Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by roger epperson on January 7, 2013 at 3:02pm

Who says I'm not going after him for his libel statements about me.  This is malice too as he knows what he is saying is not the truth.  I can prove it.

When I contacted Darren about it today he said I was a "big Mouth" and "a trouble maker".  Thems some harsh words for a man who has his reputation on the line.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Fuddjcal on January 8, 2013 at 7:32am

the entire interview is Muellar 101spin...In GOD TODD we don't trust and this guy sounds just like the same broken record which Muellar has made a living on....nothing but psycho babble.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Carl Ryan on January 8, 2013 at 5:20pm

Very interesting Roger,

And i wish you luck in handling this. Him calling you "big mouth" is interesting. In my experience, when someone calls someone else a "big mouth" its because they have spilled information that was meant to be kept quiet. Interesting.  The same thing with a trouble maker. But why shouldnt trouble be started when highly questionable items are sold. Its just a web of lies in my opinion. The more info that comes out, the more shocking the scope of all this is.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Charlotte Stanley on January 7, 2013 at 1:23pm

I know right? I have bought from R R Auction. They use you. What the hell is Darren talking about?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Steve Cyrkin, Admin on January 7, 2013 at 1:41pm

Yep. If they can't defend what they sell, they try to ruin your reputation. You and I have seen too much of this.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by MJ-fan-1965 on January 7, 2013 at 11:52am

I think what saddens me the most about all of this, is the damage this does to Michael's Legacy (people tend to think, oh it doesn't do jack) but it does.  People will not have a clue years down the road which are real autographs and which aren't.  Hell we don't even know if all of the clothes are good, I mean think about it, the auction pays more for a costume than Michael did, lets just make another one.   And for Darren to basically say, well nobody questioned us (or caught us) in the earlier auctions -so the rest are good, doesn't make them good.   And he totally forgot to address the autopens and secretarials!!

BTW did any of you know Bush had planned a second book?  I know I read it or watched it in an interview in the past couple of weeks, I'll try to find it again. 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Charlotte Stanley on January 7, 2013 at 1:38pm

Surprise? Darren says why would Bush put fake autographs on authentic clothes? But just think about it, that is the one thing that makes it seem crazy that they are forged right? I mean why would you? But its quite clever because that way he can justify all the other forged items that aren't worth squat. We compare and the signatures are the same so the average person would come to that conclusion that they all must be genuine because Bush wouldn't scribble on a genuine clothing piece worth thousands without being signed. If he had submitted all the clothes without signatures then the other items would have been more quickly scrutinized I think.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Helen on January 7, 2013 at 1:57pm

Absolutely. Any of that worthless junk would have been laughed at if it wasn't for the iconic clothes with the same signature.

Wendy, you say you've been seeing this signature on Ebay - were the items taken down, or actually sold?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by MJ-fan-1965 on January 8, 2013 at 2:53am

My thought on this (and this is an assumption) is if he penned the items to himself the Estate would not be able to take the items. 

There were items that were won in a lawsuit by a  person named Vaccaro against the Jackson's years ago (the Jackson's sued to get the items back but the case was eventually dropped or not responded to by the Jackson side), so he did get to keep the items.  Those items went thru a bunch of issues over several years time, but then after MJ died, Howard Mann obtained them (purchased from Vaccaro).  The Estate fought Mann on the showcasing of the items, claiming he did not obtain them legally (as well as many other claims of copyright issues etc).  I am unsure of all the legalities that went on with the items, but this is what I gathered from the articles I read. 

TeamMichael may be able to share or clear up anything I stated above that is incorrect.  I'm going off my own memory of articles I read and wasn't really paying too much attention to this stuff, other than I knew the Estate jumped in to stop Mann.

Bush's items all look "gifted" to him with those sigs. 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Charlotte Stanley on January 8, 2013 at 9:22am

But the estate is in alliance with Bush it seems. They don't even seem to care about the items. In fact maybe its possible that The estate is using Bush to sell the items. Its so hard to know the truth, but to me either signed or unsigned, if The Estate cared about keeping Michael's items they would look into it. Like Bush said "Michael is a business now" that's the way The Estate sees it too.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Helen on January 8, 2013 at 12:33am

I know. With the level of gullibility and willful blindness apparently going on among MJJ collectors this signature will soon be accepted. And since there are so many items, so high profile and so recent this abomination might well become the new benchmark. It's such a travesty.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Steve Cyrkin, Admin on January 7, 2013 at 1:27pm

Please feel free to link to this reply but don't publish it elsewhere. Here's the direct link to it:

http://live.autographmagazine.com/forum/topics/darren-julien-interv...

I've been waiting for MJJCollectors.com's interview with Darren Julien about Julien's Auction's Tompkins & Bush sale, hoping that Darren would clear things up. I didn't know MJFanclub.net was going to publish one, too, but I'm glad. Both are reputable publishers, so please don't take my comments about Darren's responses as anything negative about them.

I'm under the gun today, so I'll respond as I can. I'll start with this question from MJ Fan Club, and Darren Julien's answer:

To my knowledge it is common basic standard that an expert needs to see a signature in person to judge its authenticity. Did the people who questioned the signature’s authenticity ever take a look at the signatures in person? And did they contact you in person to voice their concerns?

Darren Julien: You are absolutely correct. Cyrkin, Epperson and Frost all say that they reviewed the originals of the items in dispute. This assertion is categorically false. They have never been in possession of any of these items and they have never been to our gallery to see them in person. I can also say that none of these gentlemen have ever contacted me directly at any time to make their false accusations.

Neither Roger Epperson nor I ever said we reviewed the originals of the autographs. We didn't. I don't believe Mike Frost did, or said he did, but I'll leave that for him to answer definitively.

Regarding having to see an autograph in person to determine authenticity: You generally need to see an autograph in person to confirm it's genuine; to make sure it's not a reproduction of some sort. But most forgeries are not good enough that you have to see them in person to tell that they're fake. Their shape or other visible details are wrong, or the signature may be on an item the person couldn't sign because they were dead by then, like the MJ autograph on the infamous standee.

For example, prior to June 2009, would you need to see this person in real life to determine if they were really Michael Jackson?

Most forgeries are that easy to tell. Most of the Tompkins & Bush ones are even easier. 

This statement by Darren Julien especially bothers me:

I can also say that none of these gentlemen have ever contacted me directly at any time to make their false accusations.

That is simply not true. I contacted Darren more than two weeks before the sale, and my allegations were not false.

I didn't even know about the Tompkins & Bush sale until a Michael Jackson fan emailed me out of the blue the evening of November 15, 2012. When I looked at the autographs she sent, I asked her who was selling them and I was shocked. Darren Julien was a friend and someone I respected.

I studied them for hours and wrote Darren the next day:

From: Steve Cyrkin [mailto:steve.cyrkin@autographmagazine.com]
Sent: Friday, November 16, 2012 2:04 PM
To: Darren Julien (darren@juliensauctions.com)
Subject: Tompkins & Bush Sale

Hi Darren,

I’m cringing as I write this. I’ve spent hours going over your Tompkins & Bush sale and I think that most of the Michael Jackson autographs are forgeries. (I haven’t carefully studied all 300, but I’d be surprised if 10% were genuine.) I believe they may have been penned by Bush, because most of the inscriptions have what I consider to be characteristics of his writing or printing.

These were brought to my attention by a crazed MJ fan, but I don’t think she’s crazy about this. Of course, I’m not an expert, but most of these are not hard to detect. Has Ed Kosinski looked at these?

Sorry for having to write you on such a difficult matter. Please let me know your thoughts.

Thanks,

Steve

Steve Cyrkin
Publisher & Community Manager

Autograph Magazine
Autograph Magazine Live!
Direct Ph.: [Number Removed]
P.O. Box 25559
Santa Ana, CA 92799

Darren wrote me right back:

From: Darren Julien [mailto:darren@juliensauctions.com]
Sent: Friday, November 16, 2012 2:28 PM
To: Steve Cyrkin
Subject: Re: Tompkins & Bush Sa

Hello Steve,

They are real. There were three people who signed for Michael Jackson and Tompkins or Bush were not one of them. Also there are a lot of very reputable auction houses selling secretarial. This is probably more of a phone conversation but I assure you they are right. 

Darren

Sent From Darren's iPhone

My reply:

On Nov 16, 2012, at 11:12 PM, "Steve Cyrkin" a href="mailto:steve.cyrkin@autographmagazine.com">steve.cyrkin@autographmagazine.com> wrote:

Hi Darren,

They aren't secretarial. But if MJ signed these, he signed a different autograph for Tompson and Bush than he signed for there rest of the world. Please take this seriously and investigate. Call me when you want, after 4. XXX-XXX-XXXX

Darren's reply:

Darren Julien a href="mailto:darren@juliensauctions.com">darren@juliensauctions.com> wrote:

I do take it serious. I'll call you tomorrow and give you the details. 

Darren

Sent From Darren's iPhone

My reply:

On Nov 16, 2012, at 11:26 PM, "Steve Cyrkin" a href="mailto:steve.cyrkin@autographmagazine.com">steve.cyrkin@autographmagazine.com> wrote:

Thanks. Ironically, I'll be in Beverly Hills and have 2 hours free while my girlfriend is sweating with Richard Simmons. I was going to offer to stop by.

Darren's reply:

Ha. That's a funny class. Your always welcome to stop by. I'm just in London. I have great respect for you Steve. 

Darren

Sent From Darren's iPhone

Darren and I spoke the next day. I'll cover that later, when I have more time, and post our final emails. But I think this shows that I did contact Darren as soon as I found out about the forgeries, and what our relationship was like before I posted the discussion.

• ▶ Reply

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• 5
• Next ›
• Page