Posted on 6/29/2012


Michael Kenyon wrote:     [ Quote & Reply ]
Rob Pistella said:
I don't think anyone here falls into that later category you mention. I think Erik et al have 100% pure motives and have a deep love and respect for Kirby which is why they are so passionate. However I've seen so much in my almost 40 years collecting art, first hand, that I KNOW that nothing is ever what it seems. It's always a mistake to make unqualified statements based on your own opinion, without hard uncontested evidence. To do otherwise is arrogance. And while I'm not talking about Erik at all since I don't know him and I have never heard anything bad about him, I do know many (other) successful artists and arrogant and self important are words that comes to mind often...

I agree- by all accounts Erik and Greg T are swell people. When I say the Kirby's deserve better, I just want folks to understnad that even well meant opinions should be thoughtful because the Kirby's can't speak for themselves.
Posted on 6/29/2012


Rob  Pistella wrote: Paid Member    [ Quote & Reply ]
Michael Kenyon said:
You're right Rob. Erik Larsen is on the record saying your Kirby art was done by somone else. In relation to your piece(which as you say logically was most likely created even before 1992 sothebys) and my comments on the Sotheby's 94 Auction and commissions- the peculiar assertion of 2 people claiming to know for a fact someone else did Kirby's work but at the same time not wanting to name the ghost (Theakston).

Thing is, Sotheby's who has been selling art for 100s of years say 'in our opinion...' which is gracious and also gives them legal foothold. If Sotheby's said 'This piece is absolutely NOT Bellinni" and later it was proved that it was, one could sue Sotheby's for damages and win. The NY Times recently ran an article saying exactly that. One needs to be careful these days about absolute claims without absolute proof.
Posted on 6/29/2012


Rob  Pistella wrote: Paid Member    [ Quote & Reply ]
Here it is: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/20/arts/design/art-scholars-fear-lawsuits-in-declaring-works-real-or-fake.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all
Posted on 6/29/2012


Michael Kenyon wrote:     [ Quote & Reply ]
Michael Kenyon said:
You're right Rob. Erik Larsen is on the record saying your Kirby art was done by somone else. In relation to your piece(which as you say logically was most likely created even before 1992 sothebys) and my comments on the Sotheby's 94 Auction and commissions- the peculiar assertion of 2 people claiming to know for a fact someone else did Kirby's work but at the same time not wanting to name the ghost (Theakston).

Last thread to be clear Larsen and Theakston on seperate Kirby art claim to know an un-named ghost. (Theakston) in quotes at the end of that thread was meant to acknowledge his belief in a ghost- not that he was the ghost. GT has already categorically denied that.
Posted on 6/29/2012


rob steibel wrote:     [ Quote & Reply ]
Michael Kenyon said:
Last thread to be clear Larsen and Theakston on seperate Kirby art claim to know an un-named ghost. (Theakston) in quotes at the end of that thread was meant to acknowledge his belief in a ghost- not that he was the ghost. GT has already categorically denied that.

Hi everybody. I do a daily weblog on Kirby here: http://kirbymuseum.net/blogs/dynamics/ I have a lot of comments on this dialogue which I'll post later on Kirby Dynamics. Quickly, I have never seen anything by Jack from the 1970s that looks andything like this piece. I'm 99% sure this is not from the 1970s. Could it have been produced in the late 80s or 90s? Probably. I personally don't believe Jack illustrated this piece. It looks like the work of someone trying to copy his style. I'd call this a piece produced by the "Kirby Studio," but as much as I love Jack, if I was holding this piece in my hand I'd have to say it was a fake and a forgery; it's sad Jack had to sign off on something like this at the end of his life. The piece still has value, clearly some of you love it, and it came from Jack (unlike thousands of his 60s originals that were stolen form Marvel), but in my opinion, Jack did not draw this.
Posted on 6/29/2012


rob steibel wrote:     [ Quote & Reply ]
rob steibel said:
Hi everybody. I do a daily weblog on Kirby here: http://kirbymuseum.net/blogs/dynamics/ I have a lot of comments on this dialogue which I'll post later on Kirby Dynamics. Quickly, I have never seen anything by Jack from the 1970s that looks andything like this piece. I'm 99% sure this is not from the 1970s. Could it have been produced in the late 80s or 90s? Probably. I personally don't believe Jack illustrated this piece. It looks like the work of someone trying to copy his style. I'd call this a piece produced by the "Kirby Studio," but as much as I love Jack, if I was holding this piece in my hand I'd have to say it was a fake and a forgery; it's sad Jack had to sign off on something like this at the end of his life. The piece still has value, clearly some of you love it, and it came from Jack (unlike thousands of his 60s originals that were stolen form Marvel), but in my opinion, Jack did not draw this.

One more thing: here is my theory on this piece (and I'm just throwing this guess out there, this is just speculation). Maybe an artist who was a huge Kirby fan gave this art to Jack in the late 80s or early 1990s, and Jack was impressed by it and touched by the sentiment behind it, so he and Roz hung this gift up on their wall. Maybe Jack saw this artist was good at ghosting his work so he used that artist to ghost a few commission pieces. Maybe at some point times were tough so Jack ended up selling this. IIf that's the case, the piece still has value as a work of art owned, treasured, and sold by the Kirbys -- it just does not look to me to be the work of Jack himself.
Posted on 6/29/2012


Rob  Pistella wrote: Paid Member    [ Quote & Reply ]
rob steibel said:
One more thing: here is my theory on this piece (and I'm just throwing this guess out there, this is just speculation). Maybe an artist who was a huge Kirby fan gave this art to Jack in the late 80s or early 1990s, and Jack was impressed by it and touched by the sentiment behind it, so he and Roz hung this gift up on their wall. Maybe Jack saw this artist was good at ghosting his work so he used that artist to ghost a few commission pieces. Maybe at some point times were tough so Jack ended up selling this. IIf that's the case, the piece still has value as a work of art owned, treasured, and sold by the Kirbys -- it just does not look to me to be the work of Jack himself.

Rob-- too many 'maybe's' for me!!! I doubt that he would sign a piece someone gave to him as a gift. Anyway thanks for your comments.
Posted on 6/29/2012


rob steibel wrote:     [ Quote & Reply ]
Rob Pistella said:
Rob-- too many 'maybe's' for me!!! I doubt that he would sign a piece someone gave to him as a gift. Anyway thanks for your comments.

Hi Rob, I'm not even sure if that's Jack's signature. :-) I've taken a very, very close look at thousand of Kirby originals. I'm 99% sure all of them are by Kirby. For this piece, unfortunately, I'm about 90% sure this was not drawn by Jack Kirby. Still a wonderful piece if it came from Jack and his wife, and I agree with your "Kirby Studio" designation if you are 100% certain Jack sold this. Thanks for letting me take part in your discussion. I hope to have time to write more about his at Kirby Dynamics.
Posted on 6/29/2012


Rob  Pistella wrote: Paid Member    [ Quote & Reply ]
rob steibel said:
Hi Rob, I'm not even sure if that's Jack's signature. :-) I've taken a very, very close look at thousand of Kirby originals. I'm 99% sure all of them are by Kirby. For this piece, unfortunately, I'm about 90% sure this was not drawn by Jack Kirby. Still a wonderful piece if it came from Jack and his wife, and I agree with your "Kirby Studio" designation if you are 100% certain Jack sold this. Thanks for letting me take part in your discussion. I hope to have time to write more about his at Kirby Dynamics.

I was only referring to your hypothetical regarding the signature. I've been told this is Roz's signature. Absolutely sure this was sold by Jack to Graham Nash sometime before 1992. If Jack himself employed the ghost, how could he resist correcting the piece, firming it up, a little here or there? Again, now I'M only guessing, but artists have egos, and it doesn't seem ridiculous that he'd do that, since he knew the piece would have his name on it.
Posted on 6/29/2012


rob steibel wrote:     [ Quote & Reply ]
Rob Pistella said:
I was only referring to your hypothetical regarding the signature. I've been told this is Roz's signature. Absolutely sure this was sold by Jack to Graham Nash sometime before 1992. If Jack himself employed the ghost, how could he resist correcting the piece, firming it up, a little here or there? Again, now I'M only guessing, but artists have egos, and it doesn't seem ridiculous that he'd do that, since he knew the piece would have his name on it.

The piece still has tremendous value since it came from Jack, and I agree Jack may have played some role in the production of this piece, but again, unfortunately, it just looks absolutely nothing like anything else Jack ever did to me, and the tracing of the Dr. Doom head? I don't recall Jack EVER doing something like that. But you know the ironic thing, I'd rather own this piece than one of the 60s originals stolen from Marvel because at least this came from Jack. :-) Clearly the piece has solid provenance, I just think the artist/artists on the piece are going to remain a mystery unless someone tells us the name of an assistant/assistants who worked on this. Thanks again for discussing this on the record like this with all of us. I think you still have a nice little piece of comics history, but there is no question this one does have an asterix next to it.
Posted on 6/29/2012


rob steibel wrote:     [ Quote & Reply ]
rob steibel said:
The piece still has tremendous value since it came from Jack, and I agree Jack may have played some role in the production of this piece, but again, unfortunately, it just looks absolutely nothing like anything else Jack ever did to me, and the tracing of the Dr. Doom head? I don't recall Jack EVER doing something like that. But you know the ironic thing, I'd rather own this piece than one of the 60s originals stolen from Marvel because at least this came from Jack. :-) Clearly the piece has solid provenance, I just think the artist/artists on the piece are going to remain a mystery unless someone tells us the name of an assistant/assistants who worked on this. Thanks again for discussing this on the record like this with all of us. I think you still have a nice little piece of comics history, but there is no question this one does have an asterix next to it.

One quick thing I want to add: Somewhere in my files I own a piece that looks a lot like this one (also read the comments section): http://wallywoodart.blogspot.com/2011/10/my-sally-forth-for-sale.html I've spoken to several experts on my piece and the consensus is that Wood did not ink the piece I own, he had an assistant do it. So I consider that a piece created by the "Wood Studio." But at the same time, to me -- it's a fake. It's a forgery. It's a piece signed by Woody that he may never have touched. So I think we have to understand to some people these terms can be interchangable. I love my little Wood Studio forgery. :-) But it is what it is. And let's remember Jack did about 40,000 pieces of art in his life! I think he can be forgiven for signing off on a couple where he may have had an assistant (plus I've always considered the inkers "assistants" since they add to the work). Again thanks for having this dialogue in the open and for working to be objective.
Posted on 6/29/2012


Rob  Pistella wrote: Paid Member    [ Quote & Reply ]
rob steibel said:
One quick thing I want to add: Somewhere in my files I own a piece that looks a lot like this one (also read the comments section): http://wallywoodart.blogspot.com/2011/10/my-sally-forth-for-sale.html I've spoken to several experts on my piece and the consensus is that Wood did not ink the piece I own, he had an assistant do it. So I consider that a piece created by the "Wood Studio." But at the same time, to me -- it's a fake. It's a forgery. It's a piece signed by Woody that he may never have touched. So I think we have to understand to some people these terms can be interchangable. I love my little Wood Studio forgery. :-) But it is what it is. And let's remember Jack did about 40,000 pieces of art in his life! I think he can be forgiven for signing off on a couple where he may have had an assistant (plus I've always considered the inkers "assistants" since they add to the work). Again thanks for having this dialogue in the open and for working to be objective.

Thanks Rob! I don't think 'fake' applies to any of the pieces you mentioned, as a fake, I think, is produced by a third party without the artist receiving any money...interchangeable with 'forgery'. If you piece is penciled by Wood, and inked by an assistant, it's still Wood pencils. But Studio of Wally Wood' would be a correct attribution, as a minimum.
Posted on 6/29/2012


rob steibel wrote:     [ Quote & Reply ]
Rob Pistella said:
Thanks Rob! I don't think 'fake' applies to any of the pieces you mentioned, as a fake, I think, is produced by a third party without the artist receiving any money...interchangeable with 'forgery'. If you piece is penciled by Wood, and inked by an assistant, it's still Wood pencils. But Studio of Wally Wood' would be a correct attribution, as a minimum.

Excellent point about defining terms. I think you are probably right but you are still going to have people who use the word "forgery" because that's just the term they use. For the Wood piece, I'm pretty certain Wood did not pencil the image, an assistant lightboxed it from an master copy. But this conversation inspired me to go dig it out. I think I'll frame it and put in on a bookshelf. I still consider it a fake and a forgery, but the Wood Studio connection does give it value to me. I'll post the image at Kirby Dynamics one day and link to our conversation here. Thanks for listening to my opinions and for sharing yours.
Posted on 6/29/2012


Will K wrote: Paid Member    [ Quote & Reply ]
I've been following the discussion and will continue to do so. The only thing I can add is I appreciate that Rob bought this piece with his eyes wide open and put it on CAF guessing it would generate this discussion. Thanks, Rob.
Posted on 6/29/2012


Rob  Pistella wrote: Paid Member    [ Quote & Reply ]
Will K said:
I've been following the discussion and will continue to do so. The only thing I can add is I appreciate that Rob bought this piece with his eyes wide open and put it on CAF guessing it would generate this discussion. Thanks, Rob.

Thanks Will, I appreciate the gracious comment.
Posted on 6/29/2012


Timothy Guerrero wrote:     [ Quote & Reply ]
If you are happy with your purchase, forget about what anyone else says about it and just enjoy the art.
Posted on 4/19/2016


Latest Updates

All

Will Meugniot

11/21/2017 9:02:00 AM

Paolo Pedri

11/21/2017 8:35:00 AM

David K

11/21/2017 8:34:00 AM

P A

11/21/2017 6:23:00 AM

EDOUARD NEGRE

11/21/2017 5:12:00 AM

 

David  Micciche

11/21/2017 4:17:00 AM

G.  Masip

11/21/2017 4:04:00 AM

Antonio  Menici

11/21/2017 3:27:00 AM

Bill  Thomson

11/21/2017 1:39:00 AM

Ben  Chamberlain

11/21/2017 1:38:00 AM

eBay Auctions

Mico Suayan NINJAK #9 Cover Published Original Art

Heritage Auctions

Ivan Reis and Randy Emberlin Ghost #34 Story Page

ComicLink Auctions

AMAZING SPIDER-MAN #308 PAGE 23 ( 1988, TODD MCFARLANE )

Comic Connect Auctions

Marvels #1 Pg. 3 by Alex Ross

Catawiki Auctions

Michetz, Marc - Original Drawing - Guerrier Japonais - (2007)

Hakes Auctions

"HOUSE OF MYSTERY" #312 COMIC BOOK COVER ORIGINAL ART BY MICHAEL KALUTA (I... VAMPIRE!).







Commission an Artist

MC Wyman

Rating:


For Sale Updates

Shop Updates

Ben Chamberlain

11/21/2017 1:38:00 AM

COMIC PARADISE

11/20/2017 11:36:00 PM

Steve . M

11/20/2017 9:36:00 PM

Tatiana TDArt Dykes

11/20/2017 7:39:00 PM

Glen Brunswick

11/20/2017 5:23:00 PM

Steve Borock

11/20/2017 3:58:00 PM

Dealer Updates

Anthony's Comicbook Art

11/20/2017 8:59:00 PM

Heritage Auctions

11/20/2017 9:25:00 AM

TDArt Gallery

11/20/2017 12:27:00 AM

NSN Art

11/19/2017 10:56:00 PM

Dave Karlen Original Art

11/19/2017 7:31:00 PM

Felix Comic Art

11/19/2017 7:11:00 PM





Become a Premium CAF Gallery Owner & you'll be supporting CAF and also gain access to many services and features not available to standard members.

  • Sell Artwork in the CAF Classifieds
  • Daily Email Alerts based on your own Searches
  • Follow Other Gallery Owners
  • 6 Months Market Data Access
  • Larger Image Uploads ... and Much More!